Advanced Pulverised Coal Power Plants EPRI 2007 208p

CoalFleet Guideline for
Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants

Version 1
1012237

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
CoalFleet Guideline for
Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants
Version 1
1012237
Technical Update, March 2007

EPRI Project Managers
J. Wheeldon
D. Dillon

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
CoalFleet Advanced PC Guideline Working Group (see Citations)
Electric Power Research Institute

NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THAT IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OF EPRI, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS AVAILABLE ONLY UNDER LICENSE FROM EPRI AND MAY NOT BE
REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED, WHOLLY OR IN PART, BY ANY LICENSEE TO ANY OTHER PERSON
OR ORGANIZATION.

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by

Alstom Power
Glen Jukkola
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Kevin McCauley
Bechtel Power Corporation
Paul Kochis
Ram Narula
Bob Nicolo
Harvey Wen
Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc.
Rich Myhre
Eric Worrell
Consultants
Janos Beer
Carl Bozzuto
CPS Energy
John Kosub
EPRI
Ralph Altman
Tony Armor
Kent Coleman
Chuck Dene
Des Dillon
Tony Facchiano
George Offen
Vis Viswanathan
John Wheeldon
E.ON US
Doug Schetzel
Exelon
Daniel Wusinich
Great River Energy
Charles Bullinger
Lincoln Electrical
System
Tom Davlin
MHI
David McDeed
Midwest Generation (EME)
Kent Wanninger
TXU Corp.
Ronald Hagen
U.S. Departmet of Energy
Robert Romanosky
WorleyParsons Group, Inc.
Gary Grubbs
Bruce M. Kautsky
Don Leininger
Paul K. Shewchuk
Richard E. Weinstein

This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants: Version 1, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA, 2007. 1012237.

v
ABSTRACT
The CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants provides an overview of
state-of-the art and emerging technologies for pulverized coal-fired generating units along with
lessons learned for current plants worldwide. The Guideline aims to facilitate the timely
deployment of reliable, next-generation generating units that incorporate:
Higher steam conditions for higher efficiency and reduced generation of pollutants
Advanced environmental controls for reduced emissions and environmental impacts
Techniques for CO
2
capture, or for future retrofit of CO
2
capture, that minimize impacts on
efficiency and capacity
This Guideline represents the first step in an ongoing collaborative effort by the CoalFleet
Advanced PC Working Group, which includes more than 30 participants from CoalFleet member
companies, EPRI staff, and expert consultants. The Guideline reflects information from EPRI,
DOE, power producers, equipment suppliers, plant designers, and engineering, procurement, and
construction (EPC) companies.
Version 1 features a summary of worldwide history with supercritical steam conditions for
pulverized coal power plants. Data are provided on current and planned units with supercritical
and more advanced ultra-supercritical steam conditions. A review of current design trends
addresses unit size, major component types and maximum sizes, furnace design, cycling of
supercritical steam generators, fuel properties, use of materials with improved high-temperature
strength and corrosion resistance to enable higher efficiency, use of coal drying to improve
efficiency, environmental control technologies for SO
2
and SO
3
, and multi-pollutant control
technologies.
Future versions of the Guideline will update and expand upon these topics to include control of
NO
X
, mercury, and fine particulate emissions, and technologies for carbon dioxide capture and
compression. Subsequent versions will also add lessons learned from power industry experience
with new advanced pulverized coal power plants and technology development pilot projects.
The state-of-the-art and emerging technologies covered in the Guideline provide a viable path to
coal-based power generation that meets economic, environmental, and security criteria. The
focus is on advancements in supercritical generating units, although the advanced environmental
control technologies are applicable to conventional pulverized coal units as well.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
Overview of Guideline Development Approach and Content...............................................1-1
Guideline Topic Areas..........................................................................................................1-3
2 ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL REFERENCE PLANT GUIDELINES APPROACH........2-1
Assumed Generation Planning Decisions............................................................................2-2
Future Generations of Reference Plants..............................................................................2-3
3 STATE OF THE ART FOR ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL POWER PLANTS...............3-1
Supercritical Steam Technology Deployment History..........................................................3-1
Drivers for SC and USC Technology Evolution....................................................................3-3
Economic Factors ..........................................................................................................3-3
Environmental Factors ...................................................................................................3-4
Lessons Learned from 50 Years of Supercritical Technology..............................................3-4
World Market Trends for Advanced Pulverized Coal Units: Supercritical and
Ultra-Supercritical Plants......................................................................................................3-6
World Market for Supercritical Steam Generators..........................................................3-6
Planned Units in China...................................................................................................3-8
Planned Units in Europe ................................................................................................3-9
Planned Units in the United States ..............................................................................3-11
Major Equipment Supplier Experience with Supercritical and Ultra-Supercritical Steam
Power Plants......................................................................................................................3-13
4 CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND ISSUES.........................................................................4-1
Unit Size and Scale..............................................................................................................4-1
General Capital Cost Considerations.............................................................................4-1
Construction and Schedule Considerations ...................................................................4-6
Cost of Redundancy and Reliability versus Replacement Power ..................................4-6
Technical Risk................................................................................................................4-6
Steam Generator Design Issues and Trends.......................................................................4-6
Furnace Design..............................................................................................................4-6
Designing Supercritical Steam Generators for Low Minimum Load Capability and
Continuous Duty Minimum Load Cycling ..................................................................... 4-13
Design Provisions for Higher Peak Power Rating........................................................4-14
5 ISSUES RELATED TO FUEL QUALITY................................................................................5-1
Coal Rank ............................................................................................................................5-1
Coal Analysis .......................................................................................................................5-2
Grindability .....................................................................................................................5-3
Ignition and Flame Stability............................................................................................5-3
Unburned Carbon...........................................................................................................5-4
viii
Emissions.......................................................................................................................5-4
Ash Properties and Deposition Behavior .......................................................................5-5
Coal Blending.......................................................................................................................5-6
Blend Impact on Coal Grinding ......................................................................................5-6
Blend Impact on Combustion and Deposition................................................................5-7
Blend Impact on Emissions............................................................................................5-7
6 IMPROVING PLANT EFFICIENCY WITH ADVANCED STEAM CONDITIONS ...................6-1
Designing for High Steam Pressure: >3750 psi (>260 bar) .................................................6-1
Designing for High Steam Temperatures: 10501150F (565620C)................................6-2
Steam Generator Components ......................................................................................6-4
Superheater and Reheater Design ................................................................................6-7
Headers and Piping......................................................................................................6-13
7 IMPROVING PLANT EFFICIENCY WITH COAL DRYING....................................................7-1
Conventional Coal Drying in Pulverized Coal Units .............................................................7-1
Advanced U.S. Coal Drying Technologies...........................................................................7-3
Great River Energy Lignite Dryer ...................................................................................7-3
AMAX Coal Dryer...........................................................................................................7-7
Rosebud Coal Dryer.......................................................................................................7-9
Advanced International Coal Drying Technologies ............................................................7-11
Mechanical Thermal Expression Drying System..........................................................7-11
RWE WTA Fluidized-Bed Dryer ...................................................................................7-13
8 AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL..................................................................................................8-1
Environmental Regulations ..................................................................................................8-1
Annual Emissions.................................................................................................................8-3
9 WET FGD SYSTEMS FOR SO
2
CONTROL...........................................................................9-1
Equipment and Process for Limestone-Based Open Spray System....................................9-1
Gypsum Processing.......................................................................................................9-3
Limestone Preparation System......................................................................................9-6
Alternative Designs ..............................................................................................................9-7
Lime-Based FGD Systems.............................................................................................9-7
Other Wet FGD Technologies..............................................................................................9-9
Jet Bubbling Reactor......................................................................................................9-9
Dual Contact Absorber.................................................................................................9-10
Alstom..........................................................................................................................9-11
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) .............................................................................................9-11
Babcock Power Environmental Inc. (BPEI) ..................................................................9-12
Ammonia FGD System......................................................................................................9-12
Current Design Issues........................................................................................................9-14
10 DRY SO
2
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.............................................................................10-1
ix
Lime Spray Drying Absorption ...........................................................................................10-1
Lime Preparation System.............................................................................................10-3
Recycle Slurry System.................................................................................................10-3
Lime Spray Drying Absorption Process........................................................................10-4
Current Issues for Lime Spray Drying..........................................................................10-5
Materials of Construction .............................................................................................10-7
SDA Vessel Size..........................................................................................................10-7
Single versus Multiple Atomizers .................................................................................10-7
By-product Disposal .....................................................................................................10-7
Other Dry SO
2
Control Technologies .................................................................................10-8
Dry Sorbent Injection Process......................................................................................10-8
Circulating Dry Scrubber (CDS) Process .....................................................................10-9
Flash Dryer Absorber (FDA) Process ........................................................................10-11
11 SO
3
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES .....................................................................................11-1
SO
3
and Acid Mist Formation in Coal-Fired Boilers............................................................11-2
Sorbent Injection Control Technologies .............................................................................11-3
Injection Methods .........................................................................................................11-4
Sorbent Properties .......................................................................................................11-5
Wet Electrostatic Precipitators (WESP) .............................................................................11-9
Horizontal Flow WESP...............................................................................................11-10
Tubular WESP ...........................................................................................................11-11
Materials of Construction ...........................................................................................11-14
Emerging Technologies for SO
3
Control ..........................................................................11-14
Membrane WESP ......................................................................................................11-14
Plasma-Enhanced WESP ..........................................................................................11-14
Lime Spray Drying for SO
3
Removal ..........................................................................11-15
Power Plant Applications of Sorbents for SO
3
Control .....................................................11-15
Power Plant Applications of WESP for SO
3
Control .........................................................11-17
12 MULTI-POLLUTANT CONTROL SYSTEMS.....................................................................12-1
Powerspan ECO Process
,
..................................................................................................12-1
Three-Step Processing of Flue Gas.............................................................................12-1
Collection of Liquid Streams ........................................................................................12-2
By-product Recovery....................................................................................................12-3
Performance Data and Other Considerations ..............................................................12-3
Other Multi-Pollutant Processes.........................................................................................12-3
ReACT Process ...........................................................................................................12-3
Airborn Process............................................................................................................12-4
Mobotec ROFA/ROTAMIX Process .............................................................................12-4
A TERMINOLOGY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMNS.................................................. A-1

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 EPRI Reference Plant Evolution in the Family of Advanced PC Guidelines ............2-4
Figure 3-1 State of the Art in Worldwide Pulverized Coal Installations......................................3-1
Figure 3-2 Steam Conditions and Key Material Selections for State-of-the-Art Pulverized
Coal Plants.................................................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-3 Supercritical and USC Units Commissioned 19952004 with Main Steam at 1050F
(565C) or Higher.......................................................................................................................3-6
Figure 3-4 Worldwide Pulverized Coal Units with Main Steam above 1050F (565C) Installed
from 1995 to 2005......................................................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-5 Ultra-Supercritical Steam Generator Units Planned in Europe for Commissioning
in 20062012 ...........................................................................................................................3-10
Figure 3-6 Ultra-Supercritical Power Plant Units Announced in the United States for
Construction Start in 20062014 .............................................................................................3-12
Figure 4-1 Trend in Cost versus Unit Gross Output Rating .......................................................4-1
Figure 4-2 Furnace Circuit Recirculation with Separate Recirculation Pump ..........................4-11
Figure 4-3 Furnace Circuit Recirculation without Separate Recirculation Pump .....................4-12
Figure 6-1 Comparison of Allowable Stresses of Ferritic Steels for Boiler..............................6-16
Figure 6-2 Comparison of Allowable Stress for Various Metals...............................................6-17
Figure 6-3 Vallourec & Mannesmann Hot Neck P91 Fitting ....................................................6-18
Figure 6-4 P91 Superheater Outlet Headers for Dayton Power and Light, Stuart Station.......6-20
Figure 6-5 Relative Rupture Strength of High Temperature Steels .........................................6-21
Figure 6-6 Comparison of Piping Wall Thickness for Candidate Ferritic Steels.......................6-21
Figure 6-7 Typical P91 to P22 Weld Vulnerable to Cracking at Junction between B9
Filler and P22...........................................................................................................................6-22
Figure 6-8 Joint Geometries of Concern Highlighted Transition Indicates Weakest
Part of Weld .............................................................................................................................6-23
Figure 6-9 Correct Weld Profile for P91 to P22 Welds ............................................................6-23
Figure 7-1 Coal Drying and Grinding with Pressurized Preheated Air .......................................7-2
Figure 7-2 Coal Drying and Grinding with Furnace Gases and Air (Exhauster Mill) ..................7-2
Figure 7-3 Simplified Schematic of Great River Energy Dryer...................................................7-4
Figure 7-4 Reduction of Moisture at Great River Energys Coal Creek Station.........................7-5
Figure 7-5 AMAX Coal Dryer Schematic ...................................................................................7-8
Figure 7-6 Rosebud Coal Dryer Schematic .............................................................................7-10
Figure 7-7 Schematic of Mechanical Thermal Expression Coal Drying Process.....................7-12
Figure 7-8 WTA Dryer Schematic with Sample Flow Calculations ..........................................7-14
Figure 9-1 Wet FGD Spray Tower Configuration.......................................................................9-2
Figure 9-2 Schematic of Typical Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization SystemAbsorber and
Reagent Mixing..........................................................................................................................9-4
Figure 9-3 Schematic of Typical Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization SystemGypsum Processing
System.......................................................................................................................................9-5
Figure 9-4 Typical General Arrangement for Wet Limestone Grinding Systems .......................9-7
Figure 9-5 Schematic of Jet Bubbling Reactor Internals..........................................................9-10
Figure 10-1 Typical Dry FGD Process Flow Diagram..............................................................10-2
Figure 10-2 Dual Fluid Nozzle Atomizer (Left) and Rotary Atomizer (Right) ...........................10-3
Figure 10-3 Typical Dry Injection System................................................................................10-9
Figure 10-4 Schematic of Circulating Dry Scrubber System (Lurgi Lentjes North America)..10-10
Figure 10-5 Alstom FDA Process ..........................................................................................10-11
Figure 11-1 Visible Results of SO
3
Control Using Sorbent Injection........................................11-2
xii
Figure 11-2 Preferred Injections Points for Various Sorbents..................................................11-5
Figure 11-3 Side Cut-Away View of Horizontal Flow Wet Electrostatic Precipitator ..............11-11
Figure 11-4 Example of Tubular WESP Installation above FGD ...........................................11-13
Figure 11-5 Magnesium-Enhanced Lime SO
3
Control Process with Bleed Stream Oxidation
and Mg(OH)
2
Recovery..........................................................................................................11-16
Figure 11-6 Power Plants Using the Thiosorbic Magnesium-Enhanced Lime FGD
Process..................................................................................................................................11-17
Figure 11-7 AES Deepwater After WESP Installation............................................................11-18
Figure 11-8 Xcel Sherco Station............................................................................................11-20
Figure 11-9 Coleson Cove Shown Prior to the Installation of Wet FGD and Wet ESP
Systems .................................................................................................................................11-22
Figure 11-10 Wet ESP Arrangement for Coleson Cove Station ............................................11-23

xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Solutions to Reliability Issues Encountered in Early U.S. SC and USC Plants .........3-5
Table 3-2 Summary of Planned U.S. Supercritical Capacity Additions....................................3-13
Table 3-3 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Alstom...............................................3-14
Table 3-4 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Alstom...................................................3-18
Table 3-5 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Ansaldo Energia ...................................3-19
Table 3-6 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)..................3-20
Table 3-7 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Burmeister & Wain Energy (BWE) ....3-26
Table 3-8 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Foster-Wheeler .................................3-27
Table 3-9 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Hitachi Power Systems.....................3-28
Table 3-10 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Hitachi Power Systems.......................3-30
Table 3-11 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy
Industries (IHI) .........................................................................................................................3-31
Table 3-12 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Doosan Babcock (formerly
Mitsui Babcock)........................................................................................................................3-33
Table 3-13 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) ..3-34
Table 3-14 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) ......3-36
Table-3-15 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Siemens-Westinghouse......................3-37
Table 3-16 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Toshiba...............................................3-38
Table 6-1 Temperature Limits for Materials Proven in High-Temperature Applications ..........6-11
Table 6-2 Evolution of Four Generations of Ferritic Steels......................................................6-15
Table 6-3 Composition of Advanced Steels, including Tungsten-Containing P92, P122,
and E911..................................................................................................................................6-19
Table 6-4 Summary of the Availability and Use of Grade 91 and Other Advanced
Ferritic Steels...........................................................................................................................6-25
Table 6-5 EPRI Documents Related to Forming and Welding P91 in Fossil Plants ................6-31
Table 6-6 Specification Example for Main Steam Piping for Supercritical Steam
Conditions................................................................................................................................6-32
Table 6-7 Specification Example for Hot Reheat Piping for Supercritical Steam
Conditions................................................................................................................................6-32
Table 6-8 Specification Example for Main Steam Piping for Ultra-Supercritical Steam
Conditions................................................................................................................................6-33
Table 6-9 Specification Example for Hot Reheat Piping for Ultra-Supercritical Steam
Conditions................................................................................................................................6-33
Table 7-1 Maximum Grinding Mill Exit Temperatures for Different Coal Types.........................7-3
Table 7-2 Improved Unit Performance at the Coal Creek Station (With Just One of
Seven Pulverizers Receiving Dried Coal) ..................................................................................7-6
Table 8-1 Emission Limits from the Latest Revision to 40CFR60, Subpart D............................8-2
Table 8-2 Worksheet for Expected Annual Air Emissions for a PC Plant ..................................8-4

1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
The CoalFleet for Tomorrow program aims to accelerate the deployment of clean, efficient,
advanced coal power systems by addressing technical and economic challenges to reduce risk.
This guideline is intended to help CoalFleet members expedite the technology selection,
permitting, and design processes for advanced coal plants. Rather than serving as a
comprehensive specification, the Guideline aims to identify key areas, technology changes, and
lessons learned that should be addressed by engineers developing such specifications, with
emphasis placed on technologies and issues unique to advanced PC plants.
Overview of Guideline Development Approach and Content
Compilation of Lessons Learned
The intent of the Guideline is to assemble proven approaches and lessons learned while
identifying areas of inadequate knowledge requiring further RD&D. Source materials used in
preparation of the Guideline includes:
Experience of the expert team developing the Guideline
Input from EPRI CoalFleet program members
Information from published EPRI, DOE, and industry studies
Future versions of the Guideline are expected to include non-proprietary information from site-
specific design studies conducted by Early Deployment Project owners and their Engineer-
Procure-Construct (EPC) companies and technology suppliers.
Although this initial version of the Guideline concentrates on 60 Hz plants using North American
coals, the Guideline draws on experience of power generators in Africa, Asia, Australia, and
Europe.
Content Specific to Advanced PC Plants
The Guideline focuses on issues related to advanced pulverized coal plant technology, which
EPRI considers to include the following categories:
1-2
technologies for once-through steam generators (boilers), steam turbines, and associated
balance-of-plant equipment used in pulverized coal, Rankine-cycle generating units utilizing
supercritical or ultra-supercritical steam conditions
1

high-temperature materials for SC and USC boilers and steam turbines
state-of-the art emission control systems
design of pulverized coal plants to accommodate future retrofit of CO
2
capture process
equipment, including CO
2
steam cleanup, drying, and compression for on-site geologic
injection or transfer to pipeline
For the purpose of this Guideline, an advanced PC plant is defined by its use of one or more of
the above categories of technology. The Guideline generally skips the much wider range of
issues and technologies related to building any pulverized coal unit, except where those topics
are useful for understanding advanced or state-of-the-art PC technology or may not be familiar to
CoalFleet members.
Content Responsive to Varying User Needs and Backgrounds
The Guideline recognizes that various CoalFleet members will approach the design of advanced
PC plants with a broad range of prior experience and a diverse set of needs and constraints.
Therefore, the Guideline content and organization aims to satisfy the needs of a variety of users,
including:
Engineers, managers, generation planners, and financial personnel responsible for initiating
and/or monitoring the development of advanced coal power plants.
Owners engineers experienced in the development of subcritical PC plants who are now
charged with guiding specification and selection of key advanced plant parameters
EPC/CM contractors and OEMs who oversee the development of advanced supercritical
plants.
Engineers experienced with development of supercritical fossil plants who need the latest
information on best practices and current and developing technologies for ultra-supercritical
and advanced low-emissions plants.
Communicating and Advancing the State of the Art
The Guideline provides CoalFleet members with:
An overview of the best current information relevant to technology selection and plant design
decisions, such as:
Materials for higher steam conditions
State-of-the-art environmental controls

1
For the purposes of this Guideline, ultra-supercritical (USC) steam conditions are defined as having final
main steam temperatures greater than 1100F (593C) and pressures greater than 3625 psia (250 bar).
Although supercritical (SC) steam conditions are defined by pressure and temperature above the critical
point of water (3200.1 psia (220.6 bara) and 705.1F (373.9C)), supercritical steam cycles typically have
main steam pressures of about 3500 psia (240 bar) and main steam and reheat temperatures of about 1050F
(565C). This allows the expanding steam to remain superheated throughout most of the steam turbine.
1-3
Trade-offs between design features for factors such as maximum heat rate, lowest cost of
electricity, operating flexibility, etc.
Explanation of design features which may be dependent on site conditions
Pre-engineered allowances for mid-life changes effecting areas such as:
emissions limits
duty cycles
fuel selection
water quality, availability, and discharge requirements
requirements for CO
2
capture
comparative reference of existing and planned technology implementations (i.e., fuel
specification, size, performance, and technology selections for specific plants)
OEM specification and operating history (e.g., performance, reliability, and availability data)
for different technologies and locations
Identification of knowledge gaps where better understanding of material behavior or system
dynamics is needed
Identification of technology gaps where known challenges require better solutions
Guideline Topic Areas
Topics to be addressed in this and future versions of the Guideline include the following (italics
indicate future material):
Defining the state of the art for advanced PC power plants
Reference plant approach
International experience
World market trends
Status and experience of major suppliers
Current design trends
Fuel quality issues
Improving plant efficiency through advanced steam conditions
Higher temperatures
Higher pressures
Single versus double reheat
Reducing environmental impact
Current and future regulations
SO
X
reduction
NO
X
reduction
CO, VOCs reduction
Mercury and other HAP reductions
Water use and liquid wastes
Solid wastes
1-4
Steady state versus startup and changing loads
Improving plant efficiency via other methods
Reliability availability and maintenance
Operations
Controls and monitoring
Construction considerations
Project schedules
Safety issues
2-1
2
ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL REFERENCE PLANT
GUIDELINES APPROACH
The reference plant approach provides an initial configuration using standardized components
that can be individually modified to accommodate site-specific design requirements. The
reference plant is not based on a specific boiler type or manufacturer (i.e., boiler type could be
spiral wall or vertical wall, wall-fired or corner-fired). Other variations developed from the
reference plant configuration may include changes to:
Unit size
Various components experience different types of impacts as a result of reducing unit size to
as low as 600 MW or increasing unit size to as much as 1000 MW (or higher).
Steam temperatures and pressures
Although there are significant changes to furnace and convective pass dimensions, the
materials used for high-temperature piping, headers, and tubing are the greatest area of
concern when temperatures are increased. The primary materials for current state-of-the-art
plants are 9-chrome and 12-chrome ferritic alloys. Austenitic and/or high-nickel alloys may
be required for the second generation (1200F, or 650C) reference plant. High-nickel
alloys are almost certain to be the primary high-temperature materials used in a third
generation (1300F, or 700C) reference plant.
Fuels and fuel blends
The reference plant may be used as a starting point for configurations firing single fuels,
multiple fuels, or blended fuels. Significant design variations result from the significant
variations of constituents (carbon, volatile matter, ash, moisture, nitrogen, sulfur, chloride,
etc.) and properties (heating value, ash fusion temperature, etc.) between and within such fuel
types as bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, lignite, petroleum coke, cofired biomass, etc.
Necessary modifications address:
Sizing and arrangement of the steam generator (boiler dimensions, materials, surface area
distribution, etc.)
Burner design and control (low-NO
X
burners, degree of staging, etc.)
Waterwall corrosion and mitigation strategies, including limiting staging with greater
NO
X
removal in the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) reactor, coatings, reagent
injection, limiting steam temperatures based on fuel constituents
Air quality control equipment selection and design for reliable operation to meet
permitted air emissions. Areas addressed include:
SCR or hybrid SCR/selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) or fabric filter (FF; often called a baghouse), wet or dry flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), sorbent injection or a wet ESP (WESP) for SO
3
control, and
multi-pollutant control
Mercury control as a function of fuel, the suite of air quality control (AQC)
equipment, activated carbon injection (ACI) with a baghouse, and fuel additives
2-2
Impacts on fly ash sales if ACI is used; available carbon removal technologies
Condenser backpressure
Pure sliding pressure versus hybrid sliding pressure operation (with corresponding impacts
on equipment and effect on ramp rate and unit response)
Baseload or cycling operation, which may be implemented with initial operation of the unit
or expected to occur at an undefined future time
Normal or fast startup (with corresponding impacts on specifications for turbine bypass,
inclusion of an auxiliary boiler, fatigue-resistant design, chemical treatment, etc.)
Type and size of turbine bypass system
Plant cooling method (cooling pond, wet mechanical draft cooling tower, wet/dry mechanical
draft cooling tower, etc.)
Access to plant by barge or rail; impact on the level of modularization that can be achieved
Assumed Generation Planning Decisions
The reference plant approach used in the Guideline assumes that a power producer has already
established the need for new generation and selected a location for the plant. In making these
determinations, the power producer would have already considered the following items, which
are not explicitly addressed in the Guideline:
Existing generation capability
Load growth projections
Size of new unit(s)
Loading profiles for existing units, new unit(s), and future units in the generating system
Proposed plant site(s)/location(s)
Available space on-site or off-site for landfilling by-products that cannot be sold
Proximity to rail or barge service
Proximity to and availability of water
Quality of water
Ability to discharge treated wastewater (i.e., Zero Liquid Discharge not required)
Proximity to gas for startup versus on-site oil storage
Proximity to existing transmission lines
Capability of existing transmission system
Schedule established based upon when generation is needed and the time to permit, design,
procure, deliver, construct, startup, and commission the new unit(s)
In addition, it is assumed that the power producer has already established key design criteria,
including:
The new unit(s) will be pulverized coal-fired with supercritical (or USC) steam conditions.
[Note: Although recommendations in the Guideline may apply more broadly, it is also
generally assumed that the unit will employ single reheat (although double reheat should be
2-3
considered where the highest efficiencies are sought), sliding-pressure operation, and a heater
above the reheat point (HARP) cycle with eight feedwater heaters (four low-pressure, a
deaerator, and three high-pressure).]
Solid fuel specifications (coal and petroleum coke design range, design blend ratios, and
design basis for guarantees)
Minimum quality requirements for by-products (identified in the Guideline as a range of
properties). Typically, fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum will be sold to the greatest extent
practical and therefore must meet minimum requirements. If a dry scrubber is used, fly ash
may not be saleable. Other specifications will typically include:
Fly ash: maximum carbon content
Bottom ash: maximum carbon content
Gypsum: maximum chlorides and maximum moisture content
SCR reagent type and specifications. Considerations for choosing anhydrous ammonia,
aqueous ammonia, solid urea, or liquid urea include purchase and transportation cost, safety,
availability, and O&M requirements.
FGD reagent type and specifications. Considerations for choosing lime or limestone include
purchase and transportation cost, availability, and O&M requirements.
Air emissions targets
Liquid discharge targets
Level of accommodation to be made for CO
2
capture. This may include:
Space allocation for future equipment, considering likely technology and reagent choice
Economic evaluation and design accommodation for impacts to the low-pressure (LP)
turbine(s). This may assume steam is extracted from the intermediate pressure (IP)-to-LP
crossover or that provisions are made for other (typically LP) steam extraction points
Consideration of auxiliary power requirements. This may include modifications in the
design of the auxiliary power system to include spare capacity in the initial design or to
facilitate its addition at a later date.
Other minimal pre-investment options that could potentially avoid substantial future
rework
Review of available technologies and an assessment of technology trends so that future
facility needs can be estimated
Future Generations of Reference Plants
Ultimately, EPRI envisions a reference plant approach that uses progressively more advanced
design criteria. The three generations shown in Figure 2-1 incorporate sequentially advancing
cycle conditions, improved environmental controls, and increasing considerations for CO
2

capture and compression. Version 1 of the Guideline is built around the state-of-the-art reference
plant design elements that are now commercially available. The nominal 1200F (650C) and
1300F (700C) design criteria represent expected future steps for plant designs that leverage
newer technologies as they become ready for commercial application.
2-4
LARGER TO 1000
MW NET
LARGER TO 1000
MW NET
LARGER TO 1400
MW NET
860 MW GROSS
800 MW NET
1050-1150F
870 MW GROSS
810 MW NET
1150-1200F
1000 MW GROSS
800 MW NET
1200-1300F
SMALLER TO 600
MW NET
SMALLER TO 600
MW NET
SMALLER TO
600 MW NET
FERRITIC AUSTENITICS, HIGH NICKEL HIGH NICKEL
ANTHRACITE ANTHRACITE ANTHRACITE
BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS
SUBBITUMINOUS (BASE?) SUBBITUMINOUS (BASE?) SUBBITUMINOUS (BASE?)
LIGNITE LIGNITE LIGNITE
PET COKE BLEND PET COKE BLEND PET COKE BLEND
STATE OF THE
ART AIR
EMISSIONS
IMPROVED AIR
EMISSIONS
CONTROLS
NEAR ZERO
EMISSIONS
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
BASED ON FUEL
SELECTION
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
BASED ON FUEL
SELECTION
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT BASED
ON FUEL
SELECTION
CONSIDERA-
TION GIVEN TO
SPACE
ALLOCATION AND
STRATEGIC PRE-
INVESTMENT IN
FACILITIES FOR
FUTURE CO
2
CAPTURE
CONSIDERA-
TION GIVEN TO
SPACE
ALLOCATION AND
STRATEGIC PRE-
INVESTMENT IN
FACILITIES FOR
FUTURE CO
2
CAPTURE
CO
2
CAPTURE
DESIGNED IN
4000 PSIG FINAL STEAM PRESSURE 4500 PSIG FINAL STEAM PRESSURE
VERSION 1 FUTURE VERSIONS
(SAME STEAM FLOW)
INCREASED STEAM
FLOW TO OFFSET CO2
CAPTURE LOAD
1150F FINAL STEAM TEMPERATURES 1200F FINAL TEMPERATURES 1300F FINAL TEMPERATURES
3750 PSIG FINAL STEAM PRESSURE

Figure 2-1
EPRI Reference Plant Evolution in the Family of Advanced PC Guidelines
3-1
3
STATE OF THE ART FOR ADVANCED PULVERIZED
COAL POWER PLANTS
Supercritical Steam Technology Deployment History
Supercritical technology was pioneered in the United States in the late 1950s. American Electric
Power put the Philo supercritical unit in service in 1957 (retired 1979) and Philadelphia Electric
Power followed in 1960 with Eddystone Unit 1, a double reheat, USC unit, which is still in
operation, albeit with a slight derate from original specifications. To this day, Eddystone 1
remains the unit with the highest operating steam conditions in the world, with main steam at
5000 (345 bar) and 1135F (613C). The two reheats are at 1050F (565C).
Many supercritical units were built in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of these
units employed single reheat with main steam conditions of about 3500 psi and 1000F and with
the reheat also at 1000F (240 bar/538/538C). For a time, supercritical technology fell out of
favor for new plants as a result of technical problems, including materials degradation and the
need for overly complex operating procedures. Many U.S. power producers selected subcritical
drum-type boilers thereafter, believing that supercritical technology had limited operating
capability, complex maintenance issues, lower availability, and lower-than-expected plant
efficiency.

Figure 3-1
State of the Art in Worldwide Pulverized Coal Installations
3-2
The problems experienced at the early U.S. plants have largely been remedied and these units are
now achieving good performance with availabilities and operating costs similar to those of
subcritical plants. Nonetheless, leadership in supercritical plant development moved overseas,
with power producers in Denmark building units with steam temperatures exceeding 1050F
(565C) in the 1990s. This trend was followed by Japanese power producers, who built a large
number of units that would be classified as ultra-supercritical by EPRIs definition (with
temperatures reaching 1110F or 600C). Today, Germany, Italy, and China all have projects
under way that will increase substantially the worlds installed base of generating units with
ultra-supercritical steam conditions.
Figure 3-1 illustrates USC PC technology trends by plotting maximum steam temperature versus
year of initial commercial operation. The plot of recently announced plants for the United States
shows the lag of this market behind others. An upward turn in recent years shows a growing
trend toward adopting higher steam conditions with U.S. coals.
Figure 3-2 shows the steam conditions and materials used for a selection of leading USC plants.
3-3
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: -----
SH tubes: -----
RH Tubes: -----
ST Rotors: -----
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: P122
SH tubes: Super 304H
RH Tubes: T122
ST Rotors: COST 501E
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: P122
SH tubes: Super 304H-HR3C
RH Tubes: -----
ST Rotors: Toshiba 12Cr
High Temperature
Materials:
Headers: P91
SH tubes: TP347FG
RH Tubes: -----
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: P92
RH Tubes: Super 304H
ST Rotors: -----
REHEAT 1 TEMP, 1112F, 600C
MAIN STEAM TEMP, 1112F, 600C
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
LANSHAN (Pressure 4420 psi, 305 bar) CHINA
2009
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
ISOGO (Pressure 3857 psi, 266 bar)
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
TSURUGA (Pressure 3698 psi, 255 bar)
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
NANAO-OHTA (Pressure 3698 psi, 255 bar)
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
TORREVALDALIGA (Pressure 3625 psi, 250 bar)
ITALY
2006
JAPAN
2002
JAPAN
2000
JAPAN
1998
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: -----
SH tubes: -----
RH Tubes: -----
ST Rotors: -----
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: P122
RH Tubes: T122
ST Rotors: COST 501E
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: P122
SH tubes: Super 304H-HR3C
RH Tubes: -----
High Temperature
Materials:
Headers: P91
SH tubes: TP347FG
RH Tubes: -----
High Temperature
Materials
Headers: P92
RH Tubes: Super 304H
ST Rotors: -----
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
LANSHAN (Pressure 4420 psi, 305 bar)
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
LANSHAN (Pressure 4420 psi, 305 bar) CHINA
2009
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
ITALY
2006
JAPAN
2002
JAPAN
2000
JAPAN
1998

Figure 3-2
Steam Conditions and Key Material Selections for State-of-the-Art Pulverized Coal Plants
2

Drivers for SC and USC Technology Evolution
Economic Factors
The economic benefits offered by todays supercritical technology (and, by extension, ultra-
supercritical) include the following:

2
CoalFleet Database of Advanced Pulverized Coal Plants and Development Projects
3-4
Reduced coal consumption, and therefore lower fuel costs per unit of electricity generated
Better part-load efficiency and operating flexibility
Excellent availabilitycomparable to that of existing subcritical plants
Reduced use of consumables such as ammonia for SCR and limestone based sorbents for SO
2

capture
Reduced CO
2
production which may reduce potential future costs for:
retrofit for post-combustion CO
2
capture should the plant need to be retrofitted
purchase of CO
2
offsets
taxes based on CO
2
emissions
Environmental Factors
The environmental benefits offered by supercritical technology include reductions of the
following per unit of electricity generated:
Emissions of NO
X
, SO
2
, particulates, and mercury
CO
2
production
Impacts of coal mining, transportation, and handling coal
Ash production and disposal
Water consumption for condenser cooling
Lessons Learned from 50 Years of Supercritical Technology
In hindsight, the operation and maintenance problems experienced by older U.S. plants have
been primarily attributed to three major design issues:
1. Constant pressure operation
Early supercritical units used constant-pressure operation and required the boiler to
remain at constant pressure throughout startup and the entire load range. Constant-
pressure operation requires a complicated system startup, with longer startup times and
higher minimum load than for sliding pressure units. The startup valves must endure
large pressure differences during bypass operation, resulting in faster erosion and
frequent valve maintenance. More recent supercritical units use sliding-pressure
operation to mitigate these types of issues.
2. Slagging problems attributable to inadequate furnace size
Furnaces of the early units in the 1960s were relatively small in size compared with those
of newer units. A trend toward increased furnace size was a direct result of slagging
problems, experienced with U.S. coals, which led to low availability and reliability.
3. Inappropriate water treatment chemistry
Once-through boilers and supercritical steam generators are more susceptible to internal
scaling of tube walls than are natural-circulation boilers, which use liquid blowdown
from the steam drum and mud drum to limit concentrations of dissolved and suspended
solids. If internal scale prevents cooling of the tube wall, increased metal temperature can
lead to failure of waterwall and superheater tubes. In extreme cases, thick scale can
3-5
increase pressure drop and reduce flow, further reducing cooling of the tube walls. Once-
through units must use very pure feedwater and a carefully balanced addition of water
treatment chemicals to prevent corrosion and subsequent re-deposition of dissolved solids
(scaling) on the interior of tube walls.
Table 3-1 summarizes some of the design improvements developed and implemented to
overcome the problems found in early units. Research and development worldwide has led to
improved reliability, fuel flexibility, and wider load range operation. Building on these
successes, supercritical technology is much more attractive to U.S. power producers than it was
20 years ago.
Table 3-1
Solutions to Reliability Issues Encountered in Early U.S. SC and USC Plants
3

Problem Cause Countermeasures
Erosion of startup
valves
High differential pressure due to constant
pressure operation and complicated startup
systems
Sliding-pressure operation, simplified startup
systems, and low-load recirculation systems
Long startup times Complicated startup systems and
operations (ramping operation required;
difficulty matching steam and metal
temperatures, etc.)
Sliding-pressure operation; simplified
startup systems; low load recirculation
systems
Low ramp rates Rapid temperature change during constant
pressure operation causes high thermal
stresses in the HP turbine
Sliding-pressure operation
High minimum
stable operating
load
Bypass operation and pressure ramp-up
operation required
Sliding-pressure operation; low-load
recirculation systems
Slagging Undersized furnace and inadequate
coverage by sootblower system
Design of adequate plane area heat release
rate and furnace height without division
walls. Provisions of adequate system of
sootblowing and water blowers
Circumferential
cracking of water
wall tubes
Metal temperature rise due to inner scale
deposit and fireside wastage
Oxygenated water treatment (OWT).
Protective surface in combustion zone of
furnace for high-sulfur coal (e.g., thermal
spray or weld overlay).
Frequent acid
cleaning required
Inappropriate water chemistry Application of OWT
Lower efficiency
than expected
High air in leakage due to pressurized
furnace. RH spray injection required due to
complications of RH steam temperature
control in a double reheat cycle
configuration.
Tight seal construction. Single reheat system
with high steam temperature control by
parallel damper gas biasing.
Low availability All the above All the above

3
US Revisits Supercritical Systems: CBEC 4 Leads the way, Modern Power Systems, 8th April 2004.
3-6
World Market Trends for Advanced Pulverized Coal Units: Supercritical and
Ultra-Supercritical Plants
World Market for Supercritical Steam Generators
In total, there are around 600 supercritical and ultra-supercritical generating units operating
worldwide, with the vast majority classified as supercritical, not ultra-supercritical. The
combined capacity of these units totals more than 300 GW.
4

Not all SC and USC units are coal-fired. For example, of 170 such units in the United States, 115
are coal-fired. Thirty-five of the 100 units in Japan are coal-fired. The International Energy
Agencys Coalpower 5 database, updated in 2006, lists nearly all of the 60 SC and USC units
in western Europe as coal-fired, whereas many of the 240 units in the former Soviet Union and
eastern European countries are oil-fired. In Asia, China has about 21 coal-fired units in
operation; South Korea has 22.
5

Figure 3-3 shows the total number and capacity of supercritical and ultra-supercritical power
plants commissioned between 1995 and 2004. During this 10-year period, Japan and Korea
dominated the new plant market, while China began to show signs of rapid growth. In the United
States, the last supercritical unit built was in 1989 (Rockport). MidAmericans Council Bluffs
Unit 4, planned for startup in 2007, will break an almost 20-year hiatus.

Figure 3-3
Supercritical and USC Units Commissioned 19952004 with Main Steam at 1050F (565C) or
Higher
6

4
M.R. Susta, IMTE, Supercritical and Ultra Supercritical Power Plants - SEA vision or Reality, Powergen Asia
2004.
5
IEA, Coalpower 5 Database, 2006.
6
Source: IMTE AG.
3-7
Figure 3-4 compares the main steam temperatures of pulverized coal units commissioned from
1995 to 2005. The final main steam pressures of these units ranges from a high of 4305 psi (297
bar) for Avedore Unit 2 to a low of 3494 psi (241 bar) for Matsuura Unit 2.
The present day market for supercritical boilers is dominated by the rapidly expanding market in
China, which accounts for about 90% percent of all supercritical orders placed worldwide.
7
With
some 46 supercritical steam generators ordered each year, the total annual addition equates to
roughly 28 GW of electrical generation. Due to the significant demand for new generation in
China, many international steam generator manufacturers have established agreements with
Chinese boiler fabricators allowing manufacturing and technology transfer.
Notable observations about this time frame include:
Japan deployed 11 pulverized coal units with supercritical or USC steam conditions. Other
countries deploying SC/USC units included Denmark, Italy, and China, with 3 units each;
South Korea with 2 units; and Germany, Canada, and Australia, with 1 unit each.
Japan leads the way in deploying high-temperature steam conditions. However, final steam
pressures for these units (34943857 psi, or 241266 bar) are not the worlds highest.
Since the mid 1990s, Japan has been continually building the worlds largest capacity
supercritical units for firing market-traded coals with less than 1% sulfur content. Eight units
of about 1000 MW (net) capacity each are currently operating within Japan. Moderate-size
units are not obsolete, as several (6 x 700 MW) units were also commissioned within this
time frame.
Danish power companies now operate nine supercritical units, three of which have steam
temperatures above 1050F (565C). These plants, which were built in the late 1990s, each
produce about 400 MW of electricity along with ~450 MW
t
for district heating systems.
The three Danish plants with final steam temperatures above 1050F (565C) feature higher
final main steam pressure (4305 psi, or 297 bar) than do Japanese designs.

7
A.J. Minchener, Market Perspectives of Clean Coal in Asia, IEA Clean Coal Centre.
3-8
M
i
l
l
m
e
r
r
a
n
G
e
n
e
s
e
e

(
3
)
W
a
n
g
q
u
i
s
o
g
o
C
h
a
n
g
s
h
u
H
i
r
o
n
o
W
a
n
g
q
u
T
o
r
r
e
v
a
l
d
a
l
i
g
a
1
T
o
r
r
e
v
a
l
d
a
l
i
g
a
2
T
o
r
r
e
v
a
l
d
a
l
i
g
a
3
T
s
u
r
u
g
a
N
a
n
a
o
o
h
t
a
S
k
a
e
r
b
a
e
k
(
3
)
N
o
r
d
j
y
l
l
a
n
d
(
3
)
Y
o
n
g
h
u
n
g
d
o
1
Y
o
n
g
h
u
n
g
d
o
2
N
i
e
d
e
r
a
u
s
s
e
n
M
i
s
u
m
i
H
e
k
i
n
a
n
M
a
t
s
u
u
r
a

(
2
)
H
a
r
a
m
a
c
h
i
(
2
)
H
i
t
a
c
h
i
n
a
k
a
(
1
)
T
a
c
h
i
b
a
n
a
-
w
a
n

(
2
)
T
o
m
a
t
o
h
-
A
t
s
u
m
a
(
4
)A
v
e
d
o
r
e
(
2
)
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
Millmerran
Genesee (3)
Wangqu
isogo
Changshu
Hirono
Wangqu
Torrevaldaliga 1
Torrevaldaliga 2
Torrevaldaliga 3
Tsuruga
Nanaoohta
Tomatoh-Atsuma (4)
Skaerbaek (3)
Avedore (2)
Nordjylland (3)
Yonghungdo 1
Yonghungdo 2
Niederaussen
Misumi
Hekinan
Matsuura (2)
Haramachi (2)
Hitachinaka (1)
Tachibana-wan (2)
MW (net)
M
i
l
l
m
e
r
r
a
n
G
e
n
e
s
e
e

(
3
)
W
a
n
g
q
u
i
s
o
g
o
C
h
a
n
g
s
h
u
H
i
r
o
n
o
W
a
n
g
q
u
T
o
r
r
e
v
a
l
d
a
l
i
g
a
1
T
o
r
r
e
v
a
l
d
a
l
i
g
a
2
T
o
r
r
e
v
a
l
d
a
l
i
g
a
3
T
s
u
r
u
g
a
N
a
n
a
o
o
h
t
a
S
k
a
e
r
b
a
e
k
(
3
)
N
o
r
d
j
y
l
l
a
n
d
(
3
)
Y
o
n
g
h
u
n
g
d
o
1
Y
o
n
g
h
u
n
g
d
o
2
N
i
e
d
e
r
a
u
s
s
e
n
M
i
s
u
m
i
H
e
k
i
n
a
n
M
a
t
s
u
u
r
a

(
2
)
H
a
r
a
m
a
c
h
i
(
2
)
H
i
t
a
c
h
i
n
a
k
a
(
1
)
T
a
c
h
i
b
a
n
a
-
w
a
n

(
2
)
T
o
m
a
t
o
h
-
A
t
s
u
m
a
(
4
)A
v
e
d
o
r
e
(
2
)
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
Millmerran
Genesee (3)
Wangqu
isogo
Changshu
Hirono
Wangqu
Torrevaldaliga 1
Torrevaldaliga 2
Torrevaldaliga 3
Tsuruga
Nanaoohta
Tomatoh-Atsuma (4)
Skaerbaek (3)
Avedore (2)
Nordjylland (3)
Yonghungdo 1
Yonghungdo 2
Niederaussen
Misumi
Hekinan
Matsuura (2)
Haramachi (2)
Hitachinaka (1)
Tachibana-wan (2)
MW (net)

Figure 3-4
Worldwide Pulverized Coal Units with Main Steam above 1050F (565C) Installed from 1995 to
2005
Planned Units in China
Chinas first supercritical units (2 x 600 MW net) were built in the early 1990s at Shanghai
Shidoukou No. 2 power plant. Since that time, over 20 imported supercritical units with a total
capacity of 6000 MW have been commissioned.
3-9
In 2003, 26 GW of supercritical boilers were ordered by China (~43 x 600 MW). With similar
numbers of orders placed between 2004 and 2006, this vast requirement for new generating
capacity is expected to continue well into the future.
8
Estimates suggest that ~22 GW of new
supercritical capacity will be installed annually in China for the next 10 years.
Units ordered to date are generally 600 MW in capacity and employ well established steam
conditions (3510 psi/1050/1050F, or 242 bar/565/565C).
9
However, there has recently been a
noticeable leap to very large plant capacities, with supercritical plants in the 9001000 MW
range. This is exemplified by the 2 x 900 MW Waigaoqiao plant commissioned in 2002.
Several Chinese demonstration projects are adopting ultra-supercritical steam conditions. The
Huaneng Yuhuan plant, (4 x 1000 MW units) is planned to commence operation by 2009, with
steam conditions of 3625 psi/1112/1112F (250 bar/600/600C). The Lanshan plant, which is
also due for commissioning in 2009, is set to become one of the worlds foremost USC plants
with steam conditions of 4420 psi/1112/1112F (305 bar/600/600C) while using smaller unit
sizes (4 x 660 MW net).
Lanshan represents a significant milestone in Chinas energy development, placing China as the
leading nation in deployment of ultra-supercritical technology, surpassing Japan, Italy, and
Germany before the end of the decade.
Planned Units in Europe
Planned capacity additions in Europe during the next five years include a significant number of
SC and USC plants, although not to the same extent as is planned for China. Figure 3-5 shows
the names and capacities of planned European plants.

8
A. Minchener, Market perspectives for clean coal in Asia, IEA Presentation.
9
Z. Zongrang, TPRI, Development and Application of Supercritical Coal-Fired Units and CFB Boilers In China,
26 Jan 2005.
3-10
M
a
r
i
t
z
a
2
B
o
x
b
e
r
g
R
H
a
n
n
o
v
e
r
L
e
d
v
i
c
e
P
o
c
e
r
a
d
a
y
P
o
r
t
o

T
o
l
l
e
1
P
o
r
t
o

T
o
l
l
e
2
P
o
r
t
o

T
o
l
l
e
3
H
e
r
n
e
5
D
u
i
s
b
u
r
g

W
a
l
s
u
m
1
0
W
e
s
t
f
a
l
e
n
1
W
e
s
t
f
a
l
e
n
2
H
a
m
b
u
r
g

1
H
a
m
b
u
r
g

2
K
a
r
l
s
r
u
h
e
R
D
K

8
M
a
a
s
v
l
a
k
e
N
e
u
r
a
t
h
F
N
e
u
r
a
t
h
G
M
a
r
i
t
z
a
1
M
i
t
t
e
l
b
r
u
D
a
t
t
e
l
n
4
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
Maritza 1
Mari tza 2
Boxberg R
Hannover
Ledvice
Poceraday
Porto Tolle 1
Porto Tolle 2
Porto Tolle 3
Herne 5
Duisburg Walsum10
Mittelbrun
Westfalen 1
Westfalen 2
Hamburg 1
Hamburg 2
Belchatow 2
Karlsruhe RDK 8
Maasvlake
Datteln 4
Neurath F
Neurath G
MWa (net)
B
e
l
c
h
a
t
o
w
2
M
a
r
i
t
z
a
2
B
o
x
b
e
r
g
R
H
a
n
n
o
v
e
r
L
e
d
v
i
c
e
P
o
c
e
r
a
d
a
y
P
o
r
t
o

T
o
l
l
e
1
P
o
r
t
o

T
o
l
l
e
2
P
o
r
t
o

T
o
l
l
e
3
H
e
r
n
e
5
D
u
i
s
b
u
r
g

W
a
l
s
u
m
1
0
W
e
s
t
f
a
l
e
n
1
W
e
s
t
f
a
l
e
n
2
H
a
m
b
u
r
g

1
H
a
m
b
u
r
g

2
K
a
r
l
s
r
u
h
e
R
D
K

8
M
a
a
s
v
l
a
k
e
N
e
u
r
a
t
h
F
N
e
u
r
a
t
h
G
M
a
r
i
t
z
a
1
M
i
t
t
e
l
b
r
u
D
a
t
t
e
l
n
4
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
Maritza 1
Mari tza 2
Boxberg R
Hannover
Ledvice
Poceraday
Porto Tolle 1
Porto Tolle 2
Porto Tolle 3
Herne 5
Duisburg Walsum10
Mittelbrun
Westfalen 1
Westfalen 2
Hamburg 1
Hamburg 2
Belchatow 2
Karlsruhe RDK 8
Maasvlake
Datteln 4
Neurath F
Neurath G
MWa (net)
B
e
l
c
h
a
t
o
w
2

Figure 3-5
Ultra-Supercritical Steam Generator Units Planned in Europe for Commissioning in 20062012
The following should be noted:
The vast majority of the planned European units adopt ultra-supercritical steam conditions
(i.e., steam temperatures above 1100F, or 593C, and main steam pressure above 3625 psi,
or 250 bar). The chief exception is Polish lignite plants, where steam temperatures are about
1030F (554C). The steam conditions for plants planned for the Czech Republic and
Bulgaria had not been announced as of early 2007.
Germany is set to invest some 60 billion euro in new power stations and electric transmission
networks. The trend within the German market appears to be toward larger output units of
7001000 MW net, primarily firing lignite but with some use of bituminous coal. Three
lignite units larger than 1000 MW are due to be completed by 2010. The two units planned
for completion at Neurath in 2008 are to have the largest steam generators and highest steam
3-11
temperatures realized to date for lignite. Eight units of ~700 MW are due to be commissioned
by 2012. A further two units of ~600 MW have been announced for the same time frame.
Italy has three units planned at about 660 MW net.
The Netherlands has one 1100 MW unit due for completion by 2012.
Several eastern European countries have lignite units in development. These include Poland
(one 833 MW unit due for completion by 2012), Bulgaria (two 330 MW units due for
completion by 2010), and the Czech Republic (two 660 MW units due for completion by
2010).
Planned Units in the United States
As of early 2007, 49 supercritical plants had been announced for construction in the United
States beginning in 200614. As noted, MidAmericans Council Bluffs Unit 4 will be the first
supercritical unit commissioned in the United States in almost 20 years. TXU has announced
planned additions of supercritical units in Texas. FPL has announced plans to build two 980 MW
(net) units in Glades County, Florida, by 2012 and 2013, respectively. Plans for these units
feature ultra-supercritical steam conditions of about 1118F (603C) and 3800 psi (262 bar).
Longview Power (a subsidiary of GenPower) has announced a 600 MW ultra-supercritical plant
intended to be operational in West Virginia by 2011.
These announcements signify a renewed confidence in supercritical technology within the U.S.
marketplace and will place the United States among the front runners of ultra-supercritical
technology deployment by the early 2010s.
As shown in Figure 3-6 about two-thirds of these announced plants are expected to have net
outputs greater than 700 MW, with ratings ranging from 700 to 950 MW. The remaining plants
will have capacity ratings in the 400 to 700 MW net output range.
3-12
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
(
4
)
S
a
n
d

S
a
g
e

(
2
)
B
i
g

S
t
o
n
e
(

2
)
T
w
i
n

O
a
k
s

3
M
o
r
g
a
n
t
o
w
n
O
a
k

C
r
e
e
k

1
O
a
k

C
r
e
e
k

2
E
l
m

R
o
a
d

1
E
l
m

R
o
a
d

2
H
o
l
c
o
m
b

1
H
o
l
c
o
m
b

2
N
o
r
b
o
n
n
e
B
i
g

C
a
j
u
n

2
T
r
i
m
b
l
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

(
2
)
H
u
g
o

2
E
l
y

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
E
l
y

E
n
e
r
g
y

2
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

1
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

2
G
e
r
l
a
c
h
2
S
e
m
i
n
o
l
e

(
3
)
C
o
m
a
n
c
h
e

(
3
)
P
r
a
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
e

C
a
m
p
u
s

1
P
r
a
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
e

C
a
m
p
u
s

2
T
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
b
r
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s

2
T
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
b
r
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s

1
T
a
y
l
o
r

C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l

B
l
u
f
f
s
C
l
i
f
f
s
i
d
e

2
L
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
O
a
k

G
r
o
v
e

1
O
a
k

G
r
o
v
e

2
I
a
t
a
n
2
T
r
a
d
i
n
g

H
o
u
s
e

(
3

&

4
)
T
r
a
d
i
n
g

H
o
u
s
e

(
3

&

4
)
V
a
l
l
e
y

(
4
)
M
o
r
g
a
n

C
r
e
e
k

(
7
)
M
o
n
t
e
c
e
l
l
o
(
4
)
M
a
r
t
i
n

L
a
k
e

(
4
)
L
a
k
e

C
r
e
e
k

(
3
)
B
i
g

B
r
o
w
n

(
3
)
I
n
t
e
r
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
S
o
o
n
e
r

(
r
e
d

r
o
c
k
)
F
P
L

F
l
o
r
i
d
a

1
F
P
L

F
l
o
r
i
d
a

2
W
e
s
t
o
n

(
4
)
P
e
e

D
e
e
G
e
r
l
a
c
h
1
C
l
i
f
f
s
i
d
e

1
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
(
4
)
S
a
n
d

S
a
g
e

(
2
)
B
i
g

S
t
o
n
e
(

2
)
T
w
i
n

O
a
k
s

3
M
o
r
g
a
n
t
o
w
n
O
a
k

C
r
e
e
k

1
O
a
k

C
r
e
e
k

2
E
l
m

R
o
a
d

1
E
l
m

R
o
a
d

2
H
o
l
c
o
m
b

1
H
o
l
c
o
m
b

2
N
o
r
b
o
n
n
e
B
i
g

C
a
j
u
n

2
T
r
i
m
b
l
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

(
2
)
H
u
g
o

2
E
l
y

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
E
l
y

E
n
e
r
g
y

2
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

1
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

2
G
e
r
l
a
c
h
2
S
e
m
i
n
o
l
e

(
3
)
C
o
m
a
n
c
h
e

(
3
)
P
r
a
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
e

C
a
m
p
u
s

1
P
r
a
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
e

C
a
m
p
u
s

2
T
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
b
r
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s

2
T
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
b
r
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s

1
T
a
y
l
o
r

C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l

B
l
u
f
f
s
C
l
i
f
f
s
i
d
e

2
L
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
O
a
k

G
r
o
v
e

1
O
a
k

G
r
o
v
e

2
I
a
t
a
n
2
T
r
a
d
i
n
g

H
o
u
s
e

(
3

&

4
)
T
r
a
d
i
n
g

H
o
u
s
e

(
3

&

4
)
V
a
l
l
e
y

(
4
)
M
o
r
g
a
n

C
r
e
e
k

(
7
)
M
o
n
t
e
c
e
l
l
o
(
4
)
M
a
r
t
i
n

L
a
k
e

(
4
)
L
a
k
e

C
r
e
e
k

(
3
)
B
i
g

B
r
o
w
n

(
3
)
I
n
t
e
r
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
S
o
o
n
e
r

(
r
e
d

r
o
c
k
)
F
P
L

F
l
o
r
i
d
a

1
F
P
L

F
l
o
r
i
d
a

2
W
e
s
t
o
n

(
4
)
P
e
e

D
e
e
G
e
r
l
a
c
h
1
C
l
i
f
f
s
i
d
e

1
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050

Figure 3-6
Ultra-Supercritical Power Plant Units Announced in the United States for Construction Start in
20062014
Table 3-2 breaks down the tally of planned units into several size ranges. This summary suggests
a clear trend in planned pulverized coal unit capacity toward orders for larger units of 800 MW
net output and above, namely:
3-13
About 2 in every 3 units currently planned in the United States are around 800 MW in net
output capacity.
About 1 in every 3 units currently planned in the United States is in the 600 MW net output
capacity range.
The average net output of the 49 units planned is 740 MW.
Only two of the 49 planned supercritical pulverized coal units are smaller than 600 MW net
output.
None of the planned units are smaller than 400 MW net output.
Table 3-2
Summary of Planned U.S. Supercritical Capacity Additions

The majority of the planned units (~70%) will be fired on subbituminous coal. About one-fourth
will utilize bituminous coal, and only 4 units planned for the United States will be lignite-fired.
Although steam conditions have not yet been announced for many of these proposed plants,
developments outside of the United States provide indication of the pressures and temperatures
likely to be adopted by some of these units.
Major Equipment Supplier Experience with Supercritical and Ultra-Supercritical
Steam Power Plants
The following tables list basic parameters for supercritical steam generators and steam turbines
supplied by various major manufacturers. This partial listing provides insight into the breadth of
the experience base and trends in unit size and steam conditions.
[Editors Note: As of early 2007, EPRI had not yet completed data collection activities. Thus, not
all suppliers are represented in the following tables, and the data for listed suppliers may not be
complete. Parameters shown are as-reported by suppliers or in published literature. EPRI has not
conducted independent data verification activities. For various reasons, owners may modify
operating steam pressures and/or temperatures and plant output during the life of a unit; such
modifications may not be reflected below. It should also be noted that given the pace of mergers
and acquisitions in the power industry, plant owner names may not be current. Future versions of
the Guideline will strive to provide more comprehensive supplier experience compilations.]

Size Range MW (net) <500 MW 500700 MW 700900 MW >900 MW
Number of Units Planned
(Percent of Total)
1
(2%)
16
(32%)
26
(60%)
3
(6%)
3-14
Table 3-3
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Alstom

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Fuel
Start
Year
Exelon Power (original
ratings)
Eddystone 1 354 5000 345 1200 649 1050 566 Bit. 1959
Reheat #2 1050 566
Exelon Power (current
ratings)
Eddystone 1 325 4500 310 1150 620 1050 566 Bit. 1959
Reheat #2 1050 566
Elektrim Megadex Patnow 450 4206 290 1011 544 1054 568 Lignite 2004
Hua Yang EPC Houshi 7? 600 4103 283 1006 541 1050 566 Bit. 2006?
Hua Yang EPC Houshi 6 600 4103 283 1006 541 1050 566 Bit. 2003
Hua Yang EPC Houshi 5 600 4103 283 1006 541 1050 566 Bit. 2003
Vattenfall Lippendorf S 933 4061 280 1031 555 1031 555 2000
VEAG Shwarze pumpe IV 2? 800 4032 278 1004 540 1022 550 Lignite 1996
VEAG Shwarze pumpe IV 1 800 4032 278 1004 540 1022 550 Lignite 1995
Vestkraft Vestkraft PS 3 400 4002 276 1040 560 104 560 1992
Shanghai Municipal
Elect Company
Waigaoqiao 3 1000 3916 270 1112 600 1112 600 2009
RWE (Germany) Niederaussem 1000 3844 265 1076 580 1112 600 Lignite 2002
Public Power Corp Florina 1 330 3800 262 1009 543 1008 542 Lignite 2001
Shanghai EPB Waigaoqiao II 1 900 3626 250 1000 538 1040 560 2004
Shanghai EPB Waigaoqiao II 2 900 3626 250 1000 538 1040 560 2004
Intergen Millmerran 400 3597 248 1053 567 1105 596 2002
Korea EPC Yunghung 1 800 3568 246 1051 566 1051 566 2002
Korea EPC Yunghung 2 800 3568 246 1051 566 1051 566 2002
Xcel Energy
(Colorado USA)
Comanche 3 750 3565 244 1050 566 1100 593 PRB
Due
2009
Exelon Power* Eddystone 2
325
(354)
3500 241 1050 565 1050 565 Bit. 1960
3-15

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Reheat #2 1050 565
Formosa Plastics Mai-Liao FP-1 5 600 2000
Formosa Plastics Mai-Liao FP-1 4 600 1999
Korea EPC Hadong 5 500 1999
Korea EPC Tangjin 3 500 1999
Grosskraftwerk Franken II 3 600 1998
Korea EPC Shamchonpo 5 500 1997
Korea EPC Shamchonpo 6 500 1997
Korea EPC Taean 3 500 1996
Korea EPC Poryong 5 500 1994
HIPDC Shiongkou II 1 600 1991
HIPDC Shiongkou II 2 600 1991
GKW Mannheim Mannheim 18 480 1982
Texas Utilities Sandow 4 591 Lignite 1981
Public Services Okla Northeastern 4 473 1980
3-16

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Public Services Okla Northeastern 3 473 1979
Texas Utilities Martin Lake 3 793 Lignite 1979
Georgia Power Co Wansley 2 952 1978
Georgia Power Co Wansley 1 952 1976
Salt River Project Navajo 3 803 1976
Georgia Power Co Bowen 4 952 1975
Texas Utilities Monticello 2 593 Lignite 1975
Texas Utilities Monticello 1 593 Lignite 1975
Alabama Power Co Gaston 5 952 1974
Colombus Southern Conesville 4 842 1973
Pennsylvania Power Montour 2 819 1973
South Carolina Gen A.M. Williams 1 533 1973
Alabama Power Co Gorgas 10 789 1972
Texas Utilities Big Brown 2 593 Lignite 1972
Alabama Power Co Barry 5 789 1971
Edison International Mohave 2 818 1971
Penn Elect Co Conemaugh 2 936 1971
Pennsylvania Power Montour 1 806 1971
Potomac Electric Morgantown 2 626 1971
Texas Utilities Big Brown 1 593 Lignite 1971
Duke Power Marshall 4 648 1970
Edison International Mohave 1 818 1970
3-17

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Penn Elect Co Conemaugh 1 936 1970
Potomac Electric Morgantown 1 626 1970
Dairyland Power Genoa 3 350 1969
Duke Power Marshall 3 648 1969
Penn Elect Co Keystone 2 936 1968
Pennsylvania Power Brunner Island 790 1968
Kansai Electric Himeji II 4 450 Lignite 1967
Monongahela Power Fort Martin 1 576 1967
Penn Elect Co Keystone 1 936 1967
Powergen Drakelow C 3 375 1967
Tenn Valley Auth Bull Run 1 950 1967
Durr-Werke AG Frankin 110 1962
The Illuminating Co Avon Lake 215 1959

3-18
Table 3-4
Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Alstom

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C
Start
Year
RWE Neurath 1050 4279 295 1112 600 1121 605
Due
2008
ELSAM Nordjylland 3
411 (+450
MWt)
4134 285 545 582 1076 580 1998
Reheat #2 1076 580
Elektrim Megadex Patnow 460 4205 290 1011 544 1054 568 2006
Kraftwerk Schkopau Schkopau 450 4133 285 1010 545 1040 560 1995
Hua Yang Electric Power Corp Houshi 600 4103 283 1005.8 541 1050 566 2004
Hua Yang Electric Power Corp Houshi 600 4103 283 1005.8 541 1050 566 2005?
Hua Yang Electric Power Corp Houshi 600 4103 283 1005.8 541 1050 566 2006
Veag Lippendorf S 933 4061 280 1031 555 1031 555 2000
Vestkraft Vestkraft 3 400 4002 276 1040 560 1040 560 1992
Nuon Hemweg 8 630 3770 260 500 540 1054 568 1994
Intergen Millmerran 400 3597 248 1053 567 1105 596 2002
Fortum & TVO Meri Pori 550 3583 244 471.2 540 1034 560 1994

3-19
Table 3-5
Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Ansaldo Energia

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Start
Year
Energy E2 Avedore 2
390 (+570
MWt)
4134 285 1076 580 1112 600 2001

3-20
Table 3-6
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Order
Year
Start
Year
AEP-Ohio Power Philo 6 125 4550 314 1150 621 1050 566 Cyc 1953 1957
Reheat #2 1000 538
(ret
1979)
TXU Electric Forest Grove 1 775 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1973
TXU Electric Monticello 3 775 3850 265 1010 543 1005 541 Coal 1973 1977
AEP-Ohio
Power/Buckeye Power
Cardinal 3 650 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 Coal/Oil 1972 1977
Entergy Mississippi Andrus 1 750 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 O&G 1970 1974
TXU Electric De Cordova 1 775 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1970 1973
TXU Electric
Tradinghouse
Creek 2
775 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1968 1972
Entergy Mississippi Baxter Wilson 2 783 3850 265 1005 541 1000 538 O&G 1967 1972
TXU Electric
Tradinghouse
Creek 1
565 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1966 1969
AEP-Indiana &
Michigan Power
Rockport 2 1300 3845 265 1010 543 1000 538 Coal 1979 1989
AEP-Indiana &
Michigan Power
Rockport 1 1300 3845 265 1010 543 1000 538 Coal 1979 1984
AEP-Appalachian Pwr. Mountaineer 1300 3845 265 1010 543 1000 538 Coal 1970 1980
AEP-Ohio Power Gavin 2 1300 3845 265 1010 543 1000 538 Coal 1969 1975
AEP-Ohio Power Gavin 1 1300 3845 265 1010 543 1000 538 Coal 1969 1974
AEP-Appalachian Pwr. Amos 3 1300 3845 265 1010 543 1000 538 Coal 1969 1973
Entergy Gulf States Sabine 4 575 3840 265 1005 541 1000 538 Gas 1969 1974
Entergy Gulf States Willow Glen 4 575 3840 265 1005 541 1000 538 O&G 1967 1973
Entergy Gulf States Roy S. Nelson 4 592 3840 265 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1966 1970
3-21

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Order
Year
Start
Year
Duke Energy Moss
Landing LLC
Moss Landing 7 739 3830 264 1005 541 1005 541 O&G 1963 1968
Duke Energy Moss
Landing LLC
Moss Landing 6 739 3830 264 1005 541 1005 541 O&G 1963 1967
Kansas City Power &
Light Co./Kansas Gas
& Electric Co.
La Cygne 1 844 3825 264 1010 543 1005 541 Cyc 1968 1973
Southern Energy Canal 1 543 3825 264 1005 541 1001 538 Oil 1964 1968
Allegheny Energy
Services
Hatfield Ferry 3 575 3810 263 1005 541 1010 543 Coal 1967 1972
Allegheny Energy
Services
Allegheny Energy
Services
Utilicorp United Sibley 3 419 3810 263 1005 541 1005 541 Cyc 1965 1968
Monongahela Power Fort Martin 2 576 3810 263 1010 543 1010 543 Coal 1965 1968
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Bailley 8 422 3810 263 1005 541 1005 541 Cyc 1964 1968
Dayton P&L/Cincinnati
G&E/AEP-Columbus
Southern Pwr.
J.M. Stuart 4 600 3805 262 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1969 1974
G&E/AEP-Columbus
Southern Pwr.
J.M. Stuart 3 610 3805 262 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1967 1972
G&E/AEP-Columbus
Southern Pwr.
J.M. Stuart 1 610 3805 262 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1965 1971
G&E/AEP-Columbus
Southern Pwr.
J.M. Stuart 2 610 3805 262 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1965 1970
3-22

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Order
Year
Start
Year
Detroit Edison Co. Monroe 4 800 3800 262 1006 541 1002 539 Coal 1969 1973
PG&E National Energy Brayton Point 3 643 3800 262 1005 541 1030 554 Coal 1965 1969
Reheat #2 1055 568
AEP-Ohio Power Muskingum 5 591 3800 262 1000 538 1025 552 Coal 1965 1968
AEP-Ohio Power/
Buckeye Power
Cardinal 2 590 3800 262 1000 538 1025 552 Coal 1964 1967
Reheat #2 1050 566
AEP-Ohio Power/
Buckeye Power
Cardinal 1 590 3800 262 1000 538 1025 552 Coal 1964 1966
Reheat #2 1050 566
Public Service Co. of
Oklahoma
Riverside 2 450 3792 261 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1970 1976
Oklahoma
Riverside 1 450 3792 261 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1969 1974
Oklahoma
Northeastern 2 473 3792 261 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1966 1970
NRG Energy Eastlake 5 680 3785 261 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1968 1972
FirstEnergy W.H. Sammis 7 600 3785 261 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1967 1971
Orion Power Midwest
LLC
Avon Lake 9 680 3785 261 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1966 1969
FirstEnergy W.H. Sammis 6 623 3785 261 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1965 1968
Unidentified Customer Midwest USA 500 3775 260 1085 585 1085 585 Coal 2004 2008
Compania Electrica de
Langreo SA
Lada 4 350 3760 259 1005 541 1005 541
Coal &
Gas
1975 1981
Potomac Electric
Power
Chalk Point 2 365 3750 259 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 1961 1965
Reheat #2 1000 538
3-23

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Order
Year
Start
Year
Potomac Electric Pwr. Chalk Point 1 365 3750 259 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 1961 1964
Reheat #2 1000 538
Ente Nazionale per
l'Energia Elettrica
Torrevaldaliga 4 660 3700 255 1004 540 1004 540 O&G 1979 1985
Ente Nazionale per
l'Energia Elettrica
Ente Nazionale per
l'Energia Elettrica
Ente Nazionale per
l'Energia Elettrica
Reliant Energy Inc. P.H. Robinson 4 750 3700 255 1010 543 1005 541 Gas 1969 1973
Reliant Energy Inc. Cedar Bayou 2 750 3700 255 1010 543 1005 541 Gas 1967 1972
Reliant Energy Inc. Cedar Bayou 1 750 3700 255 1010 543 1005 541 Gas 1967 1972
Zhejiang Power
Bureau
Lanxi 4 600 3683 254 1059 571 1056 569 Coal 2003 2009
Zhejiang Power
Bureau
Lanxi 3 600 3683 254 1059 571 1056 569 Coal 2003 2008
Zhejiang Power
Bureau
Lanxi 2 600 3683 254 1059 571 1056 569 Coal 2003 2008
Zhejiang Power
Bureau
Lanxi 1 600 3683 254 1059 571 1056 569 Coal 2003 2007
Hebei Electric Power
Admin
Xibaipo Ill-2 600 3683 254 1009 543 1056 569 Coal 2003 2007
Hebei Electric Power
Admin
Xibaipo Ill-1 600 3683 254 1009 543 1056 569 Coal 2003 2006
Northern States Power Allen S. King 1 574 3675 253 1005 541 1005 541 Cyc 1964 1968
Ente Nazionale per
l'Energia Elettrica
LaSpezia 600 3675 253 1000 538 1025 552
Coal/
O&G
1962 1967
Reheat #2 1050 566
3-24

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Order
Year
Start
Year
Los Angeles Dept of
Water & Power
Haynes 6 343 3665 253 1000 538 1025 552 O&G 1963 1967
Reheat #2 1050 566
Los Angeles Dept of
Water & Power
Haynes 5 343 3665 253 1000 538 1025 552 O&G 1963 1966
Reheat #2 1050 566
Arizona Public Service Four Corners 5 800 3660 252 1008 542 1008 542 Coal 1965 1970
Arizona Public Service Four Corners 4 800 3660 252 1008 542 1008 542 Coal 1965 1969
Duke Power Company Belews Creek 2 1100 3650 252 1007 542 1000 538 Coal 1969 1975
Duke Power Company Belews Creek 1 1100 3650 252 1007 542 1000 538 Coal 1969 1974
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Cumberland 2 1300 3650 252 1003 539 1003 539 Coal 1967 1973
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Cumberland 1 1300 3650 252 1003 539 1003 539 Coal 1967 1972
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Paradise 3 1150 3650 252 1003 539 1003 539 Cyc 1965 1969
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Rollin M.
Schahfer
520 3635 251 1005 541 1005 541 Cyc 1970 1976
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Michigan City 12 500 3635 251 1005 541 1005 541 Cyc 1967 1974
Georgia Power Harllee Branch 4 490 3625 250 1000 538 1000 538 Coal 1966 1969
Georgia Power Harllee Branch 3 480 3625 250 1000 538 1000 538 Coal 1965 1968
Tokyo Electric Power Anegasaki 1 640 3625 250 1010 543 1055 568 Oil 1964 1967
Public Service Electric
& Gas
Hudson 1 420 3625 250 1000 538 1025 552 Cyc 1960 1964
Reheat #2 1050 566
3-25

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Order
Year
Start
Year
AEP-Indiana &
Michigan Power
Tanners Creek 4 580 3625 250 1000 538 1025 552 Cyc 1959 1964
Reheat #2 1050 566
AEP-Appalachian
Power
Sporn 5 450 3625 250 1050 566 1050 566 Coal 1956 1960
Reheat #2 1050 566
AEP-Indiana &
Michigan Power
Breed 1 450 3625 250 1050 566 1050 566 Cyc 1956 1960
Reheat #2 1000 538
Ameren (Union
Electric)
Sioux 2 489 3620 250 1000 538 1000 538 Cyc 1962 1968
Ameren (Union
Electric)
Sioux 1 489 3620 250 1005 541 1005 541 Cyc 1962 1967
TXU Electric Valley 2 559 3600 248 1005 541 1005 541 Gas 1964 1967
Consumers Energy J.H. Campbell 2 385 3600 248 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1964 1967
Constellation Power
Source Generation Inc.
H.A. Wagner 3 322 3600 248 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1962 1966
Reheat #2 1005 541
AES
Redondo
Beach 8
480 3599 248 1005 541 1000 538 O&G 1964 1967
AES
Redondo
Beach 7
480 3599 248 1005 541 1000 538 O&G 1964 1966
AES Alamitos 6 480 3599 248 1000 538 1000 538 O&G 1963 1966
AES Alamitos 5 480 3599 248 1000 538 1000 538 O&G 1963 1965
Intergen Millmerran 2 420 3596 248 1054 568 1105 596 Coal 1999 2002
Intergen Millmerran 1 420 3596 248 1054 568 1105 596 Coal 1999 2002

3-26
Table 3-7
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Burmeister & Wain Energy (BWE)
10

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Start
Year
Dragon Power Lanshan 4 x 660 4424 305 1112 600 1112 600 Coal Due 2009
Energy E2 Avedore 2
390 (+570
MWt)
4424 305 1080 582 1112 600 Gas/Oil 2001
ELSAM Skaerbaek 3
411 (+450
MWt)
4205 290 1080 582 1076 580
Nat
Gas
1997
Reheat #2 1076 580
ELSAM Nordjylland 3
411 (+450
MWt)
4205
290

1080 582 1076 580 Bit./Oil 1998
E.ON Staudinger 5 500 gross 3800 262 1013 545 1044 562
Coal/
Oil
1992
Elsam Fyns 7 400 gross 3626 250 1004 540 1004 540
Coal/
Oil
1991

10
Utility Steam Boilers List of References, Burmeister & Wain Energy A/S BWE-20-0004rev.3 http://www.bwe.dk/usc-ref.html
3-27
Table 3-8
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Foster-Wheeler

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Start
Year
Genpower Longview 695 3626 250 1112 600 1112 600 Bit. 2011
AEP Mitchell 1 760 3500 241 1000 537 1025 552 Bit. 1971
Reheat #2 1050 565
AEP Mitchell 2 760 3500 241 1000 537 1025 552 Bit. 1971
Reheat #2 1050 565
AEP Amos 1 760 3500 241 1000 537 1025 552 Bit. 1971
Reheat #2 1050 565
AEP Amos 2 760 3500 241 1000 537 1025 552 Bit. 1971
Reheat #2 1050 565

3-28
Table 3-9
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Hitachi Power Systems

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Start
Year
Tohoku Electric Power Co. Noshiro 1 600 3868 267 1008 542 1053 567 Coal 1993
China Huaneng Group Co. Zouxian 7 1000 3807 262 1121 605 1117 603 Coal 2007
China Huaneng Group Co. Zouxian 8 1000 3807 262 1121 605 1117 603 Coal 2008
MidAmerican Energy Co. Council Bluffs 4 853 3803 262 1057 569 1103 595 PRB 2007
We Energies Elm Road 1 677 3800 262 1055 568 1055 568 Coal 2009
We Energies Elm Road 2 677 3800 262 1055 568 1055 568 Coal 2010
Electric Power Develop. Co. Tachibanawan 2 1050 3754 259 1121 605 1135 613 Coal 2000
CS Energy, Ltd. Kogan Creek 750 3754 259 1009 543 1045 563 Coal 2006
Tohoku Electric Power Co. Haramchi 2 1000 3683 254 1119 604 1116 602 Coal 1998
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Hitachinaka 1 1000 3683 254 1119 604 1116 602 Coal 2003
China Huaneng Group Co. Qinbei 1 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2004
China Huaneng Group Co. Qinbei 2 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2005
China Huaneng Group Co. Shantou 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2006
China Huaneng Group Co. Taicang 1 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2007
China Huaneng Group Co. Taicang 2 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2007
China Huaneng Group Co. Yahekou 1 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2007
China Huaneng Group Co. Yahekou 2 600 3683 254 1060 571 1056 569 Coal 2007
Enel Power
Torrevaldaliga
Nord 4
660 3655 252 1119 604 1134 612 Coal 2008
Enel Power
Torrevaldaliga
Nord 3
660 3655 252 1119 604 1134 612 Coal 2008
Enel Power
Torrevaldaliga
Nord 2
660 3655 252 1119 604 1134 612 Coal 2009
Kansai Electric Power Co. Kainan 1 450 3626 250 1006 541 1029 554 Oil 1970
3-29

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Start
Year
Reheat #2 1054 568
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Anegasaki 1 600 3626 250 1009 543 1054 568 Oil 1991
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Anegasaki 2 600 3626 250 1009 543 1054 568 Oil 1976
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Anegasaki 3 600 3626 250 1009 543 1054 568
O&G,
LNG,
LPG
1974
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Kashima 4 600 3626 250 1009 543 1054 568 Oil 1972
Chugoko Electric Power Co. Tamashima 3 500 3626 250 1009 543 1006 541 Oil 1974
3-30
Table 3-10
Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Hitachi Power Systems

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Start Year
We Energies Elm Road 2 x 615 3815 263 1051 566 1051 566
Due 2009
2010
MidAmerican
Energy
Council Bluffs 4 790 3684 254 1049 565 1099 593 Due 2007
J-Power Isogo 2 600 3626 250 1112 600 1150 621 2009
EPCOR Genesee 3 450 3626 250 1058 570 1054 568 2005
Tohoku Electric
Power Co.
Haramachi 2 1000 gross 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 1998
Hokkaido Electric
Tomato Atsuma
4
700 gross 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 2002
Tokyo EPCo Hitachinaka 1 1000 gross 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 2003
Kyushu Electric Matsuura 1 700 gross 3495 241 999 537 1049 565 1989
Chubu Electric Hekkinan 2 700 gross 3495 241 999 537 1049 565 1992
Soma Kyodo Power Shinichi 1 1000 gross 3495 241 999 537 1049 565 1994
3-31
Table 3-11
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI)

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Kobe Steel Ltd. Shinko Kobe 1 700 3495 241 1006 541 1054 568 Coal 2004
Tokyo Electric Power Kashima 2 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1971
Tokyo Electric Power Anegasaki 4 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1972
Kansai Electric Himeji II 6 600 3626 250 1006 541 1029 554 Oil 1973
Reheat #2 1054 568
Kyushu Electric Sendai 1 500 3626 250 1006 541 1004 540 Oil 1974
Hokuriku Electric Toyama Shinko 1 500 3626 250 1006 541 1004 540 Oil 1974
Chubu Electric Nishi Nagoya 6 500 3626 250 1009 543 1006 541 Oil 1975
Shikoku Electric Anan 4 450 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1976
Kyushu Electric Buzen 1 500 3626 250 1006 541 1004 540 Oil 1977
Chugoku Electric Kudamatsu 3 700 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1979
Tokyo Electric Hirono 1 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1980
Hokuriku Electric Toyama Shinko 2 500 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1981
Tohoku Electric Higashi Niigata 2 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1983
Jooban Kyoodo Nakoso 9 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1983
Chubu Electric Chita II 700 3626 250 1009 543 1056 569 Oil 1985
Hokkaido Electric Tomatoo Atsuma 2 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1985
Kyushu Electric Sendai 2 500 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1985
Chugoku Electric Shin Onoda 1 500 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1986
Chugoku Electric Shin Onoda 2 500 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1987
Kansai Electric Akoh 2 600 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1988
Tokyo Electric Power Higashi Ogishima 2 1000 3626 250 1008 542 1054 568 LNG 1991
Kansai Electric Nankoh 3 600 3626 250 1006 541 1056 569 LNG 1991
Tokyo Electric Hirono 4 1000 3626 250 1008 542 1054 568 Oil 1993
Hokkaido Electric Shiriuchi 2 350 3626 250 1006 541 1054 568 Oil 1998
Chubu Electric Hekinan 3 700 3626 250 1009 543 1056 569 Coal 1993
Tohoku Electric Noshiro 2 600 3626 250 1058 570 1105 596 Coal 1994
Kyushu Electric Reihoku 1 700 3626 250 1058 570 1054 568 Coal 1995
Hokuriku Electric Nano-Ohta 2 700 3626 250 1107 597 1103 595 Coal 1998
3-32

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Sumitomo Metal Ind. Kashima 1 507 3626 250 1008 542 1054 568 Coal 2007
Electric Power Dev. Tachibana- Wan 1 1050 3742 258 1121 605 1135 613 Coal 2000
Callide Power Callide 3 420 3742 258 1056 569 1054 568 Coal 2001
Callide Power Callide 3 420 3742 258 1056 569 1054 568 Coal 2001
Tarong Energy Corp. Tarong North 1 450 3742 258 1056 569 1056 569 Coal 2003
Hokkaido Electric Tomato Azuma 4 700 3757 259 1117 603 1116 602 Coal 2002
Electric Power Dev. Isogo 2 600 3945 272 1121 605 1153 623 Coal 2009
Electric Power Dev. Isogo 1 600 3989 275 1121 605 1135 613 Coal 2002

3-33
Table 3-12
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Doosan Babcock (formerly Mitsui Babcock)

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Order
Year
Start
Year
Nuon (Netherlands) Hemweg 8 680 3770 260 1004 540 1054 568 1992
(China) Changshu 600 3755 259 1056 569 1056 569 2005
(Finland) Meri-pori
630
(gross)
3465 239 1004 540 1040 560 1993
(Hong Kong)
Castle Peak B
(Subcritical Once-
Through)
4 x 680 2425 167 1006 541 1002 539 1981
(Hong Kong)
Castle Peak A
(Subcritical Once-
Through)
4 x 350
(China)
Yaomeng (vertical
wall repowering)

3-34
Table 3-13
Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Taiwan FPCC FP-1 1 600 3740 258 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 1999
Tohoku EPCO Haramachi 1 1000 3553 245 1050 566 1100 593 Coal 1997
Chugoku EPCO Misumi 1 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 1998
Taiwan FPCC UP-1 A 600 3553 245 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2000
Taiwan FPCC UP-1 B 600 3553 245 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2002
China CP-1 1 600 3553 245 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2000
China CP-1 2 600 3553 245 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2000
China CP-1 3 600 3553 245 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2002
China CP-1 4 600 3553 245 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2002
Tokyo EPCO Hirono 5 600 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2004
China Yuhan 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Yuhan 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Yuhan 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Yuhan 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Kanshan 600 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Kanshan 600 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Yingkou 600 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Yingkou 600 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Taizhou 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
China Taizhou 1000 3553 245 1112 600 1112 600 Coal 2007
Joban Joint EPCO Nakoso 8 600 3500 241 1000 538 1050 566 Coal/Oil 1983
Kyusyu EPCO Matsuura 1 700 3500 241 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 1989
Tokyo EPCO Hirono 3 1000 3500 241 1000 538 1050 566 Oil/Coal 1989
Chubu Hekinan 1 700 3500 241 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 1991
Hokuriku EPCO Tsuruga 1 500 3500 241 1050 566 1050 566 Coal 1991
Soma Joint EPCO Shinchi 2 1000 3500 241 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 1995
Hokuriku EPCO Tsuruga 2 700 3500 241 1100 593 1100 593 Coal 2000
KOBELCO Kobe 1 700 3500 241 1000 538 1050 566 Coal 2002
3-35

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Kyusyu EPCO Reihoku 2 700 3500 241 1100 593 1100 593 Coal 2003
Kansai EPCO Maizuru 1 900 3500 241 1100 593 1100 593 Coal 2004

3-36
Table 3-14
Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)

Unit
Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature

Start
Year
Electric Power Dev.
Co
Tachibanawan 2 1050 3641 251 1112 600 1130 610 2001
Xcel Energy
(Colorado USA)
Comanche 3 750 3565 244 1050 566 1100 593 PRB
Due
2009
FP 15 600 3553 245 999 537 1049 565 2001
Chubu Hekinan 3 700 3495 241 999 537 1112 600 1993
Hokuriku Nanao Ohta 1 500 3495 241 999 537 1112 600 1995
J-Power Matsuura 2 1000 3495 241 999 537 1112 600 1997
Chugoku EPCO Misumi 1 1000 3495 241 1112 600 1112 600 1998
Hokuriku EPCO Tsuraga 2 700 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2000
Kyusyu Reihoku 2 700 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2003
Tokyo EPCO Hirono 5 600 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2004
Kansai Maizuru 2 900 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2004

3-37
Table-3-15
Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Siemens-Westinghouse

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat Temperature
Start
Year
Shanghai Municipal
Elect Company
Waigaoqiao 3 1000 3916 270 1112 600 1112 600 2009
Vattenfall Lippendorf
930 +
heat
3873 267 1029 554 1081 583 2000
RWE Energy Niederaussem 965 3844 265 1069 576 1112 600 2002
(China) Yuhuan 4 x 1000 3807 263 1112 600 1112 600 2008
J-Power Isogo 1 600 3641 251 1112 600 1130 610 2002
Shanghai Municipal
Elect Company
Waigaoqiao 2 900 3626 250 1000 538 1040 560 2004
Shanghai Municipal
Elect Company
Waigaoqiao 1 900 3626 250 1000 538 1040 560 2004
Kogan Creek 750 3626 250 1040 560 1040 560 2007
AEP Mitchell 1 & 2 2 x 760 3495 241 999 537 1026 552 1971

3-38
Table 3-16
Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Toshiba

Unit Net
Output
Main Steam
Pressure
Main Steam
Temperature
Reheat
Temperature
Start
Year
KCP&L Iatan 2 850 3688 254 1099 593 2010
Hokuriku EPCO Tsuruga 2 700 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2000
Hokuriku Nana Ohta 2 700 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 1998
Kyusyu Reihoku 2 700 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2003
Kansai Maizuru 900 3495 241 1099 593 1099 593 2010
Tsuruga 1 500 3495 241 1049 565 1049 565 1991
Tohoku Electric Noshiro 2 600 3495 241 1049 565 1099 593 1994
Tohoku Harmachi 1 1000 3495 241 1049 565 1099 593 1997
Shikoku Tachibanawan 1 700 3495 241 1049 565 1099 593 2000
Chubu Hekinan 4 1000 3495 241 1049 565 1099 593 2001
Chubu Hekinan 5 1000 3495 241 1049 565 1099 593 2002

4-1
4
CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND ISSUES
Unit Size and Scale
Issues of engineering design that should be considered when selecting unit size include:
Capital cost
Constructability
Project schedule
Redundancy and other design for reliability versus replacement power cost risk
Technical risk
General Capital Cost Considerations
For the normal range of pulverized coal plant sizes (i.e., 200 MW to 1300 MW), steam generator
economies-of-scale (and overall plant costs) generally follow a rough rule-of-thumb trend: For a
completely installed and operational plant, the cost ratio is equivalent to the size ratio raised to
an exponent of about 0.7. Figure 4-1 illustrates the general relationship of capital cost versus
generating unit gross output.
Project Cost versus Unit Size
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Unit Size, MW gross
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
,

$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Project Cost versus Unit Size
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Unit Size, MW gross
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
,

$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

Figure 4-1
Trend in Cost versus Unit Gross Output Rating
In practice, the cost versus size curve is not completely smooth and linear (i.e., note the kinks
in the Figure 4-1 plot). Step changes in cost occur at various points due to size limitations for
major components. When unit size crosses these threshold points or breakpoints, it becomes
4-2
necessary to use multiple components rather than a single larger component. It is advantageous
to be aware of the unit sizes at which these step changes occur. For some size increments, this is
especially important, as several systems are subject to step changes within a relatively narrow
range of size increase.
Factors that may influence the unit output ratings at which cost breakpoints occur for a given
project may include fuel type, steam conditions, boiler inlet air and outlet gas temperatures, and
atmospheric conditions. The lists below are based on assumptions for all these factors, with notes
on how component limitations and cost breakpoints may be affected by changes in the assumed
factors.
It is also assumed that redundancy and reliability approaches would be consistent across the
range of unit output capacity. A change in approach to system component redundancy is likely to
also change the cost breakpoints.
There will be many component sizes and quantities that change as unit size increases; listed
below are only the major components that would result in more significant step changes in cost.
Assumed Basis
The basis for the discussion below is as follows:
Fuel: typical eastern U.S. bituminous, with a higher heating value of 12,500 Btu/lb (29,000
kJ/kg)
Steam conditions: 3500 psig (241 barg) and 1050F (565C) steam at the high-pressure
turbine inlet, and 1050F (565C) steam at the intermediate-pressure turbine inlet
Air heater designed for about 100F (40C) inlet air and about 300F (150C) outlet flue gas
temperature
Atmospheric conditions: 95F (35C) dry bulb, 80F (27C) wet bulb
Single train back-end components up to the maximum loads possible
Single main boiler feedwater pump
Component Limitations/Cost Step Changes
Turbine-Generator
Current maximum available generator size for 60 Hz applications is 1200 MVA, which
corresponds to a unit gross output limit of about 1080 MW from a single generator (assuming
a 0.90 power factor). Turbines designed for 60 Hz grid systems are inherently limited to
smaller maximum sizes (and smaller mass flow and power output) than those for 50 Hz grids.
This is because the higher rotational speed used in 60 Hz machines applies greater centrifugal
force to the blade root and turbine disks (for a given blade size). This influence must be
considered along with material strength limits imposed by increasing temperature and
pressure and tradeoffs of turbine material costs versus the benefits of larger unit size.
For unit output greater than 1080 MW (60 Hz), a cross-compound unit will be required on
two spindles rather than tandem compound steam turbine on one shaft.
4-3
Cross-compound designs result in a step increase in turbine-generator capital cost and
associated pedestal, isophase bus, turbine building area, and maintenance costs.
There are no significant changes in component size limitation or cost breakpoints with
different assumptions for fuel, steam conditions, air and gas temperatures, or atmospheric
conditions.
Boiler Feedwater Pumps (BFP)
Current maximum available BFP size will support 1300 MW (one known supplier) or 1000
MW (multiple suppliers).
Switch from one to two BFPs will increase equipment cost plus foundations, electrical, and
controls; however, reliability will be improved.
With more advanced steam conditions, the breakpoint in unit size regarding BFP size will be
at slightly higher loads.
Selection of BFP size and driver type is also influenced by relationships between steam
production, steam turbine ratings, auxiliary and cogeneration steam flows, and transmission
system characteristics. For some combinations, steam turbine drivers are preferred whereas
electric drives are preferred in other cases. Plant layout may also influence this selection.
Other Pumps and Drivers
As with boiler feedwater pumps, breakpoints in size selection for condensate pumps and
cooling water circulating pumps are influenced by unit size and available pump sizes along
with a variety of plant-design-specific factors. Auxiliary equipment may use variable speed,
fixed speed, or two speed electric motor drivers, or steam turbine drivers, each of which is
preferred for different size ranges.
Feedwater Heater Trains
Switch from one to two high-pressure (HP) heater trains at about 500 MW due to valve size
limitations at supercritical pressures.
This breakpoint will be somewhat lower for cycles with higher steam pressures.
Cooling Towers
For mechanical draft systems, no limit is imposed solely by unit size. Cell size and count are
fully customizable.
For natural draft towers, a one tower to two tower transition occurs at about 1000 MW.
If ambient dry bulb or wet bulb temperatures are higher than assumed basis, transition
from one to two towers will be at a lower unit design load.
If steam conditions are higher, breakpoint from one to two towers will be at a higher unit
design load.
High-Energy Piping
For main steam, the one lead to two lead transition occurs at about 700 MW; the two lead to
four lead transition occurs at about 1100 MW.
4-4
For cold and hot reheat lines, the transition from one to two leads occurs at 700 MW. Four
leads are required above 1100 MW.
If steam conditions are higher, the transition breakpoints will occur at lower unit sizes.
Single- and Dual-Fireball Design
Applies to tangentially fired units
For typical eastern U.S. bituminous-fired boilers, the transition point from one to two
fireballs (i.e., a divided furnace) ranges from 700 MW to 1100 MW.
For divided furnace (dual fireball) designs, capital costs will increase in step changes with
increases in the number of burners, coal pipes, and burner penetrations in waterwalls.
Maintenance costs increase due to the increased number of components in the firing system.
For lower rank coals (subbituminous and lignite fuels), the transition breakpoint will be
lower.
For higher steam conditions, the transition breakpoint will generally be higher.
Vertical-Tube and Spiral-Tube Furnace Design
Spiral-tubed furnaces are often used in the design of variable-pressure supercritical units to:
Achieve adequate mass flows and velocities for tube cooling during startup and low load
operation
Provide more even heating of steam in furnaces where heat flux may vary across the
width of the walls
There is some commercial experience and a growing commercial interest in offering straight,
vertical-wall furnace designs that address tube cooling and heat flux imbalances through use
of rifled tubing, orificing, and carefully designed low-load recirculation systems.
Ash Removal
Wet hydraulic sluice bottom ash removal:
There is no theoretical limit or major cost increments; however, it is necessary to design
for capability to convey ash from two or more points simultaneously.
The largest size installed to date is 1300 MW.
Wet drag chain bottom ash removal:
50 tph (45 tonne/hr) is the nominal limit of drag chain sizing.
With typical sizing at twice the ash production rate, this would allow up to 2000 MW unit
size when firing coal up to 20% ash and allowing up to 4 hours of storage time.
Dry bottom ash removal:
Limits are similar to those for wet drag chain if the dry system is based on a flight
conveyor.
For a system with a vibratory conveyor, the limit is much higher (>1500 MW unit size).
The largest dry bottom ash removal system installed to date is 900 MW.
4-5
Main Coal-Feed Conveyor
One pair of (redundant) main feed conveyors, using conventional 96 inch (~2.5 m) belts, will
feed up to 8 units at 750 MW each, 6 units at 1000 MW each, and 4 units at 1500 MW each.
For lower rank coals, unit size or quantity supported by conventional belts will be less.
For higher steam conditions, unit size or quantity supported by conventional belts will be
greater.
Sootblower Lance Lengths
Above 1300 MW, sootblowers may require special design for extending over unusually long
spans.
Rotary Air Heaters
The largest air heaters that are currently available, from the two international manufacturers,
will support unit size up to 700 MW with one train; 1400 MW with two trains (bituminous
coals).
Additional ductwork (and cost) is required to accommodate a second train of air heaters.
Higher inlet air temperature or lower exit gas temperature will reduce the unit size that can be
served by the largest available air heater.
Use of lower rank coals will reduce the unit size serviceable by the largest available air
heaters.
Higher steam conditions will increase the unit size that can be serviced by the largest
available air heater.
Induced Draft (ID) Fans
The largest centrifugal fans that are currently available will support maximum unit size of
about 460 MW gross with a single fan.
The largest currently available axial fans will support maximum unit size of about 700 MW
gross with a single fan.
Lower rank coals will result in lower unit ratings with maximum-sized fans.
Lower exit gas temperatures will result in higher unit ratings with maximum-sized fans.
Higher steam conditions will result in higher unit ratings with maximum-sized fans.
Particulate Removal
The number of dry ESP or wet ESP modules will be proportional to the number of ID fans.
Step changes increase capital costs for separate structures and foundations, additional
insulation, etc.
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Wet Scrubber: Step change from one absorber module to two at about 1100 MW
For lower rank coals, the maximum single module size will correspond to a lower MW
level
4-6
For higher steam conditions, the maximum single module size will correspond to a higher
MW level
For lower exit gas temperatures, the maximum single module size will correspond to a
higher MW level
Construction and Schedule Considerations
Construction Issues
With larger plants, impacts of equipment sizing on transportation and erection must be
considered. If transportation modes or access are limited, it may not be possible to ship larger
modules and preassembled components of larger-sized units. For the largest unit designs, if site
location, site conditions, or other factors limit the use of very large cranes, an alternate erection
approach must be identified.
Project Schedule
Larger unit sizes may decrease overall implementation schedules for larger power projects. For
example, the labor-hours required to construct two 500 MW units will generally be greater than
that required for a single 1000 MW unit.
Cost of Redundancy and Reliability versus Replacement Power
Along with the issue of grid stability when a larger unit is forced off-line, there is also an issue
concerning replacement power availability and cost. Replacement power cost is obviously
greater for loss of a very large unit. For this reason, it may be prudent to build higher reliability
into larger units through redundancy and other design measures.
Technical Risk
Larger unit designs present a slightly higher technical risk, mostly because the level of
experience with the largest size units is relatively limited. Although there are no theoretical
limits or obstacles in the scale-up of supercritical unit designs, history has shown that there are
sometimes unforeseen design problems. Even with the relatively limited amount of experience
with the largest unit sizes, the level of risk should be considered to be relatively low with designs
up to 1050 MW, especially for fuels that have already been used at these sizes.
Steam Generator Design Issues and Trends
Furnace Design
Combustion Considerations
Pulverized Coal Units
In a properly designed furnace, the combustion process is substantially completed before the
product gases and particulates enter the upper furnace pendant sections and the back pass of the
steam generator. Regardless of whether the steam conditions are subcritical, supercritical, or
ultra-supercritical, the properties of the fuel must be given primary consideration during the
4-7
design of the steam generator. Key coal properties include moisture content and the amount and
properties of non-combustible mineral content (ash). The furnace dimensions must accommodate
the mass and volume flow of the combustion products by providing sufficient gas velocity to
carry the particulates while also providing sufficient radiant heat transfer time for the ash to cool
and solidify before it contacts the superheater tubing.
For lower rank coals and higher slagging potential coals, furnace size must be increased, in some
cases substantially. In the case of U.S. Northern Plains lignite, for example, the higher ash
quantity, lower ash melting temperature, and higher mass flow (from the high moisture content)
result in a very large furnace volume for a given megawatt output. Compared with an eastern
U.S. bituminous coal, Northern Plains lignite requires nearly 2.4 times the overall furnace
volume.
Many of the problems experienced with earlier generations of supercritical units in the United
States resulted from a poor understanding of the relationships between coal quality, ash
characteristics, and furnace size. As a result of being undersized, many furnaces experienced
high slagging, high corrosion, and high NO
X
production. Some of these conditions were
aggravated by the higher surface temperatures of supercritical furnace walls compared with
subcritical boilers.
Today these relationships are much better understood and the problems are generally avoided in
both subcritical and supercritical designs. Successful designs include adequate sizing of the
furnaces, spacing of the burners, and spacing of radiant and convective heat transfer surfaces at
the furnace exit.
Cyclone Burner Units
Another solution to furnace slagging and corrosion, convective pass fouling, and convective pass
erosion is to remove the ash in the form of molten slag at the bottom of the furnace. The cyclone
furnace boiler design was specifically developed in the 1940s to combust coals with low ash
fusion temperatures.
In cyclone-fired boilers, the coal burner discharges tangentially into a cylindrical combustion
chamber (typically 710 ft or 23 m in diameter) that acts as a cyclone separator. The coal is
crushed (<0.25inchor<6mm) rather than pulverized (typically 70% passing 200 mesh), and is
fired at very high heat release rates to liquefy the ash. Typical heat release rates are in the range
of 450,000800,000 Btu/hr per square foot of cyclone barrel surface area (14002500 W/m
2
), as
opposed to pulverized coal boiler burner zone heat release rates of 100,000400,000 Btu/hr-ft
2

(3001200 W/m
2
). About 6070% of the ash is removed as liquid slag through the floor of the
furnace.
Because of the high heat release rates utilized in cyclone boilers, they produce high NO
X
levels,
typically 1.22.5 pound per million Btu of input fuel heating value (lb/MBtu), or 0.521.1 kg/GJ,
depending upon fuel type and boiler heat release rate. With U.S. passage of New Source
Performance Standards for utility boilers in the 1970 Clean Air Act, fabrication of cyclone
boilers discontinued. However, significant progress has been made to operate these boilers at or
below the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Title IV NO
X
emission level of 0.86 lb/MBtu (0.37
kg/GJ). In some cases, NO
X
has been reduced to levels comparable to uncontrolled pulverized
coal boilers (i.e., 0.40 lb/MBtu or 0.17 kg/GJ).
4-8
Fuel Delivery: Cyclone boilers utilize a crushed fuel rather than pulverized fuel; thus there is no
need for a pulverizer with its associated costs, maintenance, and safety issues.
Fuel Flexibility: Because of the combustion intensity within a cyclone barrel, it can easily burn
lower quality coals (high ash, low fusion temperature), as well as a variety of specialty fuels
(biomass, refuse, chars, petroleum coke, etc.).
Ash Partitioning: Cyclone boilers liquefy most of the ash, which is then removed as slag in the
furnace bottom. This reduces the amount of ash material passing through the convection section
and the particulate control device and exiting the stack.
Corrosion: There does not appear to be a significant difference in corrosion potential in cyclone-
equipped boilers compared with pulverized coal boilers. In fact, corrosion in the furnace of a
cyclone boiler may actually be reduced because of the removal of about 6070% of the coal ash
in the slag tap alleviates the vast majority of deposition/corrosion species.
Reliability: Progress is being made to improve cyclone barrels, which in turn, will increase
cyclone furnace availability and should render the overall reliability of these furnaces
comparable to that of pulverized coal units.
NO
X
: Research conducted by EPRI was able to substantiate the performance and cost
effectiveness of overfire air (OFA) operation in cyclone boilers. In all instances, cyclone boiler
NO
X
emissions have been reduced to below the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Title IV NO
X

limits. Currently, 70% of the cyclone boiler capacity has installed overfire air, with NO
X

emissions reduced to a range of 0.400.85 lb/MBtu (0.170.37 kg/GJ).
Particulate: Because baghouses and electrostatic precipitators are essentially constant efficiency
devices, the less material that enters the device, the lower the total mass of particulate exiting.
Because cyclone boilers remove about 6070% of the ash as liquid slag in the bottom of the
furnace, there is less material entering the particulate control device compared with pulverized-
coal boilers.
Mercury: Utilizing the unburned carbon from combustion systems is a method to remove
mercury from flue gas. Advanced cyclone furnace designs may be able to strategically optimize
the size distribution of the crushed coal for to balance competing demands for mercury level
reduction and maximum carbon-in-ash in a manner more effective than that possible with
advanced pulverized coal units.
Cost: Preliminary studies indicate that a cyclone boiler with SCR can compete with a PC unit
designed to meet the same environmental regulations.
Furnace Waterwalls
Furnace walls, often referred to as waterwalls, are usually the first heat absorbing circuit
following the economizer in the water/steam path of the steam generator. In a drum-type
subcritical pressure unit, the waterwalls operate at a fairly constant and relatively low
temperature (e.g., <700F, or 370C) because they contain boiling water at the operating pressure
of the unit. Also, the boiling action generally assures that the internal temperature cannot rise
above the boiling point, so good heat transfer is maintained from the tube surface to the internal
fluid, and metal temperatures toward the exterior of the tubes remain relatively low. This allows
carbon steel to be used for the most part.
4-9
At supercritical pressures, however, the fluid is not boiling. With the once-through design, tube
temperatures continuously increase as the supercritical H
2
O proceeds up the furnace tube-walls.
Steam temperatures at the exit of the furnace wall tubes of a supercritical once-through unit are
in the range of 790815F. Average metal temperatures, on the tube exterior at the top of the
furnace, approach 1000F. In addition, there can be significant variations in the temperatures of
these tubes due to steam side flow unbalances and fireside absorption imbalances. These
temperature variations present mechanical design problems for all of the various support
structures, openings, and attachments to the waterwalls. Differential thermal expansion is a key
consideration and the resulting movement of the walls must be accounted for.
The higher waterwall temperatures for supercritical furnaces typically require the use of alloy
tubing in the furnace walls (e.g., T2, T11, T12, T13, T22, or T23). Experience has shown that
although T2 and T11 materials have allowable stresses at temperatures up to 1000F (538C),
they do not fare well in the high-temperature corrosive environment of the furnace, even with
lower sulfur fuels. Despite corrosion resistance, one of the reasons that austenitic steels are
prohibited from use in the waterwalls is because their coefficient of expansion is 30% higher
than that for ferritic materials. Inconel materials have a coefficient of expansion closer to that of
ferritic materials. Thus, protective weld overlay coatings often have compositions mimicking
Inconel materials.
Fixed Pressure versus Variable Pressure
Most of the development efforts for once-through supercritical units over the past 20 years has
occurred in the European and Japanese markets. For these markets, in which cycling and reduced
load operation account for a considerable portion of their operating time, a variable pressure
cycle has been found to improve heat rate at low loads, increase allowable ramp rates, and reduce
stresses experienced by the steam turbine (and thereby extend the life of turbine components).
Because the fixed-pressure, multi-pass furnace designs typical of older, baseloaded supercritical
units in the United States are not compatible with the two-phase flow regimes experienced in
variable pressure operation, a single pass of furnace circuits was developed. However, the single
pass once-through design results in very low mass flow rates at reduced loads. For variable
pressure units, which operate below the critical pressure at loads below about 70% of the
maximum continuous rating (MCR), this means there can be departure from nucleate boiling
(DNB) as load is reduced, which can result in localized tube overheating where the furnace
circuits dry out. These issues have led designers of modern units to use a spiral arrangement of
tubes in the lower part of the furnace to reduce the number of tubes carrying fluid and thereby
increase mass flow rate.
Some manufacturers also have a design that uses straight vertical tube orientation throughout the
furnace and relies on either complex circuit orificing and/or specially rifled tubes to maintain
sufficient turbulence and/or mass flow in the tubes to avoid overheating. At the lowest loads,
usually below 3040% MCR, these units revert to a recirculation mode in which the furnace
circuitry functions much like a drum boiler.
Spiral Tube versus Vertical Tube Furnace
Both spiral wound and vertical water walls have been used successfully in supercritical steam
generators. In Japan and Europe, plants are often designed for sliding pressure control in which
4-10
the main steam passes through the critical point as load decreases. This enhances unit heat rate
by eliminating throttling losses as it is no longer necessary to throttle steam flow to reduce load.
In the spiral-wound design, flow from the inlet headers is directed to tubes that spiral at about a
20 degree slope and form the furnace enclosure. The spiral goes to an elevation just below the
furnace arch where the flow collects in a header. From here the flow is redistributed into vertical
tubes that form the upper furnace enclosure. This arrangement provides uniform temperatures at
the fluid outlet as the tubes spiral around all four walls evening out heat flux variations in the
lower furnace where the coal is introduced. There are only limited flux variations in the upper
furnace. In the vertical tube design, flow from the inlet headers is directed to vertical tubes that
travel the full height of the furnace. Orifices are located at the inlet of each tube to ensure even
flow distribution and to even out the effect of in-furnace heat flux variations.
Overall, it can be concluded that both spiral wall and vertical wall arrangements are technically
sound approaches for variable pressure supercritical units. Either can be utilized for an advanced
cycle supercritical unit with nominal steam temperatures of about 1100F (600C). Owners
should evaluate differences in erection, maintenance, and operating costs, as well as the
experience levels for the two designs.
Baseload versus Cycling Mode of Operation
Although variable pressure does not necessarily provide advantages for baseload applications,
virtually all design development for large supercritical PC units in the United States over the past
20 years has focused on the variable pressure cycle. Thus, it represents the state-of-the-art
technology and will almost assuredly be the design that current suppliers will propose. However,
it should be noted clearly in the steam generator specifications whether the unit is intended
primarily for baseload operation or whether load cycling or on-off cycling will be necessary.
Significant savings in full-load operating cost can be realized by designing the furnace circuits
for lower mass velocity and therefore lower pressure drop. The trade-off is that a higher
minimum recirculation point will be necessary, thereby raising operating costs at reduced loads,
but this will be of little consequence if full load or near full load is the primary operating
objective. Costs can also be saved in startup equipment if baseload duty is the primary objective.
Instead of using separate recirculation pumps for low-load operation, the design can use the main
boiler feedwater pumps to accomplish recirculation at lower loads. The disadvantage to this
approach occurs only during recirculation mode, when heat from the furnace circuits is lost to the
condenser rather than conserved within the circuit. Sketches illustrating the two recirculation
options are provided in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3.
4-11
Separator
Economizer
Furnace
Circuits
Recirculation
Pump
HP Heater
Boiler Feed Pump
To Steam
Turbine
Superheater
Separator
Economizer
Furnace
Circuits
Recirculation
Pump
HP Heater
Boiler Feed Pump
To Steam
Turbine
Superheater

Figure 4-2
Furnace Circuit Recirculation with Separate Recirculation Pump

4-12
Separator
HP Heater
Boiler Feed Pump
To Steam
Turbine
Superheater
Furnace
Circuits
Economizer
Flash
Tank
Condenser
Separator
HP Heater
Boiler Feed Pump
To Steam
Turbine
Superheater
Furnace
Circuits
Economizer
Flash
Tank
Condenser

Figure 4-3
Furnace Circuit Recirculation without Separate Recirculation Pump
Power producers should evaluate the anticipated likelihood of baseload versus cycling operation
for different periods during the lifetime of the new unit. Operating scenarios may change as a
result of future additions of large blocks of baseload power (e.g., nuclear) or unpredictable power
(e.g., wind power). The recirculation system can be changed at relatively moderate retrofit cost
whereas the full-load furnace circuit mass flow rates will be set by tube sizing and pitch of the
spiral walls. Once the furnace is designed and built, it is not practical to change these parameters
to accommodate a different mode of operation.
If future modes of operation are uncertain, a compromise design approach could be to specify a
moderately high minimum recirculation point, say 4050% MCR, and use the main boiler
feedwater pumps for recirculation during initial operations. If future duty requirements change to
include more cycling, the recirculation system could be modified to include separate pumps and
be operated more frequently (i.e., every time load drops below 4050%). Duty cycle modes that
may need consideration include:
Moderate daily and weekly cycling
Daily cycling to minimum load
Daily on/off cycling
Deep load cycling
4-13
Along with the mechanical and hydraulic design features to optimize control and heat rate during
cycling, design for cycling modes must also consider:
The number and type of cycles and their influence on fatigue, corrosion, corrosion fatigue,
creep fatigue, and other factors that impact component life
The physical configuration of piping, headers, tubing, pipe supports, and other components
that may introduce stress concentrations or lead to condensate accumulation and thermal-
shock-inducing flow events
The impact of control modes, such as attemperator and bypass operation, on these damage
mechanisms
Startup Systems and Turbine Bypass Considerations
The traditional use for turbine bypass systems has been for matching steam and turbine metal
temperatures during startup; to keep the boiler on-line during load rejection; and for cooling the
reheater when necessary in certain types of steam generator designs. In Europe, bypass systems
have also been used to eliminate safety valves.
With modern steam generator design, the bypass system should generally be large enough to be
able to synchronize the turbine generator and pick up minimum load steam flow. The nominal
size of the bypass system is established as a percentage of full load main steam flow at full load
main steam pressure and temperature. Additional capacity beyond that needed for minimum
turbine flow may be necessary to meet the temperature characteristics of the steam generator.
The maximum bypass capacity must be limited to prevent overpressure of the condenser.
When the turbine is tripped, a condenser, sized for full load LP turbine exhaust, can accept
approximately 50% of the design boiler heat load from the bypass system, with an acceptable
temporary rise, in circulating water temperature and condenser pressure. Accepting this rise to
have somewhat higher values, avoids the need for additional condenser surface area.
Startup system variations include:
Partial flow turbine bypass
100% flow turbine bypass
Total bypass systems
IP and LP turbine bypass or LP turbine (only) bypass
Steam generator superheater bypass
Designing Supercritical Steam Generators for Low Minimum Load Capability and
Continuous Duty Minimum Load Cycling
To achieve very low minimum continuous loads, several steam-generator-related systems must
be addressed. These systems include the boiler itself, pulverizers and burners, draft fans, air
heaters, flue gas desulfurization equipment, particulate removal equipment, boiler feedwater
pumps, and the turbine-generator. Consideration must be given to:
Extended extreme low-load supercritical plant operation
4-14
Minimum load firing considerations
Daily start stop service (dss)
Weekend start stop service (wss)
Loading rate
Total number of cycles
Turbines and feedwater heaters for cycling service
Design Provisions for Higher Peak Power Rating
The economics of contemporary electric system operation often make it desirable to include
capability for higher power output during periods of peak demand. With supercritical generating
units, this can be accomplished to some extent by:
Increasing firing rate to maximize steam production and turbine mass flow
Operating with feedwater heaters out of service
Maximizing cooling tower airflow and condenser water flow
These measures in effect entail acceptance of temporary heat rate penalties in exchange for
added output. They also may increase stresses and temperatures that accelerate creep and fatigue
damage mechanisms.
5-1
5
ISSUES RELATED TO FUEL QUALITY
The principal feedstock for a pulverized coal power plant is typically bituminous coal,
subbituminous coal, or lignite (also known as brown coal outside of North America). Firing
systems typically are designed to use oil and gas for startup and may allow full-load operation on
these fuels. Some plants blend significant fractions of petroleum coke (a low-volatile, high-rank
solid fuel that is a by-product of petroleum refining), mining waste fuels (e.g., anthracite culm
and bituminous gob), or biomass fuels with the feed coal. This Guideline does not address waste-
type alternative fuels as they are generally better utilized in circulating fluidized-bed units.
The fuels used in an advanced PC unit can have a significant impact on materials selections,
steam generator design, emissions control system design, and cost. Therefore, care must be taken
to understand the properties of the fuel(s) that the plant will use and how the composition of
fuel(s) might vary over the life of the plant.
To maintain consistent fuel properties and costs, some plant owners enter long-term contracts
with fuel providers. Such contracts designate specific coal mines and/or detailed coal quality
specifications to assure fairly consistent throughout the life of the contract. Other plant owners
purchase coal on the spot market and are likely to obtain coals with a much wider range of
properties. Even the generating units which are sourced from a single supplier should expect
variations in composition, trace elements, and ash characteristics as different regions of the coal
reserves are mined.
Coal Rank
In the United States, coal is classified by rank using a system established by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D 388). Coal rank generally correlates with the age of
the coal, with coal class ranging from oldest to youngest in the following order:
Class I: Anthracitic
Class II: Bituminous
Class III: Subbituminous (including Powder River Basin coals)
Class IV: Lignitic (brown coal)
In general, the heating value of coal decreases with decreasing rank (increasing Class number),
while moisture and ash content increase. Fixed carbon and volatile matter form the primary basis
for differentiating between higher rank coals whereas Btu analysis (on a moist, mineral free
basis) sets the criteria for lower rank coals. Although much of the coal mined in a limited
geographical region tends to have the same rank, coals of a given rank can exhibit significant
variation in constituents from mine to mine and even within a given seam of a mine. Historically,
sulfur content has been a parameter of particular interest.
5-2
Although the coal rank to be used for a generating unit provides a rough basis for general design
parameters and economic performance forecasts, a much more detailed analysis of the specific
fuel(s) to be used is required to establish criteria for boiler design details.
Coal Analysis
In specifying a steam generator, it is important to provide a complete, individual analysis for
each of the various coals that may be fired. It is not sufficient to simply state a range for each of
the constituents. Slagging, fouling, and corrosion potential are partly determined by the
interrelation between individual constituents of a coal. Specifying only the range of each of the
constituents may lead to over-design. For example, to size pulverizers, the designer may look at
the maximum moisture content in the range along with the minimum grindability and heating
values in those respective ranges. However, it may be very unlikely that the maximums and
minimums of concern will occur together to create a worst-case scenario.
For the most reliable and cost-effective steam generator design, the following complete analysis
is recommended for each coal considered for the project:
Source Information
Region
Mine
Seam
Proximate analysis (moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon, and ash)
Ultimate analysis (moisture, carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and ash)
Heating value
Ash fusion temperatures, in both oxidizing and reducing atmospheres, including initial
deformation temperature (IDT), hemispherical deformation temperature (HDT), spherical
deformation temperature (SDT), and fluid deformation temperature (FDT)
Chlorine content
Ash chemistry analysis
Forms of sulfur (pyritic, organic, sulfate)
The heating value of the fuel determines the quantity of fuel needed, and therefore influences the
size of fuel handling equipment and the quantity of ash, sulfur, and other non-beneficial
constituents.
Ultimate analysis and proximate analysis help reveal the coal combustion characteristics. Along
with ash chemistry analysis, they provide information on the different ash constituents that
influence the ash properties. The ash content derived from mineral matter in the fuel is generally
one of the most important factors in the overall design of the boiler.
The ash fusion temperature is also a crucial piece of information because the slagging
characteristic of the ash is typically the most significant property. High ash fusion temperatures
allow the ash to freeze more quickly once the fuel is burned and the resulting heat is radiated
from the product gases the waterwalls. Low ash fusion temperatures require design modifications
to limit potential problems with both slagging (accumulation of molten ash) and fouling
5-3
(accumulation of material that is not molten, although molten material may have initiated the
sticking). The buildup of these materials changes the heat absorption properties of different tube
surfaces and, in the worst case, can lead to slag falls that cause impact damage at the bottom of
the furnace. Design considerations include maintaining oxidizing conditions, which increases
melting temperatures by about 200F (110C), keeping molten ash away from the walls, and
increasing boiler size to provide residence time for the ash to freeze before it comes in contact
with tubing.
Chlorides can cause corrosion problems throughout the back end of the unit (including in the
ESP and SO
2
scrubber). Along with various sulfur compounds, they combine with ash to cause
corrosion problems on high temperature surfaces, particularly when reducing zones are created
beneath slag or accumulations of ash.
Grindability
The Hardgrove Grindability Index is calculated from the particle size reduction of a coal sample
in a vertical shaft laboratory grinding mill. This index provides a measure of grindability in
comparison with coals used as standards. Its applicability is limited, however, if a designer is
considering a blend of coals of greatly different rank. For example, when admixing low-rank,
high-moisture coal with a bituminous coal, the feed rate would more likely be limited by the
drying capacity of the existing mill rather than by its grinding capacity.
11

Ignition and Flame Stability
Generally, coals with higher volatile matter content ignite more easily and provide better flame
stability. Additionally, the devolatilized char is of higher reactivity, with favorable characteristics
for combustion completion.
Proximate analysis of volatile matter content, however, is a poor indicator of furnace
performance, partly because the volatile yield at flame temperature is significantly higher than at
the ASTM test temperature, and because volatiles of higher rank coals consist mainly of
combustible hydrocarbons. In contrast, lower rank coals contain large amounts of moisture and
oxygen in their volatiles. Also, decomposition of carbonates in high-ash coals produces CO
2
that
appears as a volatile in the analysis. To properly assess the combustion behavior of a blend, it is
necessary to know the volatile yield and composition, for the respective coals, at flame
temperature.
The relative ignition behavior of different coals can be determined using Differential Thermal
Gravimetric Analysis (DTGA).
12
DTGA provides a continuous plot of the rate of weight loss of a
pulverized coal sample as the furnace temperature is gradually raised over time. From the
graphical plot called burning profile, the ignition temperature of the volatiles and of the partially
devolatilized char can be derived.

11
J.R. Gunderson, S.J. Selle, and N.S. Harding, Engineering Foundation Conference on coal blending and switching
of low sulfur western coals, Snowbird, UT, ASME (1994), pp. 11-130.
12
A.K. Chambers et al., Effect of blending on the combustion properties of dissimilar Alberta coals, (Report [Alberta
Research Council] no. CHP 89/17), prepared for Alberta Office of Coal Research and Technology (1988), p. 92.
5-4
Unburned Carbon
The volatiles and the high reactivity char of a low-rank coal readily ignite and burn in the early
flame, which also increases the yield of volatiles from the high rank component. The combustion
of these volatiles and the burning of the low-rank char consume their share of the available
oxygen and leave the burning of the low reactivity bituminous char in a localized atmosphere of
depleted O
2
concentration, resulting in increased unburned carbon.
13

A combination of coal blending and staged combustion to reduce NO
X
formation can accentuate
this effect because of the deactivation of the devolatilized char in the high-temperature, fuel-rich
atmosphere of the first combustion stage. But there may be a compensating factor: because of the
increased volatile yield from the high-rank coal, and hence increased conversion of the fuel-N to
N
2
, it is possible to reduce the depth of combustion staging and to produce a char with higher
reactivity.
Emissions
Sulfur Oxides (SO
2
+ SO
3
)
One reason for coal blending is to reduce SO
2
emissions. The sulfur content in coal is additive
and hence the sulfur input can be calculated as the weighted average of the sulfur content of the
coals blended. This, however, can overestimate emissions, because the high concentrations of
organically bound calcium in western U.S. coals favor sulfur capture.
14
Also, a small portion of
the SO
2
forms SO
3
, part of which is reabsorbed in boiler deposits and in fly ash. Although coal
blending was considered a less expensive alternative to installing FGD (in initially complying
with acid rain regulations), it is questionable whether it can now, on its own, produce compliance
with increasingly stringent SO
2
emissions restrictions. It should, however, remain a valuable tool
for incrementally reducing sulfur emissions from high-sulfur bituminous coals.
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO + NO
2
)
Nitrogen oxides form in reactions of molecular nitrogen (N
2)
with O atoms in high-temperature
oxidizing atmospheres (thermal NO); with hydrocarbon radicals in the early flame (prompt NO);
and by oxidation of organically bound nitrogen in the coal (Fuel-N). In modern pulverized coal
combustion, about 80% of the NO forms from Fuel-N.
In unstaged combustion, Fuel-N evolved with coal volatiles readily oxidizes to NO
X
. In the hot
portion of a fuel-rich (i.e., oxygen-depleted) flame, however, it can be converted to N
2
and hence
rendered innocuous for NO formation. This is the basis of staged combustion as a method of
reducing in-furnace NO
X
production. It is also known that the nitrogen in coal volatiles converts
to N
2
with higher efficiency than the nitrogen that remains in the devolatilized char. So, for
staged combustion, the steep rise in temperature, following the early ignition of the low-rank
coal, increases the volatile yield of the bituminous coal, thereby improving the efficiency of NO
X

reduction. Although NO
X
emissions increase with the fraction of high-volatile coal in the blend
during unstaged combustion, this trend is reversed for staged combustion, where NO
X
emission is
reduced as the fraction of low-rank coal is increased.

13
J.P. Smart and T. Nakamura, Journal of the Institute of Energy, 66 (467); (1993) pp. 99-105.
14
S.G. Kang et al., Engineering Foundation Conference on coal blending and switching of low sulfur western coals,
Snowbird, UT, ASME, (1994), pp. 341-354.
5-5
Mercury
For mercury emissions control, unburned carbon in fly ash can partially or fully replace activated
carbon injection. In particular, mercury can be chemisorbed on the surfaces of unburned carbon
in fly ash, as with activated carbon, and then captured in a downstream particulate control
device. By readjusting staged combustion conditions, the amount of unburned carbon can be
raised to achieve increased mercury reduction.
15

Oxidized mercury (i.e., at a +2 valence state, even though the actual compound may be HgCl
2
,
HgS, or another mercuric compound, in addition to HgO) can also be captured in a wet FGD
system. Increased halogen concentration is one key to the oxidation of mercury. Although the
mercury content of western U.S. subbituminous coals is about half that of eastern U.S.
bituminous coals, these coals also have low chloride content. By blending bituminous coals with
subbituminous coals, chloride content is boosted and mercury capture is improved.
Particulates
ESP performance is strongly affected by the electrical resistivity of fly ash. Fly ash with high
resistivity (>10
11
ohm/cm) limits the current that can pass through the collected ash layer,
whereas very low resistivity ash (<10
8
ohm/cm) can lose electric charge, get separated from the
plate, and become re-entrained by the gas flow.
16

In general, eastern U.S. bituminous coals have lower resistivity ash and western U.S.
subbituminous coals have higher resistivity ash. The amount of SO
3
absorbed by the fly ash has a
strong influence on its resistivity. Some operators of units firing low-sulfur coals have added SO
3

to flue gas to lower resistivity and boost ESP collection efficiency. With respect to fly ash
chemical composition, a substantial reduction in Fe
2
O
3
, K
2
O, and Na
2
O, or enrichment in CaO,
MgO, and SiO
2
will increase resistivity.
High carbon in ash can reduce resistivity to the extent that it makes collection in an ESP difficult.
Conversely, re-entrained carbon reacts preferentially with SO
3
, degrading the benefits of
conditioning by SO
3
injection.
Experience in power stations with low-sulfur, low-rank coals show that the increased resistivity,
finer particle size of the fly ash, and reduced residence time of the of flue gas in the ESP due to
the increased water vapor, can increase emissions. High rapping forces and frequent rapping are
generally needed to maintain ESP performance with high resistivity fly ashes.
Fabric filter performance is less affected when using a lower sulfur content coal blend.
Ash Properties and Deposition Behavior
A variety of indices are used to estimate the slagging and fouling characteristics of coal ash.
These indices have limited use for coal blends because deposition characteristics cannot be
reliably predicted by interpolation between those of the component coals. There are significant
synergistic effects between the blended coals. For example, in the common case of a blend of
low-rank western U.S. coal and eastern U.S. bituminous coal, fly ash of the low-rank coal with a

15
A. Capri, Journal of Water, Air & Soil Pollution, Volume 98, Nos. 3-4, (2004) pp. 241-254.
16
P.P. Bibbo, Engineering Foundation Conference on coal blending and switching of low sulfur western coals,
Snowbird, UT, ASME, (1994), pp. 301-321.
5-6
low softening temperature enters the convective pass at elevated temperature, due to the higher
combustion temperature of the bituminous coal. This would result in more severe fouling of the
superheaters.
The high concentrations of organically bound Ca, Na, and Mg in low-rank coal ash form reactive
fluxing agents upon combustion that reduce the viscosity of liquid phases and produce sticky
layers on furnace walls and superheater surfaces. These sticky tube surfaces capture impacting
particles with high efficiency, leading to enhanced slagging and fouling.
17

Predictive indices and models in the technical literature can give guidance about the slagging and
fouling behavior of coal blends. A combination of Computer Controlled Scanning Electron
Microscopy (CCSEM) and mathematical modeling is capable of predicting the fouling tendency
of a blend relative to that of a design coal.
18

Experience in power plants shows that by keeping the furnace walls clean of the highly reflective
slag formed from the low-rank coal ash, increase in furnace exit gas temperature can be avoided
and the fouling of the superheaters reduced. Superheater fouling is managed by increased
frequency of sootblowing, but boilers with finned economizers may have fouling problems.
Coal Blending
Blending of different coal types is a popular method to control emissions, save fuel costs, or
improve the combustion behavior of the design coal. As noted above, coal blending may also
have significant positive or negative effects on boiler operation:
Coal preparation: drying and grinding of coal
Combustion properties: coal devolatilization, ignition, flame stability, carbon burn out
Formation and emission of pollutants: NO
X
, SO
X
, Hg, PM
2.5

Ash deposition: slagging of furnace walls; fouling in the convective pass of the boiler
Ash quality: carbon and alkali content of the fly ash
ESP performance
Plant experience highlights the need for extra attention to operating practices if the advantages of
coal blending are to be realized. This care extends from controlling coal blend drying and
grinding to specification in the mills, to maintaining a homogeneous feed to the burners, and to
keeping furnace walls and convective heat exchange surfaces clean by increased frequency
sootblowing.
Blend Impact on Coal Grinding
Coal blending can be carried out at different points along the transport chain: at coal mines, at
coal cleaning plants, or at power plants. At the power plant, blending can take place in stock
piles, bins, bunkers or silos, on belt conveyors, or downstream of separate grinding mills.

17
T.F. Wall et al., Engineering Foundation Conference on coal blending and switching of low sulfur western coals,
Snowbird, UT, ASME, (1994) pp. 453-463.
18
J.M. Ber, A.F.Sarofim, and L.E. Barta, Journal of Institute of Energy, 65 (462); (1992) pp. 655-62.
5-7
Although the choice of blending method is situation- or site-specific, all methods require care to
ensure blending accuracy. This is especially important because blend evaluation by standard
analytical tests is complicated by the non-additive nature of some coal properties. For optimal
choice of coal type and blend fractions, standard analytical methods should be supplemented
with more sophisticated analytical techniques such as CCSEM, computational modeling, pilot
plant experiments, and a review of local conditions of coal drying and grinding. Ultimately, tests
using the actual coal blend and mill may be required to determine feasibility and optimal mill
settings.
Coal blending options may be limited by safety measures and other considerations. For example,
when increasing the blend fraction of lower rank, higher moisture coals, issues with dust or
volatiles may limit the use of higher drying air temperature. At the same time, extra drying to
enable finer grinding may not be necessary as the lower rank coal may perform adequately with
coarser particle size than is necessary for bituminous coal.
Blend Impact on Combustion and Deposition
Combustion and fouling are areas where important coal properties are non-additive for the
prediction of properties of coal blends. For example, NO
X
formations may be reduced as a result
of synergistic interactions between component properties. Others factors, such as unburned
carbon in fly ash, slagging and fouling of furnace-and superheater tube surfaces, and ESP
performance, are prone to becoming worse than weighted mean values of coal properties would
indicate.
Experience with coal blending in PC plants suggests that the addition of 2530% low-rank coal
to bituminous coal can improve burner performance (not withstanding a necessary reduction in
mill exit temperature). Homogeneity of the blend is important; slugs of low-rank coal reaching
the burner produce rapid changes in flame length and can cause flame failure when the low-rank
coal fraction drops, potentially leading to damaging pressure pulses in the furnace as another
slug appears.
Blend Impact on Emissions
An important driver for coal blending may be reduction of air emissions, most notably SO
2
, but
potentially also mercury, NO
X
, and particulate matter.
As mercury control gains importance, synergistic interactions between constituents in the
different coals becomes an important consideration for blend evaluation, along with reassessment
of the desirable level of unburned carbon in fly ash. Chloride content in one coal may help with
reduction of emissions resulting from high mercury levels in another. Blend and grind
specifications may increase or decrease the amount of mercury that is absorbed by carbon in the
fly ash versus activated carbon injected for mercury control.
Along with fine particulate matter, the ultimate destination of adsorbed mercury is determined by
ESP performance, which is influenced by ash resistivity that in turn is a function of carbon-in-
ash and other constituents derived from the coal blend.
The quantities and species of fuel NO
X
and SO
X
produced in the furnace are determined by both
content of these species in the fuel blend and the combustion properties of the blend. Ultimate
emissions of these pollutants are further influenced by chloride content, which can increase
5-8
oxidation of SO
2
to SO
3
in the SCR catalyst, and other constituents that can degrade SCR catalyst
performance.
6-1
6
IMPROVING PLANT EFFICIENCY WITH ADVANCED
STEAM CONDITIONS
The efficiency of a Rankine-cycle generating unit is a strong function of steam temperature and
pressure at the turbine inlets. Increasing the maximum operating pressure and/or the maximum
operating temperature of a supercritical steam generator can provide significant improvement in
the net efficiency of the unit. Being able to increase steam temperature is especially important;
an incremental boost in either final superheat or reheat temperature provides almost five times
the cycle efficiency improvement of an equal percentage boost in main steam pressure.
Cost-effective implementation of higher steam conditions requires an increased standard of care
by the designers, fabricators, and operators of the steam generator, steam turbine, and associated
balance of plant equipment. The materials selection, component geometry, fabrication
techniques, component integration, control system design, and operating practices all contribute
to achieving required standards for capital and operating costs, reliability, availability, and
maintainability.
This chapter primarily addresses material properties and aging mechanisms for advanced ferritic
steel alloys for use in ultra-supercritical steam generators with nominal 1100F (600C) final
steam temperatures. Steam generator materials of construction must be selected carefully and
installed correctly. The worldwide experience base is still fairly limited for alloys which are
suitable for use at ultra-supercritical steam conditions. For some of these materials, experience
has shown that rigorous welding practices are critical for achieving required resistance to aging
mechanisms such as creep, fatigue, and corrosion. For advanced USC materials, such as nickel-
base alloys, the cost of the materials themselves can be a high proportion of capital cost, and
availability of materials must be considered when planning construction schedules.
Designing for High Steam Pressure: >3750 psi (>260 bar)
In general, to increase plant efficiency, increasing steam pressure is not as effective as increasing
steam temperature. As pressure is raised, component stresses rise proportionately, requiring
either thicker walls for tubing and headers or a switch to a higher strength steel. Both of these
options add cost to the steam generator. Further costs are inherent in the increased structural
strength requirements for the heavier components. Adding thickness to components can also
increase thermal fatigue and maximum metal temperature at the tube OD.
Nonetheless, if a very corrosive coal is to be used, it may be more economical to raise steam
pressure rather than steam temperatures. This can avoid the considerable expense incurred when
it is necessary to use exotic alloys in the superheaters and reheaters. For less aggressive coals,
and where the highest efficiencies are sought, raising both steam pressure and temperature
should be considered.
6-2
Designing for High Steam Temperatures: 10501150F (565620C)
19

Development of stronger and more corrosion resistant high-temperature steels constitutes the
main enabling technology needed to allow plant designers to employ higher steam parameters.
This is particularly true for critical pressure parts of the steam generator such as piping, headers,
and superheater tubes. These applications call for not only creep strength but also for resistance
to fireside and steamside corrosion and ease of welding, fabrication, and coating.
Even with these challenging, multi-faceted requirements, many new alloys have been developed
that appear capable of operation under severe steam conditions. These include ferritic/martensitic
steel alloys with 9-12% chrome, austenitic stainless steel alloys, and nickel-base alloys. These
alloys have been developed through over two decades of worldwide activities focused on high-
temperature material. Significant new information continues to be developed for the most
prevalent of these high-strength alloys, the modified 9Cr-1Mo-V steel with the ASTM
designations P91 and T91. T91 was first applied in fossil power boiler superheater tubing in the
early 1980s. P91 was first used in fossil power plant headers in the late 1980s.
Continuing development and study is aimed at better meeting the key requirements for critical
components for ultra-supercritical plants as outlined below:
High-pressure steam piping and headers
High creep strength
Thermal fatigue strength
Resistance to steamside oxidation and exfoliation
Weldability, including pre- and post-weld heat treat requirements
Superheater/Reheater tubing
High creep strength
Resistance to fireside corrosion
Resistance to steamside oxidation and exfoliation
Waterwall tubing
High creep strength
Resistance to steamside corrosion and cracking
Resistance to fireside corrosion and cracking
High-energy steam piping carries high-pressure, high-temperature steam from the steam
generator to the turbine. Like high-energy piping, waterwall (evaporator), superheater, and
reheater headers are fabricated with large diameters and thick walls. They also have numerous

19
All temperatures cited in this section are steam temperatures unless otherwise specified. For headers and piping,
metal temperature is nearly equal to the steam temperature. For final superheater tubing, the maximum mean metal
temperature is generally up to 100F (55C) higher than the average bulk steam temperature.
6-3
penetrations where the heat exchange tubes are attached. The geometry, materials, and welding
procedures used for these components must provide:
Sufficient creep strength to allow them to operate at high temperatures and pressures for their
desired design life
Resistance to fatigue from thermally and mechanically induced stresses.
Thermal fatigue is a particular concern for thick-walled piping and headers, which may
experience high temperature differentials across the wall thickness caused by rapid steam
temperature changes or condensate flow events during start-up, shutdown, load changes,
and attemperator operation.
Calculations for creep life and fatigue life must also consider interactions between these
two mechanisms (creep-fatigue).
Units that experience wet steam conditions with significant cycling operation or
attemperator operation may also experience corrosion-fatigue.
Ferritic/martensitic steels are preferred because of their lower coefficient of thermal expansion
and higher thermal conductivity compared with austenitic stainless steels. Many of the early
problems in the U.S. supercritical plants were traceable to the use of austenitic steels prone to
thermal fatigue. Research during the last two decades has, therefore, focused on developing cost-
effective, high-strength ferritic/martensitic and high-nickel steels that can be used in lieu of
austenitic steels for higher temperature applications. This has resulted in ferritic steels capable of
operating at metal temperatures up to 1150F (620C) with good weldability and fracture
toughness while retaining a relatively low coefficient of thermal expansion.
Superheater and reheater (SH/RH) tubing applications call for high creep strength, thermal
fatigue strength, weldability, resistance to fireside corrosion, and resistance to steamside
oxidation and oxide exfoliation. Along with cost considerations, thermal fatigue resistance would
dictate the use of ferritic/martensitic steels. Unfortunately, the strongest of these steels, on the
basis of creep rupture strength for metal temperature up to 1150F (620C), also experiences
fireside corrosion that limits their use to maximum metal temperature of about 1100F (593C).
This corresponds to an average steam temperature of about 1000F (540C), because maximum
mean temperature in SH/RH tube walls can exceed the average bulk steam temperature by as
much as 100F (55C).
Excessive corrosion of ferritic steels, caused by liquid iron-alkali sulfates in the tube deposits, is
an acute concern in the United States where high-sulfur, corrosive coals are used more frequently
than elsewhere. As a result, high-strength ferritic/martensitic steels, such as T91, are infrequently
used for final superheater/reheater applications in the United States. In conventional pulverized
coal plants, the standard practice is to use T22 for the lower temperatures and SS304H or SS347
for the higher temperatures.
For waterwall tubing, the concern is twofold:
The first concern is metal temperaturesupercritical pressures result in a monophase fluid
which increases in temperature continuously up the height of the furnace. The supercritical
fluid does not provide the superior cooling effect and even temperature distribution seen with
nucleate boiling in the waterwall tubes of subcritical drum boilers. The higher temperatures,
especially at higher elevations, require use of materials with higher creep strength.
6-4
The second concern is corrosion that results from the combination of high tube crown
temperatures, reducing conditions at the wall surfaces, and higher sulfur/iron coals. Furnace
wall tubes with this exposure can experience excessive wastage rates and cracking. Reducing
or eliminating excessive corrosion requires use of weldable, high-strength alloys with high-
chrome alloy cladding or overlays.
20, 21

Steam Generator Components
Furnace Wall Corrosion
Waterwall tubing in once-through supercritical boilers is subject to significant potential for
corrosion and for cracking associated with corrosion because of its exposure to high
temperatures and to coal ash and combustion chemistry. This vulnerability is seen with both
spiral and vertical tube arrangements. An accumulation of research, spanning over 60 years, has
identified numerous mechanisms and contributors to corrosion and cracking of waterwall tubing.
Some of these mechanisms are applicable to all types of boilers whereas a few are nearly
exclusive to supercritical waterwalls.
Not all supercritical furnace walls experience corrosion. For those that do, it has generally been
observed that high rates of corrosion are influenced by one or more of the following factors:
Coal and ash chemistry
Presence of a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere at the tube surface
High temperature at the tube surface
Tube metal composition
Unit loading profile, especially frequent on-off or deep load cycling
Incorrect or poorly controlled feedwater chemistry
Corrosion mechanisms involve some form of damage to the oxide layer of furnace wall tubing,
which will generally protect the base metal as long as it is stable. The oxide layer will remain
stable as long as an oxidizing atmosphere is maintained at the tube surface. The oxide layer will
be lost if reducing conditions are present because the metal oxide will be reduced to elemental
iron and oxygen (in a manner similar to a blast furnace). These protective oxide products are lost
from the tube and carried away with the ash and flue gases. As oxidizing conditions are again
restored, the oxide layer is regenerated, at the expense of the base metal.
The most severe form of wastage occurs with conditions that alternate frequently between
oxidizing and reducing, which occurs mostly in boilers with low-NO
X
burners and frequent load
cycling. This phenomenon leads to alternate destruction of the oxide layer and regeneration of
the layer by further oxidation of the base metal. Significant wastage rates can occur even in the
absence of other corrosive agents. More severe wastage occurs when this mechanism is
combined with those agents.

20
R. Viswanathan, R. Purget, and U. Rao, Materials Technology for Advanced Coal Power Plants, 2003,
Technology Review sponsored by USDOE and Ohio Coal Research Office.
21
R. Viswanathan and W.T. Bakker, Materials for Ultra Supercritical Coal Power Plants, Boiler Materials: Part 1,
and Turbine Materials: Part 2, Journal of Materials Engg. and Performance, ASM, Vol. 10(1), (Feb 2001), pp.
81-100.
6-5
To meet ever tightening NO
X
emission requirements, manufacturers seek to reduce NO
X

from the boiler to the greatest degree possible to control SCR catalyst expense and
ammonia consumption. This often leads to the introduction of deeply staged combustion
systems, in which the air/fuel ratio is significantly less than 1.0, and additional
combustion air is added above the burners via overfire air ports. Several boilers in the
United States retrofitted with such systems have reported severe corrosion of low alloy
steel waterwalls, with metal losses in the 40120 mil/yr (13 mm/yr) range.
Supercritical units are generally more severely affected than subcritical units due to the
higher tube surface temperatures. Severe corrosion is generally limited to coals with more
than 1%S. However, above 1% sulfur there is no strict correlation between S and
corrosion rate. The highest corrosion losses are found in regions where H
2
S rich
substiochiometric flue gas mixes with air from the overfire air ports. Laboratory studies
indicate that the high corrosion rates cannot be explained by the presence of H
2
S and CO
in the flue gas alone. Work by Kung has shown that corrosion rates in gas mixtures
actually found in boilers containing 5001500 pm H
2
S and 510% CO are generally less
than 20 mils/yr (0.5 mm/yr) at 840F (450C).
22
More recently it was shown that the
presence of FeS deposits can greatly increase the corrosion rate, but only under
alternating oxidizing/reducing conditions or oxidizing conditions alone.
Sulfidation is another key mechanism for wastage of waterwalls. Sulfides of hydrogen, sodium,
and potassium can form in furnace wall deposits, for example, which can form low melting point
eutectics with the tube metal. These eutectics can be very corrosive above a critical temperature,
even taking the form of intergranular crack formation. Sulfur can be more of a problem for
waterwalls when reducing conditions are experienced. Although much more prevalent around the
burner zone, with very deep and delayed fuel and air staging it is possible to get reducing
conditions at the waterwalls even in the upper furnace. Sulfidation of the waterwalls in the
presence of hydrogen sulfide is a key mechanism for wastage of waterwalls.
Other mechanisms and influences include metal chloride attack resulting from HCl and chloride
salts and corrosion fatigue at the steamside rear wall of waterwall tubing.
Furnace Wall Cracking
The mechanism specifically identified as supercritical waterwall cracking presents with
multiple, parallel cracks, which are often V-shaped and oxide coated, on the fireside tube surface
or membrane.
23
The cracking and spalling of the tube surface is some times referred to as
alligator cracking, cross cracking, or elephant skin. This mechanism may result from wall
thinning with fireside corrosion, increased tube metal temperatures resulting from excessive
internal deposits, and/or thermal cycling caused by slagging and deslagging. The phenomenon
has been observed in many earlier U.S. supercritical steam generator designs.
Two thermal fatigue mechanisms appear to be responsible for initiation of the cracks, which may
then be accelerated by corrosion mechanisms. The first fatigue mechanism is caused by the
preferential heating of only one side (furnace side) of the tubes. Because the tubes are

22
S.K. Kung, Prediction of Corrosion Rate for Alloys Exposed to Reducing/Sulfidizing Combustion Gases,
Corrosion 97, NACE (1997), pp 97-136.
23
Boiler Condition Assessment Guideline, Fourth Edition. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2006. 1010620.
6-6
constrained to remain straight, the one-sided heating induces a compressive stress on the fire side
of the tube which can eventually lead to irreversible compressive strain (set). When the tube
cools at lower loads and during outages, the surface is put in tension. Multiple occurrences of
this cycle with frequent cycling of the unit or shut downs can lead to fatigue cracking.
The second fatigue mechanism is the shedding of ash or slag from wall tubes. When an
insulating layer of slag is shed or removed from a tube surface, a spike in the heat flux to the
tube surface raises its temperature and restrained thermal expansion puts compressive stress on
the material. As with the stresses developed by more generalized heating, this may result in a
small amount of compressive set. As a new coating of slag forms, the heat flux gradually
reduces, the temperature falls, and restrained thermal contraction places tension on the surface.
These cycles may be repeated many times per day as slag is shed by its own weight, by
sootblowing, and by load fluctuations. Although stresses from this slagging/shedding cycle are
typically less than those from load changes or shutdowns, the cycles are more frequent.
Once cracks are initiated by these fatigue mechanisms, repeated cycles can cause them to
propagate quickly. Crack propagation may expose vulnerable base metal to corrosion
mechanisms which further accelerate crack growth.
Irregular stresses and strains and/or cracking can also cause spalling of protective oxide coating.
This allows corrosion and/or reoxidation of the unprotected tube surface. Repeated cycles of
cracking, spalling, corrosion and wastage can lead to rapid deterioration of the tube walls. The
mechanisms may be accelerated by higher metal temperatures and uneven tube temperatures.
This wastage can be made worse by reducing conditions at the furnace walls, caused by slag
composition or by deeply staged combustion. Spalling can further accelerate the wastage,
mentioned previously, that occurs when load cycling exposes the tube surface to alternating
strong reducing conditions and oxidizing conditions.
Tubes with weld overlay may also experience these fatigue mechanisms. The overlay is typically
a high chrome-nickel alloy which has a slightly higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the
base metal. Although the high alloy is more resistant to corrosion, it may also be more subject to
thermal fatigue cracking as a result of this higher coefficient of thermal expansion. This
vulnerability may be increased by stress concentrations created by the overlay weld profile.
Furnace Wall Metals Selection
The issue of appropriate waterwall metals selection for advanced supercritical units was
addressed early on by Blum.
24
In boilers operating at 4640 psi/1157F (320 bar/625C),
maximum midwall temperatures can be as high as 900980F (500525C) if there are scale
deposits on the inside surface of the tube wall. At the higher temperatures, the creep resistance of
standard low alloy ferritic steels such as T11 is not adequate. T91 steel has been the only suitable
material for this application, with fabrication of this material into waterwalls demonstrated under
the European COST program.
25
However, welding of P91 material must be followed by a well-
controlled post-weld heat treatment procedure, which is difficult to perform in the field.

24
R. Blum, Materials Development for Power Plants with Advanced Steam Parameters: Utility Point of View,
Proc. Materials for Advanced Power Eng., 3-6 Oct. 1994, Liege, Belgium, Kluwer Ac. Publ. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 15.
25
C.J. Frankling and C. Henry, Materials Development and Requirements for Advanced Boilers, Ref. 31, p 89.
6-7
Two steels developed by Sumitomo and MHI, containing 2.5% and 12% Cr, respectively, appear
to be more promising for waterwall fabrication because they do not require preheat or post-weld
heat treatment.
26, 27, 28
Both steels have creep strength in the same range as T91 and use similar
precipitation strengthening mechanisms. The 2.5% Cr steel appears to be particularly suitable
and has recently been approved, as T23, by the ASME boiler code committee. Test panels are
now in service in various boilers.
Superheater and Reheater Design
Superheater and Reheater Corrosion
For designs with higher final steam temperatures, the final superheater and reheater elements are
among the most critical areas of the steam generator. These elements experience the highest
metal temperatures and therefore require high resistance to creep, oxidation, and liquid phase ash
corrosion. Although the reheater will always be at a lower operating pressure, with less stress on
the metal, concerns for ash corrosion and oxidation remain.
Ash constituents can be particularly aggressive at these locations. Many of the early U.S.
attempts at higher steam temperatures, including Eddystone Unit 1, were frustrated by
unexpectedly high corrosion rates of superheater elements. Although metals were found with
adequate strength at the very high temperatures, they had very little resistance to ash corrosion.
Ultimately, the final temperatures of the Eddystone unit had to be lowered to reduce corrosion
rates to acceptable levels with the fuels that the plant owner wished to fire.
Coal and coal ash chemistry are primary factors that must be known for predicting high
temperature ash corrosion potential. Although sulfur and chlorine are often named as primary
agents, it is the combination of certain coal constituents that determines the corrosion potential.
In fact, some constituents (e.g., Mg and Ca) are sometimes credited for being mitigators of ash
corrosion.
Numerous opinions and theories attempt to explain the mechanisms and constituents responsible
for high temperature ash corrosion. It is generally accepted that rapid corrosion rates of
superheater and reheater tubing may be facilitated by alkalis, chlorides, sulfur, iron, and other
low melting constituents (lead and zinc). Alkalis are the elements in the first column of the
periodic table, with sodium and potassium being the most common. Salts and oxides of these
elements melt at relatively low temperatures, in the range of 11001400F (590760C), to form
compounds and eutectics such as alkali-iron trisulfates. In the molten state, these compounds are
very aggressive in attacking tubing materials. For final steam temperatures in the range of 1100
1200F (590650C), the outside tube surfaces temperatures, which are 50150F (2883C)
above3 the steam temperatures, are in the sweet spot for the aggressive molten phase of these
alkali sulfates.
The Borio Index is one of the most widely used tools for predicting the interrelated corrosion
effects of relevant constituents in coal. Borio developed a nomograph to predict ash corrosion
potential of eastern U.S. coals, based on the following constituents:

26
Blum, op. cit.
27
Frankling and Henry, op. cit.
28
F. Masuyama, Y. Sawargi et al., Development of a Tungsten Strengthened Low Alloy Steel with Improved
Weldability, Reference 31, p 173.
6-8
Acid Soluble K
2
O
Acid Soluble Na
2
O
Fe
2
O
3

CaO
MgO
Interestingly, this index does not directly consider the sulfur in coal. In these eastern U.S. coals,
sulfur is usually related very closely to iron content (occurring as Fe
2
S). In the test burns that
were used to develop the nomograph, iron content appeared to be more indicative of higher
corrosion rates than sulfur content. This was perhaps because the sulfur in pyrite contributed
more to corrosive reactions by way of slag deposits on the walls.
The Borio Index also does not account for the chlorine in coal. The role of chlorine with respect
to corrosion is a subject of some controversy. Based on U.S. experience, some cite alkali
chlorides as significant agents in waterwall corrosion. Experience in the United Kingdom has
also contributed to this conclusion, as boilers using high-chloride, high-alkali coals have
experienced notoriously high corrosion rates. Other opinions hold that chlorides facilitate the
volatilization of alkalis that would normally remain bound in clays and that these freed alkalis
abet the alkali-iron trisulfate corrosive mechanism. These parties believe that higher chlorine
levels in U.S. fuels will not necessarily contribute to higher corrosion rates unless there are also
significant sources of alkali in the coal.
It has been suggested that chlorides can be detrimental throughout the steam generator and back-
end equipment, all the way to the stack. One mechanism for tube wall wastage is the formation
of iron chloride salts that vaporize at operating temperatures. As this corrosion product is carried
away by the gas flow, the vulnerable tube wall may continue thinning until it fails. Chlorides
may also have the ability attack at the location of any weakness in the metal grain structure.
Often a pit will form and cause a failure even though the rest of the tube is sound.
Chlorides in the fuel form hydrochloric acid (HCl) in the flue gas if there is sufficient moisture
from the air, fuel, or combustion products. By itself, gaseous HCl is not terribly corrosive.
However, being a strong acid, it displaces other anions in salts to form metal chlorides, which
can be aggressive. The combination of alkalis and chlorides may be particularly damaging. As
with many chemical reactions, the corrosion rate due to chloride mechanisms generally rises as
temperature rises. Advancing steam temperatures therefore heighten concerns about chloride
induced attack along with alkali trisulfate attack. Due to these concerns, steam generator
designers/manufacturers generally use the following guidelines to establish relative
corrosiveness of fuels based on chlorine content:
<0.2% Cl: Low corrosion potential
0.20.3% Cl: Moderate corrosion potential
>0.3% Cl: High corrosion potential
Oxidation and Exfoliation of Tube Metals
Steam-side oxidation of tubes with subsequent exfoliation of the oxide scale is a well known
cause of solid-particle erosion damage to the turbine as well as plugging of superheater and
6-9
reheater tubes. This problem is expected to be more severe in advanced steam plants, because the
much higher steam temperatures are likely to cause more rapid formation of oxide scale.
Superheater and Reheater Metals Selections
As higher steam temperatures are considered, metals must be selected to accomplish the
following objectives in the highest temperature sections of the superheater and reheater:
Adequate strength at the temperatures and pressures of service
Low oxidation rates at the temperature of service
Adequate corrosion resistance for the coal and ash characteristics expected at the temperature
of service
Creep Rupture Strength
In high temperature superheater and reheater design, it is noted again that the average mean
metal temperature can be higher than the steam temperature by as much as 50150F (2883C).
Thus, tubes made of T22 should be limited to maximum steam temperature of 1000F (538C).
Alloys T91, HCM12, EM12, HCM9M, and HT91 are limited to maximum steam temperature of
1050F (565C). Alloys T92, P122, and E911 are limited to maximum steam temperature of
1100F (593C), or metal temperature of about 1150F (620C). Under corrosive conditions,
however, even the best ferritic steel may be limited to about 1125F (610C). Some austenitic
steels are suitable for SH and RH tube applications with metal temperatures in the range of
11501250F (620675C). Above 1250F (675C), nickel-base alloys are needed.
For convenience, austenitic steels can be classified as those containing less than 20% Cr and
those containing more than 20% Cr. Alloy modifications based on the 18Cr-8Ni steels, such as
TP304H, 316H, 347H, and alloys with lower chromium and higher nickel contents, such as 17
14 CuMo steel, fall into the classification of steels with less than 20% Cr. The allowable tensile
stresses for steels in this class are intermediate between ferritic steels and high Cr austenitic
stainless steels. Some high-creep-strength alloys containing more than 20% Cr, such as HR3C
(TP310H Nb-N), have been developed and accepted by ASME Code Case. These alloys offer
low-cost alternatives to Incoloy 800 for use in the temperature range of 11501250F (620
675C).
Oxidation Resistance
Very limited data are available regarding the steam-side scale-growth characteristics of the
ferritic tubing alloys. The following study results provide useful information:
In a study by Sumitomo Metal Industries,
29
the oxide growth in steam for alloys T22
(2-1/4Cr-1Mo), T9, HCM9M, and T91 (modified 9Cr-1Mo) were compared using 500-hour
tests. Results showed the superiority of the T91 alloy over the other alloys.
Masuyama et al. compared alloys HCM12, HCM9M, 321H, and 347H in field tests in the
temperature range 10201155F (550625C) over a period of one year.
30
Samples were

29
Properties of Super 9Cr Steel Tube (ASTM) A 213-T 91, Report 803 F-No. 1023, Sumitomo Metal Industries, (July
1983).
6-10
inserted in the tertiary and secondary superheaters and reheaters. Based on results, they
concluded that the resistance to steam oxidation of HCM12 is superior to those of 321H and
HCM9M and comparable to that of fine-grained 347H for exposure to the high-temperature
region of the reheater. Subsequent monitoring over a period of three years has borne out the
earlier conclusions.
31

In addition to the inherent resistance of HCM12M steel to steam-side oxidation, Masuyama
et al. suggest that the tendency toward exfoliation of oxide scale would also be less for this
alloy than for austenitic steels.
32, 33

Additional improvements in 912% Cr steels may be possible by extending the
chromizing
34, 35
and chromate conversion treatments
36
that currently are applied to lower-alloy
steels. Grain refinement during heat treatment has been shown to be clearly beneficial as
well.
Internal shot blasting is also known to improve the steam oxidation resistance of 300 series
stainless steels by enhancing chromium diffusion. It is therefore anticipated that these steels
would be used in the fine-grain and shot-peened conditions.
Results of steam oxidation tests at 1200F (650C) for times up to 2000 h have been reported
for several austenitic steels.
37

Steamside oxidation results on Ni base alloys are not available. The upper temperature limits
for these alloys have not been defined.
Corrosion Resistance
Because resistance to fire-side corrosion increases with chromium content, the 912% Cr ferritic
steels are more resistant than the 2-1/4Cr-1Mo steels currently used. The 12% Cr steel in turn
shows better corrosion resistance than 2-1/4% Cr steel and 9% Cr steel. Stainless steels and other
superalloys containing up to 30% Cr represent a further improvement. Increasing the chromium
content beyond 30% results in a saturation effect on the corrosion resistance (according to

30
F. Masuyama et al., Development and Applications of a High Strength, 12% Cr Steel Tubing with Improved
Weldability, Technical Review, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Japan, (Oct. 1986), pp 229-237.
31
F. Masuyama et al., Three Years of Experience with a New 12% Cr Steel in Superheater, Advanced Materials
Technology for Fossil Fuel Power Plants, R. Viswanathan and R.I. Jaffee, Eds., American Society for Metals,
Metals Park, OH, (1987), pp 259-266.
32
F. Masuyama et al., Development and Applications of a High Strength, 12% Cr Steel Tubing with Improved
Weldability, Technical Review, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Japan, (Oct. 1986), pp 229-237.
33
F. Masuyama et al., Three Years of Experience with a New 12% Cr Steel in Superheater, Advanced Materials
Technology for Fossil Fuel Power Plants, R. Viswanathan and R.I. Jaffee, Eds., American Society for Metals,
Metals Park, OH, (1987), pp 259-266.
34
A.J. Blazewicz and M. Gold, Chromizing and Turbine Solid Particle Erosion, ASME Paper No. 78, JPGC PWR-
7, Joint ASME/IEEE/ASCE Power Generation Conference, Dallas, (Sept 1978). See also: P.L. Daniel et al.,
Steamside Oxidation Resistance of Chromized Superheater Tubes, CORROSION 80, NACE Conference,
Chicago, (May 1980).
35
P.L. Daniel et al., Steamside Oxidation Resistance of Chromized Superheater Tubes, CORROSION 80, NACE
Conference, Chicago, (May 1980).
36
J.M. Rehn et al., Controlling Steamside Exfoliation in Utility Boiler Superheaters and Reheaters, Paper No. 192,
CORROSION 80, NACE Conference, Chicago, (May 1980).
37
K. Kubo et al., Application of Boiler Tubing Tempalloy Series to the Heat Exchanger of Advanced Coal-Fired
Boilers, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Improved Coal-Fired Power Plants, A.F. Armor,
W.T. Bakker, R.I. Jaffee, and G. Touchton, Eds., Report CS-5581-SR, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, (1988), pp 5-237 to
5-254.
6-11
laboratory experiments). For practical purposes, when corrosive conditions are present, fine
distinctions between ferritic steels may be academic, as it is usually necessary to use austenitic
steels containing chromium in excess of 20%.
Extensive field experience at EPRI and TVA has shown fireside corrosion is very localized, even
with very corrosive coals. Thus, 20% Cr alloys are generally suitable as the primary material of
construction. Specific areas where severe corrosion is predicted by combustion modeling or
found after initial operation can then be made more corrosive resistant by applying high
chromium weld overlays. Austenitic steels are generally better candidate alloys than ferritic
steels for tubing transitions from Ni alloys used in high vulnerability areas.
Considerable development and commercialization work is being done to provide materials which
address thee issues of high temperature strength, oxidation resistance and corrosion resistance.
Commercially available and proven materials for high temperature applications which have been
included in ASME Section 2, or have been accepted by Code Case (CC), are presented in Figure
6-1.
These currently commercial materials are sufficient to allow designs up to 1150F (620C) for
many coal types. For some of the more corrosive coals, it may be desired to arrange the
superheater circuitry with flow concurrent with the gas flow. This is less efficient for surface
utilization, but will allow lower maximum tube surface temperatures which will lower the
corrosion potential for these problem coals. For the most aggressive coals, even HR3C (SA-213
TP310H-Nb-N) arranged in concurrent flow may not provide adequate corrosion resistance when
final steam temperatures are as high as 1150F (620C). In these situations, the Owner/Engineer
may decide lower steam temperatures will be necessary. If there is a strong impetus for the
highest temperatures, however, a preventive inspection/maintenance program may be feasible to
monitor corrosion areas and prevent forced outages due to tube failures. Alternately, coating with
a corrosion inhibiting metal spray can be considered, although such coatings will themselves
likely require an inspection and maintenance program.

Table 6-1
Temperature Limits for Materials Proven in High-Temperature Applications
Material Specification Nominal
Composition
Max. Temperature Limit at O.D.
for corrosion resistance, F (C)
for Sulfur (S) in Fuel, wt %
S<1.2 1.2<S<1.8 S>1.8
SA-213 T22 2 Cr, 1 Mo 1100 (593) 1100 (593) 1075 (579)
SA-213 T23 (CC: 2199) 2 Cr, 1.6 W, V, Nb 1100 (593) 1100 (593) 1075 (579)
SA-213 T91 9 Cr, 1 Mo, V 1125 (607) 1125 (607) 1100 (593)
SA-213 T92 (CC: 2179) 9 Cr, 2W, Mo, V, Nb, N 1125 (607) 1125 (607) 1100 (593)
SA-213 T122 (CC: 2180) 12 Cr, 1.5 W, Mo, V, Nb,
N, Cu
1150 (621) 1150 (621) 1125 (607)
SA-213 TP304 18 Cr, 8 Ni 1400 (760) 1150 (621) 1125 (607)
6-12
Super 304 (CC: 2328) 18 Cr, 9 Ni, 3 Cu, Nb, N 1400 (760) 1150 (621) 1125 (607)
SA-213 TP347 18 Cr, 10 Ni, Nb 1400 (760) 1150 (621) 1125 (607)
SA-213 TP347 HFC
(CC:2159)
18 Cr, 10 Ni, Nb, fine
grain
1400 (760) 1150 (621) 1125 (607)
SA-213 TP310H Nb N
(HR3C) (CC: 2115)
25 Cr, 20 Ni, Nb, N 1500 (816) 1250 (677) 1225 (663)

Recommendations for High Steam Temperature Applications
Supercritical steam generators are likely to require larger furnace volumes when steam
conditions are increased to improve heat rate, and as lower NO
X
combustion is implemented.
Larger furnace volume provides several advantages for optimizing furnace materials selection,
performance and reliability. For the same level of heat input, the higher furnace volume provides
a lower volumetric heat release rate, resulting in a lower mean bulk temperature. This lower
mean bulk temperature tends to reduce the tendency for molten or sticky ash to reach the
waterwalls and form deposits or running slag. As lower temperatures promote less NO
X

formation, less severe staging of combustion air is required. Further, reducing mean bulk
temperature reduces the intensity of radiation heat flux to the walls and the peak metal
temperatures on the crowns of the tubes. These reduced metal temperatures translate into lower
corrosion potentials and reduced likelihood of ash adherence.
The larger furnace volume also results in a higher gas residence time. This increased residence
time allows the gases to reach a lower average temperature leaving the furnace, which, in turn,
promotes resolidification of molten or sticky ash particles.
The maintenance of consistently oxidizing conditions, at the waterwalls, is particularly important
in mitigating ferric oxide reduction, sulfidation and alkali-chloride attack. The methods
employed by equipment suppliers to accomplish this include curtain air, boundary air, offset air,
and concentric air. Although it is desirable to have an oxidizing atmosphere at the furnace wall, it
is not desirable to have fuel combustion or unburned carbon deposits at the wall. Such a
condition may further contribute toward corrosion mechanisms due to the generation of the
reducing gas constituent, CO. It is important to design burners or fuel nozzles which have good
jet penetration into the furnace and avoid flame lick-back on the furnace walls.
To assure the success of a furnace wall air blanketing system, it is necessary to verify that the
furnace manufacture has adequate experience for similar size units with similar firing systems
burning similar coals. Steam generator suppliers should be asked to provide a history of
development and experience with their systems that demonstrates adequate understanding of this
design area. One good way to verify effectiveness of a given system is to observe improvements
in corrosion rates resulting from a retrofit of a system. For example, a degree of confidence can
be established if a retrofit system has been demonstrated to show marked reductions in
wastage/corrosion rates in a unit firing an aggressive coal (e.g., high sulfur, chorine, alkali, etc.),
even if the system has not been used for a new unit firing aggressive coals.
An alternative or supplementary approach for addressing furnace wall corrosion and
superheater/reheater tube corrosion with more aggressive coals and/or higher steam temperatures
is to provide metal surfaces which are very resistant to corrosion. The first step is to move to
6-13
base tube metals which are more resistant (e.g., the T22, T23 metals which have a little higher
chromium). T91 tubes have more chromium still, but present significant difficulty with field
welding due to unforgiving heat treatment requirements. Some available high chromium alloys
with improved corrosion resistance for superheater and reheater surfaces are listed below.
Furnace wall coatings (e.g., flame spray, metallizing), including plasma sprays and high velocity
oxy-fuel (HVOF), have been steadily improving and are very effective while the coatings remain
on the tubes. These coatings have been applied to superheater and reheater surfaces, as well, with
varying success. Vendors should be queried about recent experience and longevity of their
offered coating systems. Some economic analysis of initial cost versus maintenance cost of the
coating will be necessary.
One of the most effective corrosion deterrents is weld overlay. A high chromium/nickel alloy has
been proven to be very effective at arresting even severe corrosion situations. Candidate overlay
weld metals include In617 (22Cr, 44.5 Ni), In72 (44Cr, balNi), and In671 (48Cr, balNi).
Austenitic TP 309 has also been used as an overlay material in the past, but has the disadvantage
of a higher thermal coefficient of expansion compared with the base furnace tube metals. The
high chrome-nickel alloys have good corrosion resistance and have a thermal coefficient of
expansion close to that of ferritic tubing. However, with the slight difference in expansion
coefficient, and because the overlay makes for an overall thicker metal wall, overlay is
sometimes more subject to thermal fatigue cracking than bare tubes.
Extensive development in strengthening of 912% ferritic steels (T91/P91, T92/P92, T122/P122)
as well as advanced austenitics (Super 304, TP347 HFG, HR3C) have resulted in
temperature/pressure capabilities well over the conventional framework of about 1000F (540C)
for the steam. Nearly two dozen plants have been commissioned worldwide with main steam
temperatures of 10801112F (580600C) and pressures of 34004200 psi (235290 bar). To
assure a design which will provide long life and high reliability, it is recommended that specific
materials and temperature limits be imposed in the steam generator specifications according to
the characteristics of the coal. The steam generator supplier should be asked to demonstrate how
his design will adhere to the temperature limits, including expected upsets in steam flow and
uneven absorption rates.
Headers and Piping
Choices of Materials
Material-property requirements for headers and steam piping are likely to be similar. Hence they
have been grouped together. Some differences exist which may affect material selection. The
steam temperature is likely to be more uniform in piping whereas differential heating in the
attached tubing makes headers more subject to time-dependent and location-dependent
6-14
fluctuations. Self-weight-induced stresses are less important for headers than for steam piping.
The location of attemperators, drains, and other connections may influence thermal or
mechanical stresses seen by headers or piping. Depending on the selection of materials for the
superheater/reheater tubes and the header piping, dissimilar-metal welded joints may be required.
Headers generally have thicker walls because of their larger diameters and to provide
reinforcement for penetrations provided for tube and branch connections. The many welded
attachments to inlet stub tubes from reheaters and superheaters and to outlet piping add further
sources of stress. The thicker walls, stress concentrations created by penetrations, stresses
created by attached tubes and piping, and non-uniform temperatures all increase vulnerability to
thermal fatigue.
In the United States, headers and piping have traditionally been made from low alloy steels such
as P11 and P22. For headers, especially, use of lower strength steels increases the required wall
thickness and increases the vulnerability to thermal and mechanical fatigue, especially in units
with significant load cycling. A number of (mostly conventional) units have required expensive
weld repairs and header replacements when fatigue cracks have propagated to the point where
the headers had to be removed from service. A common failure mode is the cracking of the
ligaments between the tube boreholes.
38
Without proper selection of materials, design, and
fabrication techniques, the use of higher temperatures and pressures can further increase the
problem.
With design thicknesses closer to their stress limits, combined with self-weight, main steam
piping and hot reheat piping are more likely to be vulnerable to creep or creep-fatigue
interaction. Several high profile incidents have emphasized the need to monitor and maintain or
replace these piping systems in conventional and supercritical plants. In many cases, seam-
welded P11 and P22 piping have been replaced with seamless P91 or other higher strength steels.
Use of higher strength steels significantly reduces thermal stress mechanisms in thick-walled
piping and headers. Previous attempts to use austenitic steels have not been successful due to
high thermal expansion of these steels. As shown in Table 6-2, ferritic steels can be used up to
the temperature limits indicated. The most creep resistant steels, P92, P122, and P911 can be
used for heavy-section applications up to 1150F (620C), although steamside oxidation may
limit their applicability at higher temperatures. At temperatures exceeding 1150F (620C) but
below about 1250F (675C), austenitic steels may be needed. Beyond 1250F (675C) but
below about 1450F (788C), nickel-base alloys may be used.

38
R. Viswanathan, Damage Mechanisms and Life Assessment of High-Temperature Components, ASM
International, Metals Park, OH, (1989).
6-15
Table 6-2
Evolution of Four Generations of Ferritic Steels
39

Generation Era Alloy Modifications Strength 10
5
hr
Creep Rupture
Achieved MPa
(ksi) at 600C
(1112F)
Example
Alloys
Maximum
Metal Use
Temperature*
C (F)
1 196070 Addition of Mo or Nb,
V to simple 12Cr and
9Cr Mo steels
60 (8.7) EM12,
HCM9M, HT9,
Tempaloy F9,
HT91
565 (1049)
2 197085 Optimization of C, Nb,
V
100 (14.5) HCM12, T91,
HCM2S
593 (1100)
3 198595 Partial substitution of
W for Mo
140 (23.2) P92, P122,
P911 (NF616,
HCM12A)
620 (1148)
4 Emerging Increase of W and
addition of Co
180 (26.1) NF12,
SAVE12
650 (1202)
*Based on 100 MPa/10
5
h
Figure 6-1 shows a plot of the allowable stress at various temperatures for ferritic steels.
40
The
figure clearly shows the enormous advances in the materials technology that have been made in
the last 20 years. Especially at the higher temperatures, the most advanced steels show allowable
stresses that are nearly 2.5 to 3 times that of 2-1/4Cr-1Mo steel (P22), the workhorse steel in
conventional plants. The layering of the alloys into the different generations as noted above is
also evident. HCM12A (P122), NF616 (P92), and E911 emerge as the three highest strength
alloys suitable for ultra-supercritical plants up to 1150F (620C), followed by T91, HCM12,
EM12, and HT91 suitable for intermediate temperatures up to 1100F (593C), followed by T22
for use up to 1050F (565C). NF12 and SAVE12 are still developmental. Alloy HCM2S has
much higher strength than P22 and is weldable, making it suitable for application as a
replacement for P22. Fujita has reported on a modified version of NF12 with aluminum content
below 20 ppm and Ni content below 0.1%. This alloy has better creep properties than NF12 and
is believed to have adequate strength for 1200F (650C) applications.
41

39
R. Viswanathan, R. Purget, and U. Rao, op. cit.
40
F. Masuyama, New Developments in Steels for Power Generation Boilers, in Advanced Heat Resistant Steels
for Power Generation, R. Viswanathan and J.W. Nutting, Eds.; IOM Communications Ltd., London, (1999),
pp 33-48.
41
6-16

Figure 6-1
Comparison of Allowable Stresses of Ferritic Steels for Boiler
42

Some additional design considerations in applying the advanced ferritic steels are as follows:
The advanced alloys NF616, HCM12A and E911 (P92, P122, E911) have essentially the
same high temperature strength as low-end austenitic alloys. However, they have less
oxidation resistance than the austenitic alloys. This parameter of advanced 9Cr to 12Cr alloys
must be more fully evaluated prior to application to high temperature parts.
Post-weld heat treatment (PWHT), along with careful attention to welding procedures, is
always required for welded joints of advanced 9Cr to 12 Cr alloys. This ensures minimal
stress and optimal ductility. To control production and PWHT costs, designs should
maximize shop welding and minimize field connections to reduce field heat treatment as
much as possible.
In the weldment of dissimilar alloys, material selection must be based on consideration of
PWHT temperature.
The creep rupture strength of welded joints is the most important consideration for high
temperature piping and headers with longitudinal (seam) welds. The 9Cr-1Mo alloy and
1Cr-0.5Mo steels would generally not be acceptable materials where these joints are
required.
A further concern is the apparent susceptibility of ferritic steel welds to Type IV cracking,
which occurs at the edges of fine-grained heat-affected zone (HAZ) material adjacent to
unaffected parent material. Susceptibility to this has been clearly demonstrated for
1/2CrMoV, 2-1/4Cr-1Mo and 9Cr-1Mo (T91) steels. Safety margins of 1020% are
sometimes adopted to provide for this mechanism. Because the problem in girth welds is
primarily associated with bending stresses, the problem can be overcome by proper design
and maintenance of piping geometry and pipe supports.

42
F. Masuyama, New Developments in Steels for Power Generation Boilers, in Advanced Heat Resistant Steels
for Power Generation, R. Viswanathan and J.W. Nutting, Eds.; IOM Communications Ltd., London, (1999), pp
33-48.
6-17

Figure 6-2
Comparison of Allowable Stress for Various Metals
Figure 6-2 is a plot of the allowable stresses versus temperatures for comparing the temperature
capabilities of ferritic alloys with austenitic steels and Ni base alloys.
43
The figure also shows the
actual stresses at several steam pressures. The Ni base alloys are superior to the austenitic steels,
which, in turn are better than ferritic steels. The nickel-base alloys Inco740, Haynes 230, IN625,
IN617, HR6W, and HR120 have much higher temperature capability, in decreasing order as
listed compared with austenitic steels, followed by ferritic steels. Purely from the creep strength
point of view, at a pressure of 5500 psi (379 bar) for a 2inch (50 mm) x 0.5 inch (13 mm) tube
(at a stress of 8.6 ksi or 60 MPa), ferritic steels are useful up to about 1150F (620C) (metal
temperature), and austenitic steels up to about 1250F (675C). At metal temperatures higher
than about 1250F (675C), nickel-base alloys are needed. The alloy Inco740 appears capable of
reaching 1450F (788C). Because the thick walled components are used over a range of
conditions, all of the above categories of materials might be used at different locations in an
advanced ultra-supercritical plant.
Advanced Ferritic Materials: Specific Issues Related to Grade 91 Steel
Fossil power plants that are subject to frequent cycling operation can experience early failure due
to fatigue and creep-fatigue damage. To protect against long-term reliability issues it is
advisable, particularly for higher temperature supercritical units, to deploy strong ferritic alloy
steels. For more than 20 years, the 9% chrome material known as Grade 91 has been used in
fossil plant applications. Originally formulated in the United States as a material for the breeder
reactor by Combustion Engineering and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the material then

43
6-18
known as super 9-chrome was standardized in the United States in 198384 and first found its
niche in fossil plants as a design option for advanced supercritical units. Recently, a few cases of
cracking in Grade 91 components during operation have been reported.

Figure 6-3
Vallourec & Mannesmann Hot Neck P91 Fitting
Fossil plant components, such as headers, steam lines, and boiler tubing, have increasingly been
successfully retrofit to existing plants to improve reliability. Figure 6-3 shows a hot neck P91
fitting from Vallourec & Mannesmann.
Today, particularly for superheater tubing and for steam lines and headers, Grade 91 steel is
generally showing its resilience in the fossil power plant industry, validating its early promise as
a breakthrough material of great strength. Lately the search for even stronger ferritic steels has
led to evolutions of the grade 91 material formulation (e.g., Grades 92, 122) using small
additions of tungsten to push the strength limits (Table 6-3).
6-19
Table 6-3
Composition of Advanced Steels, including Tungsten-Containing P92, P122, and E911
EM12 X20 T91/P91 T92/P92 HCM12A
(T122)
E911
C max. 0.15 0.17-0.23 0.08-0.12 0.07-0.13 0.07-0.13 0.09-0.13
Si 0.20-0.65 max. 0.50 0.20-0.50 max. 0.50 max. 0.50 0.10-0.50
Mn 0.80-1.30 max. 1.00 0.30-0.60 0.30-0.60 max. 0.70 0.30-0.60
P max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max. 0.020 max. 0.020 max. 0.020 max. 0.020
S max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max.0.010 max. 0.010 max. 0.010 max. 0.010
Ni max. 0.30 0.30-0.80 max. 0.40 max. 0.40 max. 0.50 0.10-0.40
Cu 0.30-1.70
Cr 8.50-10.50 10.00-12.50 8.00-9.50 8.50-9.50 10.0-12.5 8.50-9.50
Mo 1.70-2.30 0.80-1.20 0.85-1.05 0.30-0.60 0.25-0.60 0.90-1.10
W 1.50-2.00 1.50-2.50 0.90-1.11
V 0.20-0.40 0.25-0.35 0.18-0.25 0.15-0.25 0.15-0.30 0.18-0.25
Nb 0.30-0.55 0.06-0.10 0.04-0.09 0.04-0.10 0.06-0.10
Al max. 0.040 max. 0.040 max. 0.040 max. 0.040
N 0.030-0.070 0.030-0.070 0.040-0.100 0.050-0.090
B 0.001-0.006 max. 0.005 0.0005-0.005

Background on P91 in the Fossil Industry
In the early 1980s, EPRI led teams of boiler and turbine equipment manufacturers and steel
producers from around the world in the search for materials for advanced supercritical fossil
plants. Work under EPRIs RP1403 project on super 9-chrome led to its being selected as an
ASME standardized material in 1984. Clearly stronger than the commonly accepted alloys P11
and P22, applications of P91 to fossil plants began in the late 1980s.
Early U.S. Applications
In 1991, Lower Colorado River Authority replaced a P11 secondary superheater outlet header
that had shown signs of swelling, with a header made of P91 steel.
44
In 1992, Mannesmann
supplied P91 headers as replacements for P22 headers at Dayton Power and Lights Stuart plant
in Aberdeen, Ohio.
45
In 1993, San Diego Gas and Electric replaced P11 main steam line fittings
with P91 in Encina units 4 and 5, when evidence appeared of circumferential weld cracking.
46
In
1993, Consumers Power replaced at Unit 2 of the J.H. Campbell station two P22 secondary

44
LCRA Demonstrates Advanced Material for Replacement Header, EPRI Innovators IN-100457, November 1992.
45
C.P. Bellanca, J. Infield, et al., ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1992.
46
San Diego Gas and Electric Increases Plant Safety by Using F91 Steel in Wye Fittings, EPRI Innovators
IN-103316, November 1994.
6-20
superheater outlet headers with a single P91 header, subsequently reported in 1997 to be
operating successfully with no evidence of cracking.
47
The American Electric Power units,
retrofitted in 199495 with P91 material and reported above, were operating as of June 2003
with no evidence of cracking.
48

Figure 6-4
P91 Superheater Outlet Headers for Dayton Power and Light, Stuart Station
Costs and Benefits of Grade 91
The benefits of using P91 steel over standard alloys such as P11 or P22 can be put into three
categories:
Greater strength, that permits increased safety margins in existing units.
Significantly longer component life for given creep and fatigue duty.
Reduced wall thickness for tubing and piping for the same design conditions, leading to
lower thermal storage and less thermal stress.
An indication of the greater strength of P91 over a 100,000 hour lifetime is seen in the rupture
strength curves in Figure 6-5. As for operating lifetime comparisons they depend on the creep
and fatigue duty. At 1110F (600C) and 14.5 ksi (100 MPa), P91 reaches about 8090,000
hours of operation before rupture, whereas P22 reaches less than 1000 hours before rupture.

47
Secondary Superheater Outlet Header Material and Design Upgrade, Information Document, Babcock and
Wilcox Company, 1997.
48
Personal Communication, Tom Andress (AEP) to Tony Armor (EPRI), June 23, 2003.
6-21
Hi gh Temperature Steel s: Rel ati ve Rupture
Strength
450 500 550 600 650
1Cr Mo
2.25 Cr Mo
P91
P92
Maximum Temper at ur e Deg. C f or 100,000 Hour s at 100 MPa

Figure 6-5
Relative Rupture Strength of High Temperature Steels
The potential reductions in wall thickness can be seen graphically in Figure 6-6, which shows the
relative piping wall thickness of P91, P22, and other ferritic steels for the same design
conditions.

Figure 6-6
Comparison of Piping Wall Thickness for Candidate Ferritic Steels
Issues in Welding and Forming P91
As noted, obtaining desired material life from Grade 91 components requires careful attention to
welding and fabrication procedures. Cracking of P91 tubes and pipes that has occurred on some
installations appears to be due to improper procedures for welding and post-weld heat treatment.
6-22
Other concerns include cold forming requirements, stress corrosion cracking, and making a
reliable transition joint between Grade 91 and other alloys. This latter issue, of current concern,
is affected by the thickness of the weld metal, the filler material, and the post-weld heat
treatment temperature. Figure 6-7 shows a typical, incorrectly made joint between P22 and P91
piping. Figure 6-8 diagrams two types of errors made for this type of joint. Figure 6-9 diagrams
the correct weld profile. A list of EPRI reports relating to correct practices in welding P91, and
in PWHT approaches for different weld metals, are provided in Table 6-5.

Figure 6-7
Typical P91 to P22 Weld Vulnerable to Cracking at Junction between B9 Filler and P22
6-23

Figure 6-8
Joint Geometries of Concern Highlighted Transition Indicates Weakest Part of Weld

Figure 6-9
Correct Weld Profile for P91 to P22 Welds
Use of Grade 92 and Grade 122 Materials
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has approved Code Cases for the use of Grade 92
(Code Case 2179-3) and Grade 122 (Code Case 2180-2) material for construction in ASME
Sections I (Power Boilers) and VIII (Unfired Pressure Vessels). However, ASME B31.1 Code
for Power Piping does not currently list Grade 92 or Grade 122 material as Listed Materials
within the B31.1 Code, and consequently there are no allowable stress values listed in the B31.1
Code for these materials. As of early 2007, a tentative revision in progress in the B31.1 Code
Committee (Ballot 06-412) to permit the acceptance of ASME B&PV Section I Code Cases for
use within the ASME B31.1 Code. Timing for the possible acceptance and publication of this
revision to the ASME B31.1 Code is unknown.
Because Grade 91 is a Listed Material in the B31.1 Code, established requirements exist for
design, fabrication, and installation. This is not the case for Grade 92 and Grade 122, which are
Grade 22
Grade 91
B9 Filler
30
o
max
Grade 22
Grade 91
B3 Filler
30
o
max
Grade 22
Grade 91
B9 Filler
30
o
max
6-24
presently considered by ASME B31.1 Code as Unlisted Materials. Should the Owner desire to
use Grade 92 or Grade 122 for piping systems external to the boiler (such as for main steam or
hot reheat), a number of steps must be secured, including:
The designer shall document the Owners acceptance for use of the Unlisted Material.
The applicable jurisdiction within the State shall be informed of this request to utilize an
Unlisted Material for work covered by the ASME B31.1 Code, and the State must provide its
acceptance for use of the Unlisted Material on the Project.
The Owners Authorized Inspection Agency who will sign-off on the ASME Data Forms
(P-4 and P-4A Forms) for ASME B31.1 Boiler External Piping shall be advised of both the
Owners and States acceptance of the Unlisted Material and the AIs acceptance/agreement
to sign-off the forms shall be secured.
How to Deploy Advanced Steels: A Summary
Over 20 years of operational experience in the use of Grade 91 steel has developed fairly
comprehensive knowledge and expertise for how and when to deploy this steel to best effect.
There is a more limited experience base for other advanced ferritic steels. Avoiding failures of
tubes and pipes, particularly in advanced supercritical units, depends on careful attention to field
fabrication methods, welding techniques, and optimum operational procedures. Table 6-4
tabulates strategies to use to achieve successful applications of these materials that minimize the
risks of premature damage accumulation.
49

49
Issues/Risks in Designing for Final Steam Temperatures Over 1100F, WorleyParsons. Personal communication
Paul Shewchuk (WorleyParsons) to Tony Armor (EPRI), February 7, 2007.
6-25

Table 6-4
Summary of the Availability and Use of Grade 91 and Other Advanced Ferritic Steels
Issue/Risk Discussion Mitigation Strategies
Long-term creep strength
and fatigue,
characteristics of
candidate materials is
uncertain.
There is a limited amount of long-term creep and fatigue field data available on Grade 91
material for operation at temperatures above 1100F (593C). However, the experience for
Grade 91 is substantially greater than that for Grade 92 or Grade 122.
A boiler manufacturer with significant experience with Grade 91 does not recommend
Grade 91 for use at temperatures over 1112F (600C) they claim to have seen problems
with the material when operating over this temperature.
At temperatures beyond 1100F (593C), Grade 92 material initially appears to be the
material of choice as a result of its higher creep strength (allowable stress value) compared
to Grade 91. This higher allowable stress results in reduced wall thickness for the same
pressure and temperature. However, the ASME Section II Code committee on Materials is
currently reviewing the Grade 92 Code Case in reference to the allowable stress values,
the normalizing and tempering temperature range, and the assignment of an ASME P
number for welding and for welding procedure qualification. Preliminary information
from members of the ASME Section II (Materials) Task Group on Creep Strength
Enhanced Ferritic Steels indicates that the current allowable stress values for both Grade
92 and Grade 122 are under review and may be reduced by 10% to 18% for Grade 92 and
20% for Grade 122 (at the chemistry delineated by the ASME Code Case). The lower
reductions would be for lower temperatures (i.e., in the 800F/425C range), while the
higher temperatures (i.e., 1050F/565C and higher) would be reduced by the higher
amounts.
Grade 92 is currently covered by ASME Code Case 2179-3 and remains under review for
inclusion into the ASME B&PV Codes and the ASME B31.1 Code.
There have been reports of two Grade 122 failures at Japanese power plants, the nature of
which has not yet been widely reported. A contingent from Japanese suppliers/users
presented a recommendation to the ASME Code Committee about 8 months ago to reduce
the allowable stresses of Grade 122.
It is expected that a revised Code Case for Grade 92 and Grade 122 Code Case will be
issued in 2007, though this is not definite.
Grades 91, 23, and 911 are being re-evaluated on a slightly later schedule. For Grade P91,
there is also an indication that some reduction in allowable stress may be recommended.
This is anticipated to be much less that what is contemplated for Grade 92 and Grade 122
Specify only Grade 91 for main
steam and hot reheat piping; this
material has a longer history of use,
including more well-established
creep rate data.
To cover potential reduction in
allowable stresses for Grade 91
material, consider a small margin in
boiler and piping specifications
(such as a nominal allowance on
wall thickness).
Limit cycling duty and steam
temperature rate of change to
reduce fatigue.
Establish a routine condition
assessment program to monitor
material conditions throughout the
life of the unit.
Investigate and understand the basis
of recommendations to avoid Grade
91 for temperatures over 1112F
(600C) and consider this in setting
design and operating allowances.
6-26
materials.
The current Code Cases for Grade 92 and Grade 122 do not assign an ASME P number
to the material and therefore state that separate weld procedures and performance
qualification shall apply for these materials. As a result of the material not being assigned
an ASME P number, the weld procedure has to be qualified by the chemistry of the
material rather than the ASME P number. Any welding between Grade 92 material and
any other material such as Grade 91 requires separate weld procedure qualification
between the Grade 92 material and the material it is to be welded to.
Installation of Grade 92 or Grade 122 material designed to the allowable stress values
presently stated in the ASME Code Case represents a potential financial and technical risk.
The allowable stress values are expected to be reduced and cut place the installation in
conflict with state laws requiring that all power plants be designed and built in accordance
with the ASME Codes. Risk of proceeding with Grade 91 at current allowable stresses is
minimal based on indications that potential allowable stress reduction will be small, if any.
There is only one known installation of Grade 92 high energy piping in the United States
(currently under construction, COD 06/01/08) and no known U.S. experience with Grade
122. A number of units in Japan have used Grade 92 and Grade 122 for main steam and
hot reheat piping. It is not known if the design of the units would comply with the present
ASME Code Case with the higher allowable stress values or whether they are designed to
an updated Japanese code for the design, fabrication, and erection. The actual experience
at these Japanese units, including any problems with these materials, is difficult to obtain
from objective sources.
For the Grade 92 and Grade 122 materials, the long-term stresses to produce rupture (due
to creep) have been extrapolated/estimated based on accumulated hours to date, as they
have not been in service for the full 100,000 hours which is the basis of the ASME B&PV
Code long-term creep rupture criteria.
Creep problems in Grade 122 materials have been identified.
Fabrication/construction
with new alloys presents
technical, cost, and
schedule risks.
Grade 91 has been used in the United States for over 15 years for applications at
temperatures under 1100F (593C). Lessons learned have been used to establish more
rigorous procedures to be used for the welding, bending, heat treatment, and non-
destructive examination. It is expected that proper adherence to these procedures will
eliminate future occurrence of cracks similar to those reported in existing components
fabricated with Grade 91 material.
Most major pipe fabricators and erectors are now familiar with Grade 91 material and can
provide a list of projects in which they have supplied or erected Grade 91.
Specify only Grade 91 for main
steam and hot reheat piping. Specify
procedures that are known to be
current for bending, welding, and
associated pre- and post-weld heat
treatments and stress relief.
Implement enhanced Q/A
procedures to verify integrity of all
high temperature pipe welds,
6-27
Through experience, both shop and field welders have become familiar and confident in
the welding of Grade 91.
Grade 92 has no history of use in high energy piping in the United States. At this time, it
appears that only one U.S. fabricator has experience working with Grade 92, and has
established procedures for bending and welding Grade 92.
U.S. pipe fabrication experience with Grade 92 has been very limited.
The major U.S. piping suppliers and fabricators have little, if any, familiarity with using
Grade 122.
Supply of piping from overseas carries higher cost and schedule implications.
No experience in the United States with field erection using Grade 92 and/or Grade 122
materials. Will need all new welding procedures/qualifications. Welding rod for both
materials very expensive, limited availability for Grade 92 rod, and very poor current
availability of Grade 122 rod.
From an erection aspect, it is therefore presumed that there are very few welders who have
any qualification and/or experience welding Grade 92 or Grade 122 material.
including the heavy wall welds at
the turbine inlet.

Potential oxidation and
exfoliation of boiler
tubing and piping.
Oxide layer growth at high temperatures can result in a pressure drop increase and a sharp
increase in operating temperatures of gas heated tubes, which may lead to rapid
overheating of tubes due to sharply falling allowable stress curves.
Spalling of oxide (exfoliation) can cause partial tube blockages, resulting in overheating of
sections, and solid particle erosion (SPE) of turbine blades.
Oxide growth rate is accelerated at temperatures above 1050F (565C).
Ferritic steels (Grades 22, 23, 91, and 92) and austenitic (stainless) steels are all subject to
accelerated oxide growth at higher temperatures. Problems with exfoliation, leading to
SH/RH element plugging and SPE have been observed in the United States, Europe, and
Japan.
The creation of fine grain, chrome-rich layer at tube I.D. by shot blasting of tubing I.D.,
which greatly improves resistance to oxidation, can be degraded by temperature spikes.
Specify high alloy
ferritic/martensitic and austenitic
steels in high temperature
superheater and reheater sections,
e.g., Grades 91 and 92, shot blasted
304H, 347HFG, and HR3C. Restrict
boiler temperature change rates and
cyclic operation to reduce
temperature fluctuations and spikes.
Implement control strategies to
avoid possible temperature spikes.
Require bidders to submit a
discussion of their experience with
proposed high temperature
materials and any known failures or
potential problems with the
materials.
Potential oxidation and
exfoliation of main steam
Oxide layer growth can result in a pressure drop increase. Continue to gather as much
information as possible on existing
6-28
and hot reheat piping.
Spalling of oxide (exfoliation) can cause partial pipe blockages and SPE of turbine blades.
High chrome content of austenitic steels (i.e., stainless) provides very good oxidation
resistance. However, austenitic high energy piping has a high coefficient of thermal
expansion and low thermal conductivity. This has lead to a history of thermal fatigue
failures. Numerous plants that were originally furnished with austenitic stainless steel
main steam and hot reheat piping have been converted/retrofitted with ferritic/martensitic
alloy steel piping.
Ferritic/martensitic steels, including Grades 91, 92, and 122, are a more economical choice
for main steam and hot reheat piping than austenitic steels and do not have thermal fatigue
issues. However, oxidation resistance is much lower.
There is very limited use and experience with Grade 91 at temperatures over 1100F
(593C):
Haramach 2 1119F (603C), 1998
Tachibanawan 1 1112/1130F (600/610C), 2000
Isogo 1 1135F (612C), 2002
Tomato Atsuma 1112F (600C), 2002
New projects in Japan and Europe are using Grade 92 and Grade 122; it is not known if
this is due to economic or technical reasons (possibly related to oxidation problems with
Grade 91).
There is no known experience in the United States with Grade 91 at temperatures over
1100F (593C), where actual integrity of materials could be verified.
Most boiler suppliers set an oxidation limit on Grade 91 of 11501180F (620638C).
This has provided oxidation rates that seem similar to those for Grade 22, which has
decades of experience. However, there are insufficient long-term data for Grade 91 to
verify that oxidation growth rates remain comparable to those for Grade 22 over the longer
term.
operating plants using Grade 91 to
attempt to understand long-term
oxidation/exfoliation at higher
temperatures.
Restrict boiler load change rates and
cyclic operation to reduce
temperature fluctuations which
would induce spalling of oxide
layer (exfoliation).
Consider future chromizing,
chromating, or other coating
systems as potential remedies if
oxidation and exfoliation become
unacceptable.
Potential fire side
corrosion of high
temperature superheater
and reheater surfaces.
Potential for fireside corrosion of high temperature SH and RH surfaces increases
significantly as surface metal temperatures are increased.
Sulfur, chlorine, and certain metals in the ash can form compounds which are highly
corrosive at elevated tube surface temperatures.

Specify fuels with lower sulfur and
chlorine levels.
Specify conservative maximum
temperatures for tube surfaces.
Specify high alloy tubing, which is
more resistant to high temperature
6-29
ash corrosion.
Rapidly falling allowable
stresses for materials at
high temperatures reduces
margins of material
strength during periods of
upset.
ASME allowable stresses at temperatures over 1100F (593C) are on a rapidly declining
curve. This means that minor temperature excursions translate into large changes in
allowable stress.
Confirm that boiler suppliers are
providing adequate margin by
requesting temperature/design
curves with proposal and contract.
Specify pipe with enough margin to
account for anticipated changes in
allowable stress with temperature
fluctuations.
Restrict boiler temperature change
rates and cyclic operation to reduce
temperature fluctuations.
Limited availability of
high alloy pipe, valves,
and fittings.
Both Grade 91 and Grade 92 pipe are available from the pipe manufacturers. Current
delivery time of Grade 91 and Grade 92 is 15 to 17 months after receipt of order.
Fabrication time adds approximately 24 weeks after material receipt and delivery to the
jobsite.
Fittings for Grade 91 (forgings for safety valve nozzles, heavy wall laterals or Y fittings,
and 2 and under connections) are available with deliveries ranging from 8 to 9 months at
present.
Both forged steel valves (ASTM/SA 182 F91) and cast steel valves (ASTM/SA 217
WC12a) for Grade 91 are readily available with current deliveries between 32 to 38 weeks
after receipt of an order. No large bore cast steel valves are presently included in the
design of the main steam and hot reheat piping systems.
Grade 91 weld filler metal is available and a number of suppliers are carrying quantities in
inventory. Current delivery of Grade 91 weld filler metal is not a problem with an average
price of $20.00 per pound.
Fittings for Grade 92 (forgings for safety valve nozzles, heavy wall laterals or Y fittings,
and 2 and under connections) are available with deliveries ranging from 12 to 14 months
at present.
Grade 92 valves are not readily available as most manufacturers in the United States have
not started the process for the production of Grade 92 valves. As of early 2007, there is no
specification for cast steel valves in the Grade 92 material in ASME B16.34. The only
specification for Grade 92 valves is for forged valves (ASTM/SA A182 F92).
Grade 92 weld filler metal is very difficult to obtain and has very long lead times. It

6-30
appears at present that Grade 92 weld filler metal may be available in large mill run lot
quantities, but stock inventories are extremely limited and located outside the United
States. Price for Grade 92 filler metal is averaging $4050 per pound.

6-31
Table 6-5
EPRI Documents Related to Forming and Welding P91 in Fossil Plants
50

TR-101394 Thick-Section Welding of Modified 9Cr-1Mo (P91) Steel
TR-103617 P91 Steel for Retrofit Headers -- Materials Properties
TR-104845 Creep Behavior of Modified 9% CrMo Cast Steel for Application in Coal-Fired
Steam Power Plants
TR-105013 Material Considerations for HRSGs in Gas Turbine Combine Cycle Power Plants
TR-106856 Properties of Modified 9Cr-1Mo Cast Steel
TR-108971 Review of Type IV Cracking in Piping Welds
TR-111571 Advanced Heat Resistant Steels for Power Generation
TR-114750 Materials for Ultra-Supercritical Fossil Power Plants
1001462 Advances in Material Technology for Fossil Power PlantsSWANSEA
1006299 Conference on 9Cr Materials Fabrication and Joining Technologies
1006590 Guideline for Welding P(T)91 Materials
1004516 Performance Review of P91/T91 Steels
1004527 Development of Advanced Methods for Joining Low-Alloy Steel
1004702 Optimal Hardness of P91 Weldments
1004703 Post Forming Heat Treatment of P91 Materials
1004915 Normalization of Grade 91 Welds
1004916 Development of Advanced Methods for Joining Low-Alloy Steel
1009758 Evaluation of Filler Materials for Transition Weld Joints between Grade 91 to
Grade 22 Components
1011352 Effect of Cold-Work and Heat Treatment on the Elevated-Temperature Rupture
Properties of Grade 91 Material
1009757 Temperbead Repair Welding of Grade 91 Materials
1009758 Evaluation of Transition Joints between Grade 91 and Grade 22 Components

Examples of Current Costs of P91 versus P92 Pipe for Main Steam and Hot Reheat
Pipe at Different Design Conditions
The design conditions for temperature are established by taking the turbine throttle valve
temperature requirement, adding 5F (3C) for temperature drop from boiler to turbine and then
adding a 10F (6C) operating margin. For example, a 1075F (579C) turbine throttle valve
requirement plus 5F (3C) equals 1080F, (582C) plus 10F (5C) margin equals a 1090F
(588C) design temperature for a main steam pipe system.

50
Productivity Improvement for Fossil Steam Power Plants, 2005: One Hundred Case Studies, EPRI Report
1012098, July 2005; List of papers provided by Kent Coleman, EPRI.
6-32
NOTE: The minimum wall thickness for P92 pipe is based upon the anticipated reduction of the
allowable stress values by 18% at the higher temperatures versus the allowable stress values
presently shown in ASME Code Case 2179-3.
Table 6-6
Specification Example for Main Steam Piping for Supercritical Steam Conditions
MAIN STEAM 4 LEADS 850 MW NET
Design Conditions: 1090F @ 3950 psig (588C @ 272 bar)
Operating Conditions: 1075F @ 3800 psig (579C @ 262 bar) at Turbine
ASTM/SA P91 ASTM/SA P92
Outside Pipe Diameter in. (mm) 20 (508) 20 (508)
Minimum Wall Thickness in.
(mm)
2.908 (73.9) 2.723 (69.2)
Weight lb/ft (kg/m) 561 (835) 518 (771)
Average Cost US$/lb (US$/kg) 4.00 (8.8) 4.80 (10.6)
Average Cost of Pipe US$/ft
(US$/m)
2,241 (7,352) 2,486 (8,156)

Table 6-7
Specification Example for Hot Reheat Piping for Supercritical Steam Conditions
HOT REHEAT 2 LEADS 850 MW NET
Operating Conditions: 1100F @ 670 psig (593C @ 46 bar) at Turbine)
(mm)
1.198 (30.4) 1.086 (27.6)
Weight lb/ft (kg/m) 491 (731) 409 (609)
(US$/m)
2,946 (9,665) 2,945 (9,662)

6-33
Table 6-8
Specification Example for Main Steam Piping for Ultra-Supercritical Steam Conditions
MAIN STEAM 4 LEADS 850 MW NET
(mm)
3.604 (91.5) 3.183 (80.8)
Weight lb/ft (kg/m) 660 (982) 587 (874)
(US$/m)
2,640 (8,661) 2,818 (9,245)

Table 6-9
Specification Example for Hot Reheat Piping for Ultra-Supercritical Steam Conditions
HOT REHEAT 2 LEADS 850 MW NET
(mm)
1.614 (41.0) 1.285 (32.6)
Weight lb/ft (kg/m) 558 (830) 481 (716)
(US$/m)
3,348 (10,984) 3,463 (11,361)

7-1
7
IMPROVING PLANT EFFICIENCY WITH COAL DRYING
To a greater or lesser extent, moisture and non-combustible minerals in coal reduce thermal
efficiency and otherwise impact the operation of coal-fired boilers. Although there has been a
trend toward minimizing the effort and expense invested in coal processingboth at the mine
and the power plant, recent RD&D projects have shown that cost-effective coal drying methods
can improve the net heat rate of PC units using high-moisture coal. This heat rate improvement
translates into lower air emissions per MWh generated and provides other benefits.
Coal fed to the bunkers from a power plants coal pile may contain moisture from a number of
sources, including:
Inherent moisture that was present in the organic and mineral sediments that formed the coal
(by definition, as noted in Chapter 5, lower rank coals have increasingly higher inherent
moisture content)
Atmospheric moisture (a relatively mineral-free source) that condensed or precipitated onto,
or was absorbed by, the coal during mining, shipping, and storage
Surface or process water (which may have high dissolved solids content) that was applied to
the coal to help with processing or for dust suppression and fire prevention
Except in very dry climates, preparation of coal for firing in a pulverized coal unit includes some
amount of drying. This is primarily for the purpose of removing surface moisture that might
cause the coal to stick to surfaces in conveyors, chutes, mills, feed nozzles, and other equipment.
For coals with high moisture content and/or certain types of mineral content, further drying may
be necessary to improve the grindability of the coal. Otherwise the coal may deform or form a
paste rather than fracturing into the proper particle size.
Drying may be necessary to assist ignition and flame stability. Although drying may also
improve the thermodynamic efficiency of the generating unit, this alone has not typically been a
criterion for specifying the extent or mechanics of drying.
Conventional Coal Drying in Pulverized Coal Units
Coal drying is typically accomplished by introducing preheated air or hot furnace gases at (or
before) the grinding mills. For high-rank, low-moisture bituminous or anthracite coal, the drying
agent in the mill is usually air supplied by the boilers FD fan and preheated in the regenerative
(Ljungstrom) air heater (see Figure 7-1). The mill is pressurized to the extent necessary to
convey the coal through the mill, classifier, coal flow pipeline, and burner (i.e., in balance with
the flow resistance of the coal-laden flow).
7-2

Figure 7-1
Coal Drying and Grinding with Pressurized Preheated Air
For high-moisture subbituminous coal or lignite, which can produce highly reactive dust when
dried, it is preferable to withdraw furnace gas from the boiler for use as a drying agent. For this
arrangement, the gas pressure in the mill is reduced by an exhauster fan situated between the mill
classifier and the burner (see Figure 7-2). The maximum exit gas temperature from the mill
depends upon the type of coal and the drying agent (see Table 7-1). Coal drying with furnace gas
that is recirculated to the boiler improves the grindability of the coal and may assist its ignition,
but it does not increase the plant efficiency.

Figure 7-2
Coal Drying and Grinding with Furnace Gases and Air (Exhauster Mill)
7-3
Table 7-1
Maximum Grinding Mill Exit Temperatures for Different Coal Types
Drying Agent Temperature
Coal Type
Air
Furnace gas
(O
2
max =4%)
Subbituminous and Lignite 210F (100C) 390F (200C)
Bituminous coal
(depending on volatile content)
210390F (100200C) 390F (200C)

Advanced U.S. Coal Drying Technologies
EPRI estimates that, in many cases, the benefit of a drying system to reduce the water content of
high-moisture coal in terms of improved performance, reduced emissions, and increased
availability will significantly exceed the cost of the drying system, especially for plants burning
U.S. lignite and subbituminous coals. Specific benefits may include:
Increased plant efficiency
Increased net generating capacity of units that burn high-moisture coal
Reduced emissions, particularly from plants based on lignite and Powder River Basin
subbituminous coal
Increased value of lignite and subbituminous coal reserves
Reducing the total moisture content of lignite by as little as 5% has been shown to have a
significant impact on the operational cost and efficiency of a power plant. In addition, as a
consequence of improved availability and a lower flow rate of flue gas, net electrical generation
capacity will increase.
For advanced pulverized coal units, particularly for lignite and subbituminous coals, additional
coal drying before combustion is now becoming more common (see following subsections).
Great River Energy Lignite Dryer
At its Coal Creek Station in Underwood, North Dakota, Great River Energy captures and reuses
unit waste heat to supply hot water and hot air to a fluidized bed lignite dryer (see Figure 7-3),
rather than burning additional fuel to generate heat. This method is proving to be a commercially
viable means of thermal coal drying.
51

51
C. Bullinger, M. Ness, and N. Sarunac, Coal Creek Prototype: Fluidized Bed Coal Dryer, 31st International
Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, FL, May 2125, 2006.
7-4

Figure 7-3
Simplified Schematic of Great River Energy Dryer
Initial results from the Coal Creek Station indicate that the system could be the first to
demonstrate that pre-drying high-moisture coals before they are fed to a power plants boiler
offers a practical and economical way to generate more power from a lower quantity of coal.
Until now, however, the cost of thermally drying these coals has often outweighed any potential
gains in the plants operational performance. Drying the coal increases its heating value, which
means that less coal is needed to generate the same amount of energy. Less flue gas is also
emitted, which reduces boiler stack gas heat loss and the workload on other equipment in the
plant, such as fans. Based on prototype dryer results shown in Figure 7-4 and Table 7-2, if all of
the coal fed to the Coal Creek boiler was dried using this process, the result would be an
estimated increase in efficiency of about 5%a very significant improvement in plant
performance and costs.
Reduction of moisture at Coal Creek is aimed at about 10 percentage points for the wet lignite
feed, though the heat source is capable of delivering considerably more drying capacity.
7-5

Figure 7-4
Reduction of Moisture at Great River Energys Coal Creek Station
The first dryer is now supplying processed lignite to one of the seven pulverizers for one of the
two lignite units at Coal Creek. Early estimates suggest that with just one pulverizer using dried
coal, the stack flow rate from the unit decreased 1%, boiler efficiency increased 0.3 percentage
points, pulverizer power consumption decreased 4.5%, sulfur oxide emissions fell 2%, oxides of
nitrogen emissions decreased 8.5% (because drier coal allowed adjustments to burner air flows
that lowered NO
X
production), and CO
2
emissions decreased 0.34% (see Table 7-2).
7-6
Table 7-2
Improved Unit Performance at the Coal Creek Station (With Just One of Seven Pulverizers
Receiving Dried Coal)
Parameter Units Coal Dryer
In Service
Coal Dryer
Out of
Service
Change
Gross Power Output
MW 589 590
deg F 988 989
Throttle Steam Temperature
deg C 531 532
deg F 1002 1002
Reheat Steam Temperature
deg C 539 539
klb/hr 46 52 -6.4
SHT Spray Flow
kg/s 5.8 6.6 -0.81
klb/hr 953 972 -2.02%
Total Coal Flow Rate
kg/s 120 123
Dried Coal
% of Total 14.62 0.00
ksfcm 1611 1626 -0.96%
Stack Flow Rate
Nm
3
/s 760 767
kJ/klb 4.09 4.29 -4.65%
Specific Pulverizer Work
J/kg 9.01 9.46
Total Pulverizer Power
kW 4057 4206 -3.53%
lb/hr 1345 1470 -8.52%
NO
X
Mass Emissions
g/s 170 185
lb/hr 3618 3692 -2.00%
SO
X
Mass Emissions
g/s 456 465
deg F 353 362 -8.6
Air Heater 21 Gas Exit
Temperature
deg C 178 183 -4.8
deg F 368 377 -9.3
Air Heater 22 Gas Exit
Temperature
deg C 187 192 -5.2
deg F 180 184 -4.2
Stack Temperature
deg C 82 84 -2.3

The full set of lignite dryers for both Coal Creek units, scheduled to be built in 2007, will operate
through 2008 to generate data that could be applied to other high-moisture, coal-burning power
plants that operate primarily in western coal regions of the United States, and in other countries.
Subsequently, the dryers are expected to continue operating as part of the power stations
commercial operations.
7-7
Along with Great River Energy, partners in the project include EPRI, Lehigh University
(Bethlehem, PA), Barr Engineering (Minneapolis, MN), Heyl & Patterson (Pittsburgh, PA),
Headwaters Energy Services (South Jordan, UT), and Falkirk Mining and Couteau Properties
(Underwood, ND).
AMAX Coal Dryer
The McNally/AMAX coal drying process (which along with the Rosebud process is an example
of higher temperature processes focused on reduced transportation cost
52
) was constructed at
the Belle Ayr Mine in Gillette, Wyoming (see Figure 7-5). This plant was built for $23 million
without any government financing, and initially started in 1990. Of the 100,000 tons (about
91,000 metric tonnes) of upgraded coal produced through 1992, most were shipped to Fremont
Utilities Wright Station in Nebraska.

52
Upgraded Low-Rank Coal User Guidelines, EPRI report TR-103221.
7-8

Figure 7-5
AMAX Coal Dryer Schematic
7-9
The raw coal fed at a rate of 215 ton/hour (195 tonne/hr) is initially crushed to a one-inch (25
mm) top size. Because the coal drying rate and its product moisture content are size dependent,
coal crushing is required to allow sufficient drying to lower the product moisture to
approximately 10% (from 30% in the raw coal). The crushed coal is then passed into a coal dryer
where it comes in contact with 900F (482C) hot gas for three to four minutes to evaporate the
coal moisture, allowing the dried coal product to reach 190F (88C).
The fine particles are carried in the hot gas stream through a cyclone to remove the coarser
fraction of these particles. This coarse fraction is then combined with the larger particles that
passed though the dryer. The product stream is then sent to a cooling chamber to reduce the
temperature of the final product to 100F (38C). Because the drying process causes the coal to
break into a much finer, dustier productcreating the tendency of dried coal to reabsorb
moisturethe final product is aggregated to make a stable transportable product by adding No. 6
fuel oil (at a rate of 24 gallons, or 815 liters, per ton). Approximately 165 ton/hour (150
tonne/hr) of dried coal product was produced at a yield of 77% in the AMAX plant.
About 40% of the dryer hot gases coming from the cyclone pass into a dryer baghouse, where the
remaining entrained fine dust is removed at a rate of about 7 ton/hour (6 tonne/hr). This fine dust
is used as fuel for the combustor to create the hot gases used for drying. The combustor is
designed for 160 MBtu/hr (170 GJ/hr), using 60% of the dryer chamber hot gases for makeup air.
In summary, this coal drying process is carried out at the mine, uses a gas/oil-fired combustor for
drying, adds a small amount of oil for transportation, and requires a much higher drying
temperature than the GRE process. However, the capital cost is relatively modest and few
modifications to the generating plant are needed.
Rosebud Coal Dryer
As noted, high-temperature processes generally operate at 400800F (200430C). One
example, the Rosebud SynCoal Advanced Coal Conversion Process (ACCP), has been operating
since 1992 at a 300,000 ton per year (270,000 tonne/yr) demonstration plant in Colstrip,
Montana (see Figure 7-6). This demonstration plant was built for $69 million, with 50% DOE
Clean Coal Technology Program funding. Raw coal fed at 1640 ton/day (1490 tonne/day) is
converted into two productsa coarse coal product at 988 ton/day (900 tonne/day) and
briquetted coal fines at 240 ton/day (220 tonne/day)with a total product yield of 75%. Through
1992, the limited production of upgraded coal was used by Montana Powers Colstrip and
Corette generating stations.
7-10

Figure 7-6
Rosebud Coal Dryer Schematic
Coal is initially screened to provide a 1 x 1/4 inch (25 x 6 mm) feed for the process. The minus
1/4 inch (<6 mm) fraction is shipped directly to the adjacent Colstrip power plant. By not
processing the fine coal fraction, the fines content of the upgraded SynCoal product should be
reduced. The plus 1/4 inch (>6 mm) coal is passed through a two-stage drying process. In the
7-11
first stage, coal is heated to about 220F (100C) using recirculated combustion gases to remove
the coal surface moisture. In the second stage, the coal is heated to near 800F (430C) using
superheated steam to remove the water trapped in coal pores and causing decarboxylation. The
second stage dryer must be carefully controlled, because residence time and temperature
significantly influence final product quality. After the dryers, the coal is cooled to 150F (65C)
by a combination of quench coolers (adding water) and vibratory coolers (using cool inert gas).
Because the local raw coal cannot meet a target limitation of 1.2 lb of SO
2
produced per million
Btu of fuel heat content input to the boiler (0.52 kg/GJ), the SynCoal process added a coal
cleaning step of gravity separators after the product coolers to remove 95% of the pyritic sulfur
content, lowering the final product SO
2
emissions potential to less than 1.0 lb/MBtu (0.43
kg/GJ).
In summary, this is a high-temperature (800F, or 430C) coal drying process that has produced
a product for two Montana Power stations. It uses multi-stage drying with natural gas as the heat
source. Produced close to the mine, it is separate from the generating plants, and results in
briquetted coal fines as well as minus quarter inch (<6 mm) coal. A separate coal cleaning
process removes a significant amount of sulfur ahead of combustion.
Advanced International Coal Drying Technologies
Brown coal (lignite) drying has been explored in Europe, particularly in Germany, and in
Australia, where very high moisture lignite deposits are found in Victoria. Two drying schemes
of particular note have emerged: the WTA system (a German acronym for fluidized-bed dryer
with integrated waste heat recovery) and the Mechanical Thermal Expression (MTE) system
(Germany/Australia).
Mechanical Thermal Expression Drying System
Deregulation of the Australian electricity supply industry has led to an increase in competition
between all power generators (hydroelectricity, natural gas, black and brown coal) across the
national grid.
The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has necessitated improvements in brown coal
utilization for power generation. The competitiveness of brown coal power generation will in
large part depend on the implementation of energy efficient drying technologies for brown coal
boilers, which currently burn coal with a moisture content of 60%.
Three major drying technologiesSteam Drying (SD), Hydrothermal Dewatering (HTD) and
Mechanical Thermal Expressionwere investigated in batch and bench scale units. Steam
drying is an evaporative drying technology that utilizes superheated steam to remove water from
high moisture coals at much lower temperatures than HTD and MTE; however, the metal ash
forming elements remain in the final product.
53

53
David J.Allardice, The Utilization of Low Rank Coals, Allardice Consulting, Brian C. Young, Envirosafe
International, Eighteenth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Dec. 3-11, 2001, Newcastle, New South
Wales, Australia.

7-12
A recent option to emerge for brown coal drying is the MTE process, initiated by the University
of Dortmund, Germany. In this process (see Figure 7-7), water is expressed from brown coal in a
particle-board-type hydraulic press for a few minutes at up to 870 psi (60 bar) pressure, after
steam heating the coal to 300390F (150200C). Some energy can be recovered from the
expressed water.

Figure 7-7
Schematic of Mechanical Thermal Expression Coal Drying Process
The MTE dryer from Germany uses pressure to expel moisture from the coal feed.
Early studies in Victoria on ambient temperature press dewatering of brown coal were
abandoned as impractical because of the high pressures required for residence times of 20
minutes or more. The higher temperature used in MTE decreases the pressure and residence time
required to manageable levels.
The MTE process can reduce the moisture content of the brown coal to below 25%, with very
little energy consumption and a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from even
conventional brown coal power generation. MTE demonstrated the process at 11 ton/hr (10
tonne/hr) scale at Rheinbraun and is now the preferred drying process of the Australian
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Clean Power from Lignite and the focus of a significant
proportion of the CRCs current research program. The CRC for Clean Power from Lignite is
developing MTE as a practical concept for retrofitting to existing boilers or to pre-dry the feed
coal for an IGCC plant. CRC has concluded that MTE is less expensive and provides greater
efficiency improvements in these applications than HTD or Steam Fluid Bed Drying. On this
basis, CRC is planning a Latrobe Valley demonstration plant for the technology using additional
funds from the state government.
7-13
It is important to note that any dewatering or drying process that can remove water from brown
coal in liquid form (i.e., without the need to supply the evaporative energy to dry the coal) has
the potential to reduce, by up to 25%, the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the combustion
of these coals.
RWE WTA Fluidized-Bed Dryer
Developed by Rheinbraun (now RWE Power), the WTA fluidized-bed dryer has been tested
since 1993. The first prototype in Frechen, Germany, operated for over 13,000 hours, and dried
55,000 tons (50,000 tonnes) of raw brown coal.
54
Since 1999, a new prototype, based on the fine-
grain WTA technology, has demonstrated improved capital and operating costs. In 2007, this
technology will be implemented at commercial scale, when one initial unit of about 120 ton/hour
(110 tonne/hr) dry lignite throughput will be installed and connected to the Niederaussem power
plant.
The WTA process schematic is shown in Figure 7-8. Brown coal is inserted into the dryer
following pre-heating at 150F (65C) within a heat exchanger using condensed water from the
drying process of the previous charge. It is fluidized at 210F (100C) under the influence of
slightly superheated steam. Much of the heat needed for moisture evaporation is provided by
pressurized steam from the drying of the previous charge in a heat exchanger. The steam, which
is used for the fluidization, also contributes to the evaporation of fuel moisture. After being
cleaned in an E-filter, the evaporated moisture is fed into a steam compressor, where its
temperature is increased from 210F (100C) to 300F (150C) by pressuring it in multiple steps
up to 6075 psi (45 bar). A small part of this evaporated moisture is used as a fluidization
medium. The condensed water from the heat exchanger is used for cooling the steam compressor
as well as for pre-heating of raw brown coal. The residence time of the brown coal in the dryer
depends on the moisture content and is typically 6090 minutes.

54
Prof. Emm. Kakaras et al., Concept study for a 700C power plant: using poor quality brown coal with ultra
supercritical PF boiler, National Technical University of Athens, VGB contract, Final Report, Oct. 2006.
7-14

Figure 7-8
WTA Dryer Schematic with Sample Flow Calculations
As an alternative to this close cycle concept where the evaporated steam from the coal is re-
utilized as a heating medium for the drying process after being compressed, an open cycle
concept has been developed. It avoids the installation of a compressor by the use of low-
temperature steam extracted from the low-pressure part of the steam turbine. The evaporated
steam from the coal is afterward utilized at the first water pre-heater step of the power plant. The
open cycle concept was chosen to be implemented in the first WTA prototype, which will be
integrated in the Niederaussem power plant.
The lack of a mechanical compression step, with its own difficulties and failure characteristics,
simplifies the overall design and improves the expected availability of the plant.

8-1
8
AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL
Environmental Regulations
Prior to the start of construction, developers of new power plants are required to obtain air
permits to ensure that emissions do not significantly impact ambient air quality or visibility
standards. The U.S. EPAs New Source Review (NSR) process includes an analysis of air quality
and visibility impacts, along with a determination of necessary emission control requirements. At
a minimum, emissions from new generation plants will be required to meet applicable New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
In addition to meeting federal NSPS, a new power plant in the United States may be required to
meet more stringent state-imposed emission limits. Typically, this entails working with the
appropriate state and/or local environmental control agencies to determine how federal and state
emission regulations will be applied within the specific air quality control jurisdiction where the
new plant will be located.
If emissions from a new or modified source are expected to cause local air quality to exceed
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) thresholds, the facility will most likely be required
to implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which generally is the technology
that has been determined to be most technically and economically feasible for limiting emissions
from that type of facility. Even more stringent permit requirements may be applied for projects
that will significantly impact ozone nonattainment areas or federal Class I areas (national
parks, wilderness areas, etc.). The necessity and scope of more stringent requirements are
determined on a project-specific basis.
A BACT analysis for an individual project considers three primary factors in determining the
required emission limits:
1) Historic BACT determinations for similar pulverized coal steam plants
2) The technical feasibility of available emission controls
3) The cost-effectiveness of each control option
The inclusion of both technical and economic criteria is a fundamental characteristic of BACT
analysis. Rather than prescribing specific technology, this approach gives a power producer the
ability to work with the permitting agency to determine the overall technology to be selected and
the emission rate that is applicable using that technology.
40CFR60, Subpart D, for electric utility steam generating units, including pulverized coal steam
plant units, is the applicable regulation for the size of units addressed in this Guideline. The U.S.
EPA definition of BACT is contained in the following excerpt:
an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on the
maximum degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act which would be emitted from any proposed major stationary source
8-2
or major modification which the Administrator, on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such source or modification through application of
production processes or available methods, systems, and techniques, including
fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of
such pollutant. In no event shall application of best available control technology
result in emissions of any pollutant which would exceed the emissions allowed by
any applicable standard under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. If the Administrator
determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of the
measurement technology to a particular emissions unit would make the imposition
of an emissions standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice,
operational standard, or combination thereof, may be prescribed instead to satisfy
the requirement for the application of best available control technology.
Table 8-1 lists the input- and output-based limits contained in the NSPS for facilities that began
construction after February 28, 2005. For comparison purposes, the output-based limits in
lb/MWh (based on gross output) have been converted to the more familiar input-based limits in
pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MBtu).
Table 8-1
Emission Limits from the Latest Revision to 40CFR60, Subpart D
Pollutant
NSPS Limit on Gross
Energy Output Basis
NSPS Limit on Heat Input
Basis
(1)

Particulate Matter (PM) 0.14 lb/MBtu 0.015 lb/MBtu
Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2
) 1.4 lb/MWh 0.15 lb/MBtu
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
X
) 1.0 lb/MWh 0.11 lb/MBtu
Mercury (Hg) 20 x 10
-6
lb/MWh
(2)
2.15 lb/TBtu
(3)

Notes:
1. Based on estimated gross heat rate of 9300 Btu/kWh calculated from PM emission limits
2. For coal-fired electric utility steam generating unit that burns only bituminous coal
3. lb/TBtu pounds per trillion Btu
The gross heat rate requirement presents a challenge when comparing different technologies,
but is required by the EPA. Although the plant output is sold on a net megawatt output basis, and
emissions have been more typically calculated on a gross input basis, the NSPS for pulverized
coal steam plant facilities are based on gross energy (generation) output. To effectively choose
between different technologies with the same net output, the power plant developer will need to
use all of these different bases for evaluating emissions, determining the required emission
control performance, and determining the cost and feasibility of purchasing emissions offsets, if
needed, to install a desired block of new generation in a specific location.
The following explanatory notes may also be helpful for understanding emissions control
performance requirements applicable to PC plants:
NO
X
steam generating unit stack emissions are limited to 1.0 lb/MWh (0.45 kg/MWh) or
lower in the flue gas based on the use of SCR.
8-3
SO
2
steam generating unit stack emission levels are limited to 1.4 lb/MWh (0.63 kg/MWh)
or lower in the flue gas based on the use of FGD.
Particulate Matter (PM)
Filterable PM, without condensables, collected from the front half of sampling train, is
limited to 0.14 lb/MWh (0.063 kg/MWh) or lower.
PM
10
(e.g., particulate matter 10 microns or less in size) is assumed to be 0.03 lb/MBtu
(0.013 kg/GJ) or less when condensables are included from back half of the sampling
train, emission rate. Additional PM
10
may result from the use of SCR, which is likely to
produce additional ammonium bisulfate and sulfate particles.
CO the current BACT assumes no CO catalyst is used
VOC the current BACT assumes no CO catalyst is used
Mercury steam generating unit stack emission levels are limited to 20 x 10
-6
lb/MWh (or 9
mg/MWh) lower based on cumulative performance achievable using SCR, ESP or fabric
filter, and FGD.
Ammonia Slip (from SCR) current BACT is 2 ppmv (parts per million by volume).
Offset Credits for some plant locations, it will not be possible to permit a plant without
offsetting emission through purchase of credits that are created by the reduction of emissions
from other sources. In some cases, the high cost or limited availability of credits will make it
cost effective to use emissions performance design criteria that are much more stringent than
indicates by specific numbers in the NSPS. This may further be influenced by the ability to
reduce the quantity of one type of credit by purchasing another type, typically with a
multiplier, or to purchase a larger quantity of credits from a more distant source.
Annual Emissions
Power producers will generally need to complete charts similar to that shown as Table 8-2 to
support their environmental permit application.
8-4
Table 8-2
Worksheet for Expected Annual Air Emissions for a PC Plant
Source
Annual
Operation
SO
2
NO
X
PM filterable PM condensable
hr/y ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/
MWh
ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/
MWh
ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/ MWh ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/
MWh
Permanent Sources
Boiler
Coal Handling
Ash Handling
SCR Reagent Handling
FGD Reagent Handling
FGD By-product Handling
Fugitive Emissions
Cooling Tower
Startup Sources
Auxiliary Boiler
Intermittent and Upset Sources
Emergency Diesel Generator(s)
Emergency Firewater Pump(s)

ANNUAL TOTAL

8-5

Heavy Metals Halogens
Source
Sulfuric Acid Mist CO
VOC Hg Pb Other Fl Cl
ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/
MWh
ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/
MWh
ton/y
lb/
MBtu
lb/
MWh
lb/y lb/y lb/y lb/y lb/y
Permanent Sources
Boiler
Coal Handling
Ash Handling
SCR Reagent Handling
FGD Reagent Handling
FGD By-product Handling
Fugitive Emissions
Cooling Tower
Startup Sources
Auxiliary Boiler
Intermittent and Upset Sources
Emergency Diesel Generator(s)
Emergency Firewater Pump(s)
ANNUAL TOTAL
Notes:
lb/MWh based on gross MW output
lb/MBtu based on fuel HHV thermal input to the boiler
Hours of operation consistent with those to support 8760 hours per year of operation of the boiler.
Fugitive emission may include, but not limited to: wind erosion of coal storage piles, limestone storage piles, FGD by-product storage piles, truck traffic on
paved and unpaved facility roads.
Specific emission sources can vary by project and pulverized coal steam plant technology. Some of the sources or streams listed above may be combined and
vented to a common control device, or recycled in the process.
9-1
9
WET FGD SYSTEMS FOR SO
2
CONTROL
The majority of wet flue gas desulfurization systems installed at coal-fired power plants utilize
alkaline slurry to remove SO
2
contained in the flue gas. The alkaline slurry is forced into close
contact with SO
2
laden flue gas, in an absorber vessel, where the SO
2
is absorbed to the liquid
phase and reacts with dissolved alkaline reagent. The reagents used in wet FGD systems include
limestone, lime, enhanced lime, ammonia, magnesium oxide, and sodium carbonate. Limestone
based systems, which account for approximately 85% of the installations, are used as the basis
for the bulk of this write-up. Current systems have demonstrated SO
2
removal efficiencies
approaching 98%. Systems based on limestone with forced oxidation (LSFO) and magnesium-
enhanced lime (MEL) with forced oxidation also generate gypsum by-product that can be sold
for use by several industries.
The absorber may take various forms (open spray tower, tray absorber, jet bubbling reactor, and
double-contact flow absorber), depending on the manufacturer and desired process configuration.
The absorber application with the most U.S. operating experience is the counter-flow, vertically
oriented, open spray tower.
Equipment and Process for Limestone-Based Open Spray System
For most installations, the vertically oriented, counterflow, spray tower configuration, using a
limestone slurry reagent, has been found to achieve the necessary SO
2
removal performance with
the best balance of capital and operating cost. The desired process endpoint is accomplished
through a complex series of time-dependent reactions that occur in the gas, liquid, and solid
phases of the absorption and post-absorption treatment processes.
A vertical flow spray tower consists of an inlet nozzle, a spray tower with an integral reaction
tank located in the base of the tower, slurry spray headers and nozzles, mist eliminators, mist
eliminator wash system, and optional perforated trays (see Figure 9-1, Figure 9-2, and Figure
9-3). The hot flue gas (250350F, 120180C) enters the lower portion of the tower through the
inlet nozzle and flows upward through multiple levels of interspatial spray nozzles operating at
pressures of between 5 and 20 psig (0.31.4 barg). The flue gas flow is countercurrent to the
flow of scrubbing slurry, which is distributed throughout the tower as a fine spray by specially
designed nozzles.
The flue gas entering the absorber is first cooled through adiabatic saturation as it makes contact
with SO
2
-rich slurry. SO
2
is progressively absorbed as the flue gas passes each bank of slurry
spray nozzles, with the most of the absorption occurring in close proximity to the nozzles. On
exiting the absorber, the flue gas passes through mist eliminators which capture fine particles and
spray that are carried by the flue gas.
9-2

Figure 9-1
Wet FGD Spray Tower Configuration
55

The slurry containing the absorbed SO
2
falls into the reaction tank located at the base of the spray
tower. By the time the spray falls reaches the reaction tank, much of the SO
2
has combined with
CaOH and water to form hydrated calcium sulfite (CaSO
3
H
2
O). In LSFO systems, oxidation air
blowers introduce compressed air into the reaction tank where oxygen completes the scrubbing
reactions and oxidizes the calcium sulfite to form gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate
CaSO
4
2H
2
O). Limestone slurry, from a limestone preparation system, is added to the reaction
tank to neutralize and regenerate the scrubbing slurry. A slurry recycle system recirculates the
regenerated slurry from the reaction tank to the spray nozzles.
The oxidation air system consists of air compressors, valves, transport piping, air lances, and
agitators. The air is transported to the reaction tank by the transport piping and is introduced into
the reaction tank through multiple air lances installed in the reaction tank. The air lances are
positioned in front of horizontal agitators that ensure the air is mixed well with the slurry, as well
as keeping the slurry solids in suspension.

55
Courtesy of Babcock & Wilcox.
9-3
A gypsum bleed system removes the appropriate amount of slurry to maintain process
equilibrium and transports this slurry along with waste solids (sludge) to the gypsum processing
area.
The absorber module is typically equipped with a vertical flow, two-stage, chevron-type mist
eliminator system that uses inertial contact to remove carryover mist from the cleaned flue gas.
The primary stage captures large particles and droplets carried over from the absorber; the
secondary stage captures wash-water droplets and finer particles. The mist eliminators are kept
free of slurry deposits by using a water wash system, which directs process makeup water
through spray nozzles to the upstream and downstream faces of the first stage mist eliminators
and the upstream face of the second stage mist eliminators.
Gypsum Processing
Figure 9-3 outlines a typical gypsum processing system, which includes primary and secondary
dewatering and wastewater feed systems. The dewatering system, which is typically a common
system for all units at a plant, is designed to continuously receive slurry from the absorbers and
produce gypsum conforming to the end users needs.
Primary dewatering is accomplished with hydrocyclones whereas a vacuum-belt-filter system is
used for secondary dewatering. System blowdown is removed as a sidestream from the
hydrocyclone overflow and processed through a secondary (wastewater) hydrocyclone before
discharge to the wastewater treatment system.
Gypsum bleed pumps feed the gypsum slurry to the multi-element dewatering hydrocyclones,
which remove a first cut of filtrate from the suspended gypsum solids. A valve network is used to
adjust performance by isolating flow to individual cyclones. The thickened hydrocyclone
underflow is routed to a filter feed tank.
The hydrocyclone overflow is transferred to the filtrate tank where it is returned to the process
for reuse. A blowdown sidestream, prior to the filtrate tank, is directed to a wastewater
hydrocyclone feed tank. The chloride level in the absorber is maintained below its design
maximum at all times through adjustment of this blowdown, the gypsum slurry bleed rate, the
settings on the wastewater hydrocyclones (underflow is returned to the filter feed tank), and
makeup water flow.

9-4

Figure 9-2
Schematic of Typical Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization SystemAbsorber and Reagent Mixing

9-5

Figure 9-3
Schematic of Typical Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization SystemGypsum Processing System
9-6
Filter feed pumps deliver thickened slurry to the vacuum belt filter trains, where cake formation
occurs very quickly after vacuum is applied and gypsum is dewatered to meet end user
requirements. Makeup water is used to wash the filter cloth and to wash gypsum cake to displace
dissolved contaminants as the cake is being dewatered. The source of cake wash water may be
either recycled filter cloth wash water or makeup water.
The filtration cycle ends when the vacuum is released and the filter cloth and dewatered cake
pass over a small radius discharge roll that separates the dewatered cake from the cloth. The cake
falls from the filter cloth into the discharge chute which directs it to the gypsum handling system
for transport to the final destination.
The wastewater hydrocyclone feed tank (not shown) receives the chlorides bleed (blowdown)
streams from each of the gypsum dewatering hydrocyclones or from the wastewater bleed pumps
and discharges it to the wastewater hydrocyclone feed pumps. Solids in this stream are recovered
via the underflow from the wastewater hydrocyclone cluster; the underflow is pumped back to
the filter feed tank by the dewatering area sump pumps. The overflow is pumped to the FGD
wastewater treatment system.
Variations on the gypsum dewatering system design are typically specific to the client and
sometimes are site specific. Drum filters may be substituted for the vacuum belt filters for
applications requiring less moisture removal from the gypsum. Other gypsum dewatering
systems use vertical basket centrifuges instead of vacuum belt filters. Some companies are now
pumping the gypsum bleed slurry directly to the vacuum belt filter, eliminating the
hydrocyclones. Optimal system design requires an evaluation of end user requirements and site-
specific issues.
Limestone Preparation System
The limestone preparation system is normally installed as a common system for all units at a
plant. Dry limestone is fed from a storage silo onto a weigh belt filter, which controls the feed of
the limestone into the ball mill. Water is added with the limestone to assist in grinding and to
slurry the limestone.
Figure 9-4 shows a grinding system of the type used for most wet FGD applications. This system
uses a horizontal, wet overflow discharge type mill with steel grinding balls. The tumbling
motion of the balls pulverizes the limestone as the mill rotates at low speed. The ball mill
produces slurry containing 6065% solids, which is then discharged to the mill slurry tank.
Additional water is added to this tank to produce the 30% solids slurry used in the FGD system.
Feed pumps transport slurry from the mill slurry sump to hydrocyclone classifiers, where
centrifugal force separates coarse particles from the slurry and gravity flow returns them to the
ball mill for further grinding. The slurry containing finer particles exits the hydrocyclone
overflow with sufficient head for delivery to the reagent storage tank.

9-7

Figure 9-4
Typical General Arrangement for Wet Limestone Grinding Systems
Alternative Designs
Lime-Based FGD Systems
The lime process is the second most common wet FGD system utilized in the United States. This
process uses hydrated lime slurry in a countercurrent spray tower. Most of these systems use a
magnesium-enhanced lime (MEL) process where the reagent is magnesium-enhanced lime
(typically 58% magnesium oxide) or dolomitic lime (typically 20% magnesium oxide).
Although lime is a more costly reagent than limestone, MEL is also much more reactive and can
achieve high SO
2
removal efficiencies in significantly smaller absorber towers and with a much
lower liquid-to-gas ratio than is required for limestone scrubbers.
The gypsum processing system used with MEL is more challenging to design and operate than
for limestone slurry processes because the waste solids from MEL are more difficult to dewater.
As with limestone-based FGD, forced oxidation can be used in MEL to improve the quality of
the solids to produce commercial grade gypsum. However, this requires a separate tank external
to the absorber.
9-8
Lime Preparation
In a process called slaking, quicklime or a lime/magnesium oxide mixture is added to water,
creating a vigorous reaction with the release of heat, and obtaining calcium hydroxide or a
mixture of calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)
2
] and magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH)
2
] as the end
product for use as a reagent for the FGD system.
The lime slaking system is normally installed as a common system for all units at a plant. The
lime/magnesium oxide mixture is fed from a storage silo onto a weigh belt feeder, which controls
the feed of the lime into the lime slaker. The end product from the slaker is a slurry, which is
pumped to lime slurry storage tanks from which it is added to the FGD system as required.
Several types of slakers are available:
Detention or slurry slakers
Paste slakers
Batch slakers
Horizontal ball mill slakers
Vertical ball mill slakers
All of these have been used in utility applications to process the lime slurry for wet FGD
systems.
MEL Process
56

In the absorber, most of the SO
2
reacts with calcium hydroxide to precipitate calcium sulfite
(CaSO
3
H
2
O). The portion of SO
2
that reacts with magnesium hydroxide forms soluble salts as
wells as insoluble magnesium sulfite and magnesium bisulfite [MgSO
3,
Mg(HSO
3
)
2
]. The
formation of these soluble salts allows the scrubbing action to proceed at a much more rapid rate
than is possible with less soluble calcium reagents. Magnesium sulfite also provides a buffering
action, which prevents a sharp decrease in pH as the quantity of absorbed SO
2
increases, and
helps reagent utilization approach 100%.
Gypsum Processing
As noted, limestone with forced oxidation (LSFO) systems oxidize hydrated calcium sulfite to
hydrated calcium sulfate (gypsum) in the reaction tank. This process is called in situ oxidation.
Due to process limitations, the MEL-based FGD system product cannot be oxidized in situ.
Oxidation is accomplished with ex-situ oxidation using compressed air in an exterior bubble
tower.
When bleed slurry is forced into contact with compressed air in the external forced oxidation
bubble tower, hydrated calcium sulfite (CaSO
3
H
2
O) is converted to gypsum (hydrated calcium
sulfateCaSO
4
2H
2
O), and magnesium sulfite is oxidized to magnesium sulfate. The gypsum
precipitates while magnesium sulfate remains in solution. Liquid containing magnesium sulfate
is returned to the oxidation tower from the gypsum dewatering area. A portion of magnesium
sulfate is recirculated to the absorber where it replenishes magnesium sulfite, which buffers the

56
Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation, PN 11311-000, prepared by Sargent and Lundy for
National Lime Association, January 2003.
9-9
MEL reaction. The gypsum slurry bleed exiting the oxidation tower is pumped to a typical
gypsum processing system as described above.
Other Wet FGD Technologies
The following sections present a general discussion of the unique design features for the systems
offered by suppliers. It is not meant as a detailed description of their offerings.
Jet Bubbling Reactor
The Chiyoda CT-121 FGD system utilizes a jet bubbling reactor (JBR) to remove the SO
2

contained in the flue gas. This process utilizes fan pressure to force the flue gas into the reaction
tank containing slurry (see Figure 9-5). An open spray tower utilizes pumps to allow contact
between the flue gas and slurry. The Chiyoda CT-121 FGD system consists of two sections: gas
cooling and SO
2
removal. The flue gas enters the inlet gas cooling section where it is cooled and
saturated with a mixture of makeup water and process slurry. The flue gas then enters an
enclosed plenum chamber in the JBR formed by the upper deck plate and lower deck plate.
Sparger tube openings in the floor of the inlet plenum force the inlet flue gas below the level of
the slurry reservoir in the jet bubbling zone (froth zone) of the JBR. After bubbling through the
slurry, where the reactions occur, the gas flows upward through large gas riser tubes that bypass
the inlet plenum. Entrained moisture and slurry in the cleaned gas disengages in the outlet
plenum, located above the upper deck plate, due to a drastic velocity reduction. The cleaned gas
passes to the two-stage, horizontal-flow mist eliminator before entering the chimney.
9-10

Figure 9-5
Schematic of Jet Bubbling Reactor Internals
Dual Contact Absorber
Advatech offers a Double Contact Flow (DCF) wet FGD system, with two design options
available.
In the first design, flue gas enters the lower portion of the absorber horizontally, turns and flows
vertically upward through fountain sprays where SO
2
is removed. The fountain sprays consist of
a single layer of multiple spray headers located immediately above the inlet nozzle. Nozzles
located on the headers spray fine droplets of slurry upward in a fountain-type spray. The spray
initially is co-current to the flue gas flow, then becomes countercurrent as the slurry droplets
reach their pinnacle and are drawn downward by gravity. The fresh slurry droplets first contact
flue gas with reduced SO
2
concentration, as they travel upward, then pass through flue gas with
increasingly higher concentration, as they fall downward, eventually passing below the level of
the spray nozzles and the tower inlet nozzle and falling into the reaction basin. This trajectory
promotes good gas-liquid contact and extends its duration to enhance SO
2
removal efficiency.
The second design uses a horseshoe-shaped absorber and a two-step process to remove SO
2
from
the flue gas. The flue gas enters the upper portion of the absorber, flows vertically downward
where SO
2
is removed. The flue gas then flows horizontally around the bend, and vertically
upward, where additional SO
2
is removed. Water spray is used to quench the flue gas as it enters
the top of the absorber. Fountain sprays, with a single layer of multiple spray headers, are
installed in the lower portion of the first stage of the absorber. As nozzles located on the headers
spray fine droplets of slurry upward in a fountain-type spray, the slurry first has countercurrent
contact with the downward flowing flue gas. After the slurry reaches its pinnacle, it falls by
gravity and contacts the flue gas again, this time co-currently.
9-11
The second stage of the absorber acts like the first DCF design, with fountain sprays contacting
flue gas co-currently at first, then reversing direction and sustaining countercurrent contact with
the upward-flowing flue gas. The two double passes of fresh slurry through the flue gas
enhance SO
2
removal efficiency
The internal headers are supplied slurry by a single header with multiple recycle pumps feeding
the header. This allows various combinations of recycle pumps to be used, depending on the
boiler load and sulfur content in the fuel.
The cleaned flue gas is then discharged to the outlet duct through horizontal flow mist
eliminators.
Alstom
Alstom offers a patented design feature called performance enhancement plates (PEPs), or wall
rings, for enhancing the performance of the open spray tower absorbers. These radial baffles
project inward from the spray tower wall to redirect flue gas back into the spray zone and
thereby prevent it from traveling up the wall and bypassing the spray nozzles. PEPs can reduce
capital and operating costs by improving SO
2
removal efficiency and/or by reducing liquid-to-
gas ratio.
Alstom also offers the Flowpac Absorber, which is capable of achieving high SO
2
removal
efficiency without the use of the large slurry recycle pumps required by other absorber types.
The Flowpac Absorber takes advantage of the density difference between aerated and non-
aerated limestone slurry. Oxidation air is used to expand the volume of the slurry in the reaction
tank, allowing it to flow up and over the top of a sieve plate. Flue gas is introduced below the
sieve plate and flows upward through the frothy layer of limestone slurry on the plate. The gas
and slurry come into intimate contact, resulting in high SO
2
removal efficiency. The slurry
travels across the sieve plate and is discharged from the tray over a weir. The de-aerated slurry in
the reaction tank quiescent zone descends and can be recirculated in the air-lift zone.
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) offers a tray tower design to enhance the SO
2
capabilities of its wet
FGD system. The flue gas flows upward through the absorber where it is quenched by absorber
slurry from the undertray spray headers and by scrubbing slurry falling from the perforated
absorber tray. The quenched flue gas is then forced into contact with slurry as it passes through
the perforated absorber tray. The tray is sectioned into compartments by baffles to promote a
more even distribution of liquid on top of the tray and more even flow through the tray. Above
the tray, the flue gas encounters the upper spray zone where it flows counter currently to the
absorber slurry from the upper level absorber spray headers.
B&W offers several performance enhancements as part of their design. One set of enhancements
has allowed the tray tower to operate with higher superficial flue gas velocity15 ft/sec (4.6
m/s) instead of the conventional 10 ft/sec (3.0 m/s). This has enabled a reduction in tray tower
diameter, which reduces the capital costs for the absorber. The higher tower gas velocity was
obtained by optimizing the B&W tray to uniformly distribute the tower gas flow and by utilizing
proper high-velocity mist eliminators.
9-12
B&W has also reduced capital costs by utilizing a patented interspatial spray header design to
shorten tray tower height. This design doubles the number of spray nozzles at each level, and
reduces the number of spray levels, by locating the main header outside the tower and
penetrating the tower with branches at several locations around the tower perimeter.
Another design enhancement modifies the tower inlet by redesigning the awning that controls the
formation of solids buildup at the wet/dry interface in the absorber inlet. The awning directs the
contact between the gas and the liquid into a location in the middle of the tower away from the
inlet flue.
Babcock Power Environmental Inc. (BPEI)
BPEI offers dual flow up/down slurry nozzles in the spray tower. Essentially, each level of spray
header can provide twice the limestone slurry to the flue gas. This approach minimizes nozzles,
headers, associated pumps, and power consumption, which, in turn, reduces capital and operating
costs.
BPEI can include internal wall baffles to prevent untreated flue gas from flowing up the walls.
These rings are located at multiple elevations in the absorber to create a physical barrier that
drives the untreated flue gas into the slurry spray zone for effective treatment.
BPEI also offers a dual loop system, which couples the scrubber with quench, oxidation and
absorption, absorbent dosing, and gypsum slurry bleed. The flue gas enters the first loop (called
the quench loop) from the bottom and passes the quench spray bank level into the second loop
(called the absorber loop). This loop absorbs most of the SO
2
. The cleaned flue gas exits the
scrubber at the top after passing through the mist eliminators. An intermediate collection bowl
separates the two loops and collects the scrubbing liquid from the absorber loop. A return pipe
connects the collection bowl with the external sump tank. BPEI cites the following as main
benefits of dual loop system:
Superior performance for removal of higher SO
2
concentrations from the flue gas. Testing
has demonstrated that when burning high-sulfur coal and/or with the requirement of SO
2

control efficiencies of greater than 97%, the dual loop system is sometimes superior to a
single loop system. The system can use lower quality limestone and limestone with larger
particle size.
Higher pH value in the absorber loop allows use of a lower total L/G than in a single loop
system, resulting in a reduction in power consumption. When high SO
2
control efficiency is
required, the lower operational cost more than compensates for the additional cost of an
external sump tank.
Ammonia FGD System
The ammonia-based wet FGD system utilizes ammonia as the reagent to remove SO
2
from the
flue gas. The system generates ammonium sulfate, a fertilizer, as a product.
The conventional ammonia FGD system utilizes the same basic design as the limestone-based
FGD systems. Flue gas enters the vertical counterflow spray tower through an inlet nozzle above
the reaction tank located in the base of the tower. The design of the slurry spray headers and
nozzles, mist eliminators, and mist eliminator wash system is similar to LSFO designs. Hot flue
gas enters the lower portion of the tower and flows upward through multiple levels of spray
9-13
headers and associated nozzles. Flue gas flow is countercurrent to the flow of scrubbing slurry,
which is sprayed downward by the nozzles. The flue gas is cooled through the adiabatic
saturation temperature as it makes contact with the scrubbing slurry. Ammonium sulfite and
ammonium sulfate are formed as SO
2
is absorbed into the scrubbing slurry.
The ammonium sulfate partially crystallizes as water is evaporated from saturated ammonium
sulfate solution before it falls into the reaction tank at the base of the spray tower.
Oxidation air blowers introduce compressed air into the reaction tank to complete the scrubbing
reactions and oxidize the ammonium sulfite to ammonium sulfate. In some systems, the
oxidation air also serves as a vaporizer and carrier for makeup ammonia, which is injected into
the air transport piping, in anhydrous or aqueous form, upstream of the distribution control
valves. In other systems, aqueous ammonia, or vaporized anhydrous ammonia, is introduced to
the reaction tank in a separate stream.
The oxidation air system consists of air compressors, valves, transport piping, air lances, and
agitators. The air is transported to the reaction tank by the transport piping and introduced into
the reaction tank through multiple air lances installed in the reaction tank. The air lances are
positioned in front of horizontal agitators. The agitators ensure that the air and ammonia are
mixed well with the slurry and that the solids in the reaction tank remain in suspension.
Recycle pumps take suction from the reaction tank and pump the refreshed scrubbing slurry to
the headers and nozzles in the spray tower. A bleed system removes the appropriate amount of
ammonium sulfate slurry to maintain process equilibrium and transport the slurry to the
processing area. The bleed system may take a sidestream from the recirculation piping or may
use separate pumps that take suction from the reaction tank.
The absorber module is typically equipped with a vertical flow two-stage mist eliminator system
that removes carryover mist by inertial contact. The primary stage of the mist eliminator captures
large particles and droplets. The secondary stage captures wash water droplets and finer
particles. A water wash system flushes the mist eliminators to prevent buildup of slurry deposits.
Makeup water is directed to the upstream and downstream faces of the first stage mist
eliminators by spray nozzles and the upstream face of the second stage mist eliminators.
Ammonia Supply System
Makeup ammonia is supplied to a wet FGD system by a storage and pumping system that
consists of an ammonia storage tank farm, ammonia forwarding pumps, and associated piping,
valves, and controls. Anhydrous ammonia is stored under pressure in multiple tanks. Forwarding
pumps deliver the ammonia from the storage tanks to the reaction tank by either a controlled
injection to the oxidation air system, or through a vaporizer to a separate injection point. If
aqueous ammonia is used, it may be injected into the oxidation air system or pumped directly to
the reaction tank.
Ammonium Sulfate Dewatering
The dewatering system for the ammonia FGD system is slightly different than the limestone-
based FGD system. The bleed slurry is fed to a set of dewatering hydrocyclones that increases
the slurry density from approximately 10% by weight solids to 35% solids. The higher density
9-14
slurry (underflow) is directed to a centrifuge feed tank. The lower density slurry (overflow) is
directed back to the absorber.
The slurry from the centrifuge feed tank is pumped to vertical basket centrifuges where
additional water is removed. The 35% by weight solids is increased to 9597% by weight solids.
The centrifuges then discharge the material into a rotary drum dryer where the material is dried
to less than 1% moisture. The material is then transported to a storage silo.
Depending on the objectives of the end user, the ammonium sulfate product may be sold without
further processing, or may require additional processing. If the product can be sold as is, the
storage silo will be equipped with truck loading facilities. If further processing is required, the
product will be fed to a compaction system, where it is mixed with recycled materials, converted
from sugar-like crystals to larger granular crystals, and fed to the compactors. The compactors
compress the material at a high force, producing a large flake of ammonium sulfate. The flake
is then ground in sizing mills and fed to a sizing screen, which separates the on-size material
from the fines. The fines are recycled back to the feed of the compaction process. The on-size
product passes through a dryer and then a cooler to ensure that the product meets industry quality
requirements.
Current Design Issues
Higher Removal Efficiencies
As SO
2
emission limits become more stringent, the demand for increased removal efficiencies
grows. Although SO
2
removal efficiencies of 9597% were the norm in the early 2000s, current
wet FGD systems are being designed for 98% SO
2
removal efficiency, and pressure to achieve
guaranteed higher efficiencies as quickly as possible is mounting. FGD systems must continue to
meet industry standards for reliability and availability, even when higher removal efficiencies
place new demands on the systems.
Several approaches are being used to increase efficiency from new and existing absorbers. These
include:
Increasing contact between the reagent and the SO
2
-laden flue gas (several methods are
described below)
Modifying the slurry with chemical additives that increase the SO
2
absorption rate and
capacity (see the subsection on additives)
Increased contact between the reagent and the SO
2
-laden flue gas can be accomplished in several
ways, each with a different impact on capital and/or operating costs. These include:
Adding an extra spray level in a vertical spray tower
Using higher pressure spray nozzles to decrease droplet size
Installing wall rings to prevent untreated flue gas from bypassing the spray nozzles and to re-
entrain slurry that is flowing down the walls of the absorber
A typical spray tower, designed for 98% SO
2
removal efficiency, has a fixed number of operating
spray headers with one available as a spare, to be used if there is a problem with plugging,
excessive nozzle wear or slurry reactivity, or to catch-up after a system upset to maintain annual
9-15
average emissions. If the system were designed for a higher SO
2
removal efficiency, it might
have additional operating spray headers. The number of operating headers is based on the
amount of sulfur in the coal and the percent removal required.
Adding a spray header increases capital costs, not only for the additional header, but for a new
pump, piping, and valves. Further capital costs would be incurred for increasing the absorber
height and upgrading structural supports, foundations, and electrical equipment. There would be
a small percentage increase in the cost of reagent. Electric power consumption would increase by
a greater percentage, due both to increased flow rate and to the head requirement for the header
added at higher elevation.
Higher pressure spray header nozzles are used to decrease the slurry droplet size and thereby
increase the surface area in contact with the flue gas. Although this method alone does not
achieve the total increase in the SO
2
removal efficiency, it is used as a step to achieve increased
removal efficiency.
Although SO
2
removal efficiency is increased by the smaller droplet size, the smaller droplets are
more easily entrained in the gas flow. The mist eliminators are more likely to plug because the
volume of entrained solids has increased while the eliminators are being designed with smaller
passages and sharper direction changes to trap the finer droplets and particles. Increased
operating costs result from increased pump head requirements and, potentially, from increased
spray nozzle wear rates.
As noted in the Alstom and BPEI subsections, installation of wall rings can enhance the
performance of spray tower absorbers by decreasing the amount of untreated gas that can bypass
each bank of spray nozzles and by re-entraining slurry that has begun flowing down the wall.
Radial baffles projecting inward from the spray tower wall redirect flue gas, which might have
bypassed the spray nozzles by traveling up the wall, back into the spray zone. Trays or wall rings
can help reduce capital and operating costs by substantially improving SO
2
removal efficiency
and/or reducing the required liquid-to-gas ratio.
Materials of Construction
Wet FGD systems present a significant challenge with respect to selecting materials of
construction and design features that balance capital costs with long-term operating and
maintenance costs. Other substances removed from the flue gas and incorporated in the FGD
slurry (along with SO
2
) include chlorides, fluorides, beryllium, and other halides.
The chlorides and other halides form dissolved salts that remain in the process slurry loop. As
the chloride concentration continually increases, the slurry becomes progressively more acidic
and more corrosive to the materials of construction of the FGD system. A high chloride
concentration can also have a negative effect on the systems SO
2
removal capability.
Until recently, the typical industry for maximum process chloride concentration ranged from
40,000 to 60,000 ppm. This appears to be the maximum concentration before SO
2
removal is
impacted. Very expensive materials of construction are required to resist corrosion at this
concentration of chlorides. These measures include high-nickel alloys, flake-glass-lined carbon
steel, or ceramic tile linings. The current trend for new installations is toward lower chloride
concentrations, in the range of 12,000 to 20,000 ppm, which allows use of less-expensive alloys
and linings.
9-16
Achieving a lower process chloride concentration requires an increase in the rate of blowdown
(the purge stream required to remove the chlorides from the process). The result is a larger
wastewater stream that contains more dilute concentrations of chlorides and other impurities and
that potentially entails significantly higher treatment costs. An evaluation and optimization study
should be undertaken to recommend a chloride concentration and materials of construction that
give an appropriate balance between the cost of materials and decreased performance at high
chloride levels and the cost of wastewater treatment at lower levels.
Wastewater
Impurities enter a wet FGD process with the flue gas and fly ash created by coal combustion,
with limestone or other reagents, and with makeup water. Blowdown from the FGD system is
required to remove chlorides and other impurities that may influence the reliability and
performance of the system, and to control the fines content of the slurry. This blowdown is
typically considered to be wastewater and must be treated before being discharged to surface
water or recirculated back to the scrubber process. FGD wastewater presents a challenge to treat
because of the following characteristics:
High concentrations of TDS and TSS
High buffering capacity
Supersaturation in sulfates
High temperature
Potentially high organic concentration from dibasic acid (DBA) addition
Ammonia, from the ammonia slip for ESP conditioning and NO
X
control; nitrites and nitrates
(if theyre produced by the SCR or by the ammonia treatment)
Miscellaneous regulated heavy metals and trace constituents that vary by coal type (i.e.,
arsenic, mercury, selenium, boron, etc.).
Due to the complex nature of wet FGD wastewater, several stages are required to treat the
wastewater to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
requirements for surface water discharge. This treatment may include the following steps:
Calcium sulfate desaturation
Primary solids removal
Trace metals precipitation
Secondary solids removal
Filtration
Biological treatment
Sludge dewatering
Wet FGD wastewater is typically combined with other water discharges from the power plant
(wet bottom ash handling, cooling water, steam condensate, etc.). This mixing further defines
exact wastewater treatment requirements. Wastewater characterization is required before
treatment in order to tune these treatment processes for the many variables that are present at
each site, and after treatment to determine if the wastewater is acceptable for discharge. These
parameters may be affected by the ESP, baghouse, SCR, FGD; additives like organic acids; coal
9-17
and limestone types and makeup water constituents. Typical parameters include biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), heavy metals (i.e., selenium, arsenic,
boron), temperature, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS).
Testing (bench and pilot scale) is critical to define wastewater treatment system requirements
and performance, especially when dealing with problematic pollutants like selenium, arsenic,
mercury, BOD, etc.
Many unanswered questions persist about the application of treatment technologies to FGD
wastewater, especially treatment of problematic constituents. Many of the primary and tertiary
wastewater treatment technologies being constructed by the power industry today have not been
demonstrated at full-scale using actual FGD wastewater.
Single Absorber
Early vintage FGD installations included multiple absorbers, even for smaller power plants, with
at least one complete spare module. This resulted in the installation of inlet and outlet dampers to
isolate the absorbers. Corrosion of the dampers and nearby duct was prevalent. Scale and slurry
build-up on damper blades would impair their operation. The reliability of the absorbers was
compromised.
As the reliability of the absorbers increased and confidence their capability grew, smaller power
plants started using single absorbers and stocking spare equipment and materials for
maintenance. This eliminated the need for isolation dampers and their inherent problems. As the
technology continued to mature, improved larger single absorbers were developed. Several years
ago, the industry was utilizing a single absorber for 500 MW (or flue gas flow equivalent) or
smaller. Larger power plants utilized two absorbers, again without a spare absorber.
Suppliers are now offering a single absorber for 1000 MW (or flue gas flow equivalent) with the
appropriate spare equipment to achieve very high availability and reliability.
Flue Gas Superficial Velocity
A key factor in SO
2
removal efficiency for a wet FGD system is contact time between the reagent
slurry and the flue gas. Longer contact time enables higher SO
2
removal. Flue gas velocity
(typically measured as superficial velocity, neglecting the influence of vessel internals and slurry
volume) is one of the major factors to achieving optimum contact time. Lower flue gas
superficial velocities allow more contact time between the slurry and the flue gas. In some of the
first wet FGD systems, absorbers had flue gas superficial velocities as low as 8 ft/sec (2.4 m/s).
Because lower velocities require larger diameter absorbers, modifications to allow use of smaller
absorber diameters were pursued as material costs rose. Superficial velocities increased to 1011
ft/sec (3.03.4 m/s) as the technology developed and improvements were made. Current designs
have been able to meet demands for higher SO
2
removal efficiencies while also using higher
superficial flue gas velocities in the 1014 ft/sec (3.04.3 m/s) range. Testing and pilot testing
have been conducted in an attempt to achieve superficial flue gas velocities as high as 20 ft/sec
(6 m/s).
9-18
Additives
Chemical additives have found widespread use in the industry, both for their ability to improve
poor performance on existing FGD systems, and for their ability to allow a well-performing
system to conform to strict annual emissions limits despite occasional upsets. For units that are
unable to meet performance requirements, additives may be the least-cost approach for
improving performance.
The additives of choice have been organic acids, including dibasic acid (DBA) and formic acid.
Historically, newly purchased wet FGD systems have not included organic acid addition in the
original design, reserving that option for use if original guarantees were not met or system upsets
occurred. This also preserves the option of using organic acid to meet future, stricter limits
without the capital expense required to increase absorber size and associated components.
The interest in additives has been renewed as stricter SO
2
emission limits have required higher
removal efficiencies, with organic acid enhanced wet limestone scrubbing now being considered
for new wet FGD systems.
The benefits of organic additives include:
Reduced liquid/gas ratio in wet scrubbers
Less power consumption by slurry pumps
Reduced limestone consumption
Flexibility to over-scrub
Accumulation of additional SO
2
credits for use or sale
Allows for flexibility in fuel selection
Improved ability to handle swings in inlet SO
2

Equipment downsizing for new scrubbers
Additives are also being considered as an alternative to installation of a spare spray header for
ensuring system reliability and availability, and increasing the reliability of the FGD system
while reducing capital costs. A small skid-mounted additive system and additive storage tank can
be installed for a much lower cost than an installed spare header and associated piping, valves,
nozzles, and pumps. The additive system would only be used in the event of the failure of one of
the operating headers or other system upset. Again, the costs of the additive should be compared
to the capital costs for the header and associated equipment.
If organic acids are used in a wet FGD system, the gypsum and wastewater will contain small
concentrations of the acid. This may influence the ability to sell the gypsum for some end uses
and may change wastewater treatment system design or operation.
Flue Gas Distribution and Moisture Collection
Flue gas distribution is probably the most overlooked parameter in the design of wet FGD
systems. As higher SO
2
removal efficiencies are required, design optimization for uniform gas
flow in the absorber is important to the performance of the FGD system. Mal-distribution can
allow gas to flow through the absorber with minimal contact with the sprays and corresponding
reduction in system performance.
9-19
Another important flue gas distribution issue is the location of the wet/dry interface between the
hot flue gasses entering the absorber and the wet saturated flue gasses in the absorber. This is the
most corrosive zone in the wet FGD system and therefore requires the highest grade materials;
typically, a high-nickel alloy is used. If the wet/dry interface extends into the inlet duct, which is
normally carbon steel, rapid corrosion may occur.
The flue gas exits the absorber as a saturated gas with some entrained moisture droplets. In the
past, reheat was commonly used to evaporate the droplets and to decrease gas density to provide
buoyancy for gas dispersion above the stack exit. However, this required considerable energy
and created another wet/dry interface, with resultant material failure. Later wet FGD designs
eliminated the reheat system.
Current systems use a wet stack design, with saturated flue gas from the absorber entering the
stack downstream of the FGD absorber. This can lead to rain out if condensation droplets
remain entrained after forming in the stack. Flow modeling of the downstream duct and chimney
liner is essential for determining the shape of the duct and position moisture collection devices
and drains to remove moisture that accumulates on the duct and chimney liner walls. The
moisture is then drained to the absorber.
Flow model testing provides another benefit by helping the stack designer locate turns and other
internal features so as to reduce flue gas pressure drop.
Recycle Pump Sizes
A wet FGD slurry recycle system requires specially designed slurry pumps that are resistant to
erosion, corrosion, and plugging. These pumps use rubber lining or alloy construction. They gain
further resistance to erosion by operating at very low speeds and using belt drives or gear boxes
for speed reduction.
Until recently, the largest pumps offered for recycle service were capable of pumping
approximately 35,000 U.S. gallons per minute or 2200 liters per second. The latest pumps
offered by the manufacturers are capable of pumping approximately 70,000 gpm (4400 l/s).
This increase in capacity means that fewer pumps and associated equipment are required. FGD
system reliability has not been affected.
Process Control
With the ever tightening regulations and lower SO
2
emission rates, process control becomes
more important. Reliable process monitoring is essential for maintaining the required removal
efficiencies. Typical process parameters that are continuously monitored include:
Flue gas flow
Flue gas inlet SO
2

Flue gas outlet SO
2

Inlet flue gas temperature and pressure
Outlet flue gas temperature and pressure
Process slurry pH
Process slurry density
9-20
Process slurry pressures
Makeup water flow
Limestone slurry density
Limestone slurry flow
Bleed slurry density
Bleed slurry flow
Gypsum moisture content
FGD system parameters are further tracked through periodic sample testing and wet chemical
analysis. Some of this sample analysis serves as a check on the accuracy of the automatic
monitoring. Other parameters, which are not automatically monitored, help identify process
trends that may indicate equipment malfunction or impending process upsets. Parameters
evaluated by sampling include:
Various process densities
Process pH
Limestone analyses
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
Particle sizes
Sulfate and sulfite content
Additive content
Process Upsets
Process upsets can result from failure of mechanical equipment, instrumentation, or control
systems, or from changes in the chemical properties of the coal, reagents, additives, or process
water. Several of the most common upsets are addressed here.
Limestone Blinding
Limestone blinding can cause a fairly rapid decrease in wet FGD process reactions. This
phenomenon occurs when another substance precipitates on the surface of the limestone particle,
forming a thin coating that acts as a barrier and stops dissolution of the limestone. The coating
prevents interaction between the solid CaCO
3
and the sulfurous acid formed by the absorption of
SO
2
into the water surrounding the particle.
The major contributor to the blinding phenomena has been identified as formation of soluble
aluminum fluoride complexes (AlF
x
). Coal combustion is the primary source for both the
aluminum and the fluoride ions. HF vapor, formed after combustion, travels in the flue gas
before being absorbed by the limestone slurry. The aluminum content is released from fly ash
that has been entrained in the FGD liquor and deposited in the reaction basin.
Limestone blinding has become less of an issue as fly ash removal has improved with the
increasing efficiencies of particulate removal devices (ESP or baghouse) installed upstream of
9-21
the FGD unit. Less fly ash reaches the FGD system, lowering the likelihood that sufficient
aluminum to cause blinding will be present.
Limestone blinding has also been observed in forced-oxidation systems when insufficient
oxidation air is provided. Blinding results from the increasing concentration of dissolved sulfite
and disappears quickly when sufficient oxidation air is introduced.
Gypsum Quality
Gypsum generated by wet FGD processes is used in wallboard, cement, concrete, and, to a lesser
extent, in agriculture industries. The gypsum processing utilizes hydrocyclones and vacuum
filters or centrifuges to dewater the gypsum bleed slurry from the FGD process. For some uses,
the gypsum is washed to remove some of the impurities.
Gypsum quality must be maintained to ensure use by industry. Quality issues include:
Moisture content
Crystal size
Chloride content
Mercury content
Heavy metal content
Oxidation Air
Oxidation air is introduced into the reaction tank of a wet FGD system to supply oxygen that
completes the scrubbing reactions and oxidizes the calcium sulfite contained in the reaction tank
to form gypsum (calcium sulfate). The most common method for introducing oxidation air into
the reaction tank is the lance system. This system utilizes a series of vertical down flow air pipes
to direct the compressed air to the jetting zone of side entry agitators installed in the reaction
tank. The air is then distributed throughout the reaction tank. Another method used is the sparge
grid. This system utilizes a multiple header arrangement with even spacing of bubble stations
across the reaction tank plan. The performance of the lance system relies on the energy of the
fluid jet (mixer power) and the submergence depth (compressor power). The performance of the
sparge grid is less dependent on the mixer power and is, to a much greater degree, dependent on
submergence depth.
A newer method for introducing oxidation air directs part of the discharge from the slurry
recycle pumps through an eductor that entrains oxidation air, which then enters the reaction tank
through an injection tube. This method eliminates the air compressor, and reduces the capital and
operating and maintenance costs associated with the compressor. At higher SO
2
inlet loading,
which requires more oxidation air, an air compressor will be required to supplement the eductor
system.
10-1
10
DRY SO
2
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Dry flue gas desulfurization (dry FGD) technology is normally used in plants burning low-sulfur
(typically less than 2%) feed coal and in locations where limited space makes it difficult to install
gypsum recovery and wastewater treatment systems. Dry FGD is a also a viable choice when
insufficient water supply is available for wet FGD or when it is more advantageous to dispose of
a dry waste product in a landfill.
The lime spray drying absorption (LSDA) process is the most commonly used design. In this
semi-dry scrubbing process, lime slurry is injected at the top of a scrubber located downstream of
the air heaters. With slurry flow co-current with the flue gas flow, the slurry dries while adding
moisture to the flue gas and absorbing up to 95% of the SO
2
. Part of the dry waste product is
collected in the bottom of the Spray Dry Absorber (SDA) while the rest is collected in a particle
collector.
The Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) process also produces a dry mixture of fly ash and reaction
products. The application of lime-based DSI to coal-fired boilers is generally limited to low-
sulfur fuels where an SO
2
removal efficiency of 3050% or less is required. In the DSI process,
dry hydrated lime is introduced uniformly into the flue gas via a grid of duct injection lances. As
with the LSDA process, the waste products are collected in a particulate control device.
Experience with DSI indicates that SO
2
removals rarely exceed 2530% when using hydrated
lime alone. With simultaneous humidification of the flue gas, SO
2
removals of up to 50% are
achievable.
Lime Spray Drying Absorption
In the lime spray drying process represented schematically in Figure 10-1, flue gas is treated in
an absorber by mixing atomized lime slurry droplets with the gas stream in co-current flow. As
the water in the spray droplets evaporates, near the top of the absorber, the flue gas is cooled
from 300F (150C) or higher to as low as 30F (17C) above the adiabatic water saturation
temperature. The droplets absorb SO
2
from the flue gas and the SO
2
reacts with the lime in the
slurry.
10-2

Figure 10-1
Typical Dry FGD Process Flow Diagram
The lime spray drying process produces a dry mixture of fly ash and reaction products, which is
typically captured in a baghouse. In most LSDA systems, a portion of the waste products is
mixed with process water and recycled back to the atomizers as recycle slurry.
The application of the lime spray dryer FGD process to coal-fired boilers is generally limited to
fuels with less than 2% sulfur when high SO
2
removal efficiency is required. To optimize contact
in the spray drying absorption process, the slurry is atomized through rotary atomizers or through
dual fluid nozzles, as shown in Figure 10-2. Flue gas is introduced into each SDA module by
means of gas dispersers, which distribute the incoming flue gas symmetrically around the
atomizer unit(s) at a velocity and direction appropriate for achieving optimum absorption of the
acids contained in the flue gas. The gas dispersers can be designed to introduce the flue gas into
the absorber from the roof or from the roof and the center of the vessel.
Guide vanes are installed at the outlet of the dispenser and are constructed of abrasion-resistant
material. Careful control of gas distribution, slurry flow rate, and droplet size assures that the
droplets evaporate fully prior to contacting the internal walls of the SDA module.

10-3

Figure 10-2
Dual Fluid Nozzle Atomizer (Left) and Rotary Atomizer (Right)
Lime Preparation System
The lime preparation system combines process water and pebble lime to prepare hydrated lime
slurry at approximately 2025% (by weight) suspended solids concentration. Lime is discharged
from each storage silo through a weigh feeder and is fed to an individual lime slaking system.
The lime slurry product is screened of oversized particles in a vibrating grit screen and
discharged from each slaker train, and either pumped or gravity fed to a common lime slurry
storage tank. A tank agitator keeps the lime solids in suspension. This lime slurry storage tank
can act as the sole source for all absorbers, or slurry can be pumped to separate tanks feeding
individual absorbers.
Lime slurry feed pumps draw suction from the slurry feed tanks and discharge to the lime slurry
feed loops, which supply slurry to the SDA atomizer head tank. Constant pump speeds and
pipeline velocities are maintained to prevent solids from settling or caking up within the lime
slurry feed loop.
Recycle Slurry System
In some systems, recycle slurry is mixed with fresh lime slurry in the lime storage tank to form
the final slurry that is sprayed into the SDA module. In other systems, recycle slurry is delivered
to common or dedicated injectors with a separate system of pumps and piping. The recycle slurry
enhances utilization of the lime reagent as well as promoting droplet drying in the SDA chamber.
In the recycle system, FGD by-product solids from the SDA and particulate collector are
conveyed pneumatically by the ash handling system to the recycle solids silo. Recycle material is
discharged from the recycle solids silo through a fluidized outlet and flows to the recycle slurry
preparation system.
The recycle solids are initially combined with process water during discharge to the recycle mix
tanks where additional water is added to prepare recycle slurry at up to 45% (by weight)
10-4
suspended solids. The recycle slurry is then delivered to the recycle slurry storage tank, entering
the tank through a vibrating grit screen that removes oversized particles. The storage tank has an
agitator to keep the solids from settling.
Centrifugal pumps are used for the recycle slurry feed service. Constant pump speeds and pipe
line velocities are maintained to eliminate settling or caking within the dedicated recycle slurry
supply line to the atomizer level on top of the SDA.
Lime Spray Drying Absorption Process
The LSDA feed slurry is injected into the flue gas as a fine spray using atomizing nozzles, which
are typically either a rotary design or an air-atomized, two-fluid nozzle design, as shown in
Figure 10-2. The finely atomized feed slurry mixes with the flue gas, resulting in the evaporation
of water and the removal of the SO
2
via chemical reaction with the slurry. Recycle solids slurry
may be mixed with fresh hydrated lime slurry before or during injection, or may be injected
separately.
Slurry is gravity fed from the atomizer head to the atomizers. The flow of slurry is controlled by
maintaining an absorber outlet gas temperature. As the gas temperature gets higher than the set
point, more total slurry flow is fed to the absorber. The flow of fresh lime slurry into the
atomizer head tank is controlled to maintain an absorber outlet SO
2
level. As the SO
2
level gets
above the set point, more fresh lime slurry is fed into the head tank.
The water content and droplet size of the slurry spray are precisely controlled so that the water
evaporates completely as the flue gas and spray travel together through the absorber vessel. SO
2

absorption takes place primarily while the flue gas is cooled adiabatically by this evaporation of
the water contained in the atomized spray. The difference between the temperature of flue gas
leaving the SDA and the adiabatic saturation temperature of the flue gas is known as the
approach temperature. Reagent stoichiometry, recycle ratio, residence time, and approach
temperature are the primary variables that control the SO
2
removal efficiency in the SDA system.
The primary product of the reaction between the hydrated lime, Ca(OH)
2
, component of the feed
slurry and the SO
2
is hydrated calcium sulfite, according to the following relationship:
SO
2
+ Ca(OH)
2
CaSO
3
H
2
O + H
2
O (1)
A smaller portion of the sulfur dioxide may also react with oxygen in the flue gas to produce the
secondary product of calcium sulfate dihydrate by the following reaction:
Ca(OH)
2
+ SO
2
+ H
2
O + O
2
CaSO
4
2H
2
O (2)
Sulfur trioxide is also found in the flue gas in small amounts. The sulfur trioxide reaction
produces additional calcium sulfate dihydrate by the following:
SO
3
+Ca(OH)
2
+ H
2
O CaSO
4
2H
2
O (3)
Hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids are also typically found in the flue gas in even smaller
amounts. Calcium chloride (CaCl
2
) and calcium fluoride (CaF
2
) are produced as a result. High
levels of calcium chloride can have a marked impact on the SDA performance.
Most of the water added to the lime in the initial hydration process is evaporated in the absorber.
There are no wastewater streams exiting the absorber. The degree of reaction depends on the
10-5
amount of liquid present, the approach to the adiabatic saturation temperature, and the residence
time for particle drying.
As the flue gas and feed slurry mixture passes through the SDA module, the spray drying and
initial SO
2
removal processes are completed. The flue gas and entrained reaction products, un-
reacted reagent, and fly ash exit the SDA module and flow into the particulate collector.
Additional SO
2
removal takes place in the particulate collector as the un-reacted lime
accumulates on the bags and comes in contact with the flue gas still containing SO
2
. The SDA
module is designed to ensure that most of the particulate can be entrained in the flue gas and
carried to the particulate collector. The larger, coarser particulate that is not entrained in the flue
gas exiting the SDA module may be discharged from the bottom of the SDA module hopper for
disposal. The reaction products, un-reacted reagent, and fly ash collected in the particulate
collector hoppers is then conveyed by the ash handling system to either the recycle ash storage
silo for reuse or the waste ash storage silo for disposal. Upon exiting the particulate collector,
cleaned flue gas is directed to booster fans that discharge to the stack.
Current Issues for Lime Spray Drying
Higher Removal Efficiencies
The demand for dry FGD systems to increase removal efficiencies has heightened as SO
2

emission limits continue to be lowered. As recently as the early 2000s, SO
2
removal efficiencies
of 90% were the norm. Current LSDA systems are being designed for SO
2
removal efficiency as
high as 95%.
Very few methods are currently practical for increasing SO
2
removal efficiency in LSDA
systems. The systems must continue to meet industry standards for reliability and availability
after any process or equipment modifications are made to obtain higher removal efficiencies.
Available options include:
Operating at closer approach to adiabatic saturation temperature
Increasing effective contact time between the reagent and the SO
2
laden flue gas by passing
the flue gas through filter cake accumulated by a barrier filter
Increasing slurry reactivity by increasing chloride content in the slurry
Increasing contact time by increasing the height and/or diameter of the SDA vessel
Increasing contact proximity by increasing the fluid to gas ratio
Increasing slurry reactivity by reducing recycle and increasing makeup with fresh lime.
Reducing Approach to Saturation Temperature
In dry FGD applications, SO
2
removal is closely correlated to the flue gas adiabatic saturation
temperature. SDA operation at outlet temperatures close to the saturation temperature prolongs
drying time and increases SO
2
removal and reagent utilization.
The impact of increasing SO
2
removal by operating at close approach temperatures is the added
capital cost for protective coatings for the SDA walls, SDA hoppers, and the particulate collector
inlet duct and hoppers. More aggressive by-product removal systems such as screw or drag chain
conveyors may be required. Higher costs would also be incurred for the additional particulate
10-6
collector equipment, structural supports, and foundations. It is expected that reagent costs would
decrease slightly.
Increasing Contact in a Barrier Filter
The use of a barrier filter, typically a fabric filter, for particle collection is the most cost
effective, and therefore the most common method for increasing the contact time for the reagent
and flue gas in order to achieve high SO
2
removal efficiency. The fabric filter can be sized
conservatively and/or operated at higher pressure drops to maximize the contact between the
filter cake and the SO
2
remaining in the SDA outlet flue gas. This increase in contact time
reduces reagent cost by improving the removal efficiency for a given consumption lime reagent.
This saving must be weighed against increased fan power consumption.
Effect of Chlorides in Fuel and Makeup Water
Another method to increase SO
2
removal performance is to increase the chloride concentration in
the flue gas or the makeup water. This will create more CaCl
2
in the by-product, which will lead
to longer particle drying times and higher SO
2
removals. The chloride levels in the SDA by-
product can be increased by blending with higher chlorine coals or through direct addition of
chlorine compounds to the makeup water.
The impact of increasing SO
2
removal by operating at higher chloride levels is the added capital
costs for protective coatings for the SDA walls, SDA hoppers, and the PJFF inlet duct and
hoppers, as well as more aggressive by-product removal systems such as screw or drag chain
conveyors. Operation at higher approach temperatures will offset much of the CaCl
2
effect. It is
expected that reagent costs will decrease when operating at low approach temperatures.
Gas Residence Time
In the design of early spray dryer absorber processes, SDA gas residence time was on the order
of 810 seconds. This may have been adequate for low-sulfur western U.S. coals where SO
2

removal requirements were minimal and chloride levels were low. As the size of SDA modules
has increased, so has the number of applications on low- to medium-sulfur eastern U.S.
bituminous fuels. As the effect of chlorides on drying time and by-product characteristics has
become better known, most suppliers have increased the minimum gas residence time to 1215
seconds. In most applications, this assures that a dry product is discharged from the SDA.
Use of Recycle
The recycle slurry enhances utilization of the lime reagent as well as promoting droplet drying in
the SDA chamber. Typically, lime usage is reduced by the use of recycle slurry in the SDA,
where un-reacted reagent may remove more SO
2
as it is recycled back through the spray drying
process.
Although saving on reagent cost, the use of recycle increases capital cost and other operation and
maintenance costs. Additional mixing tanks, pumps, valves, and piping are required. O&M cost
impacts include power consumption and increased wear and tear on the atomizers. Many
operators of SDA units on western U.S. coals have ceased using recycle due to increased
maintenance issues, including atomizer pluggage and control valve wear.
10-7
Although some systems offer capital savings by mixing recycle with fresh slurry for common
injection, others use separate systems that can quickly change the balance of fresh slurry and
recycle slurry to respond more quickly to upsets and to events such as sootblowing that cause
rapid increases in fly ash loading.
Nearly all of the SDA units in service to date use A36 carbon steel for the absorber construction.
These materials hold up well as long as the SDA outlet temperature is well controlled at more
than 30F (17C) above the adiabatic saturation temperature. Instances where problems with
back end corrosion have occurred can usually be traced to improper operation, too close to the
saturation temperature, in an attempt to reduce reagent cost and increase SO
2
removal. Other
instances of corrosion have included units where flue gas chemistry was not well known and
chloride levels in the flue gas or makeup water were higher than expected.
SDA Vessel Size
In an attempt to use single SDA modules for generating units up to 400 MW, SDA vessels have
increased in diameter from 4850 ft (about 15 m) to 6070 ft (1820 m). Use of a single SDA
module saves significantly on capital costs and requires less space than would be needed for
multiple SDA modules for the same unit. The successful use of multiple atomizers per SDA
module has made the use of large SDA modules possible.
Single versus Multiple Atomizers
State regulations regarding SO
2
averaging times can impact the use of single SDA vessels and
single atomizers. Atomizers can be maintained on-line, but a lower level of SO
2
removal is
usually the result of atomizer maintenance. This impact can be mitigated by the use of multiple
atomizers, where the effect of the removal of one atomizer for maintenance will be minimized.
Where SO
2
removal requirements are on a 24-hour or 30-day rolling average, use of over-
scrubbing during low load operation can also help the plant meet compliance levels.
By-product Disposal
Within the U.S markets, dry FGD waste has limited commercial application and will most likely
be sent to landfill. Excess waste solids, that are not recycled in the scrubbing process, are
pneumatically conveyed to the by-product or waste storage silo. This material is discharged from
the silo through a pin mixer, where it is wetted to control dusting, and is dropped into a dump
truck. Large trucks are typically used to haul the material to a landfill for disposal.
In Europe, recycling and utilization of dry FGD waste products has advanced significantly, as a
result of almost two decades of efforts by European industry leaders and authorities. As much as
86% of dry FGD by-product generated within the European Union is registered as being
reclaimed for beneficial uses (ECOBA statistics for 1998). This reuse still faces considerable
difficulties, as the annual amount produced at each plant is relatively small and utilization
options are limited by the complexity of the chemical composition, which is compounded by
process specific variations from unit to unit.
The most important current uses for dry FGD wastes include:
10-8
Use as stowing material and mining mortar component for coal mines. This accounts for
approximately 75% of the dry FGD waste utilization in Europe.
Commercial applications of dry FGD/fly ash mixtures as fill and sub-base material for
storage areas, parking lots, embankment material for roads, sealing layers, etc.
Use of dry FGD product as reagent in wet FGD and conversion to gypsum. In Denmark, this
is now a large-scale commercial use.
Developing applications include:
Thermal conversion to anhydrite, for use as a setting agent in cement and as a component in
bricks and aggregates of different kinds. This has been demonstrated technically, but only on
a small-scale basis.
Use as Ca-S fertilizer. The market interest for dry FGD product as fertilizer continues to
increase after successful research in the 1990s.
Other Dry SO
2
Control Technologies
Alternatives to the lime spray drying process for dry SO
2
control technologies include dry lime
injection, circulating dry scrubbers, and flash dryer absorbers.
Dry Sorbent Injection Process
The Dry Sorbent Injection process produces a dry mixture of fly ash and reaction products
(similar to LSDA). The application of DSI using lime, for SO
2
removal in coal-fired boilers, is
generally limited to low-sulfur fuels where an SO
2
removal efficiency of 3050% or less is
required.
In the DSI process, dry hydrated lime is introduced into the flue gas by means of a grid of
injection lances inserted in the ducting downstream of the air heater. The purpose of the grid is to
uniformly distribute the lime in the flue gas to assure optimum absorption of the acids contained
in the flue gas. The hydrated lime reacts with the incoming SO
2
, as in equation (1) in the
subsection on the LSDA process, and is captured downstream by a particulate collector.
The DSI reaction proceeds at a slower rate than with lime spray drying because there is a
minimum of water present. As such, DSI with hydrated lime typically achieves SO
2
removals of
only 2530%. With simultaneous humidification of the flue gas, SO
2
removal of up to 50% may
be achieved.
The DSI process produces an inherently dry by-product and does not directly reduce flue gas
temperature. Flue gas temperature may be reduced if simultaneous humidification using water
spray is implemented.
10-9

Figure 10-3
Typical Dry Injection System
Circulating Dry Scrubber (CDS) Process
The CDS process, illustrated in Figure 10-4, uses a reaction similar to the LSDA process and
produces a similar dry mixture of fly ash, reaction products, and unreacted reagent. By using a
high recirculation rate, this process is able to use a small reactor size. Because the reagent makes
35 to 50 passes in a circulating fluidized bed, obtaining close contact and extended residence
time of thirty minutes or more, the CDS process is not constrained to a maximum fuel sulfur
content as are most other dry FGD processes. Higher SO
2
loadings can be addressed by
increasing the reagent content in the bed, though this can result in significant increase in reagent
cost.
10-10

Figure 10-4
Schematic of Circulating Dry Scrubber System (Lurgi Lentjes North America)
57

The CDS process is reported to be capable of achieving 9598% removal efficiency using dry
powdered lime reagent.
58
Performance is maximized by using spray water to moisten the bed
material or to reduce the temperature of flue gas entering the scrubber from around 300F to
about 30F (17C) above the adiabatic water saturation temperature.
This technology uses an ESP or fabric filter to capture and recycle particulate carryover, which is
90% lime. Accumulation of spent reagent and fly ash is limited by disposing of a fraction of the
captured material, normally to landfill. ESP is normally preferred for particulate control because
high dust loading tends to plug fabric filters. ESP sizing is critical for controlling particulate
emissions. To date, there is little experience with this technology in the United States.

57
Best Available Retrofit Technology Analysis for Sherburne County Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Submission to Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Xcel Energy, October 2006.
58
Ibid.
10-11
Flash Dryer Absorber (FDA) Process
The FDA process, illustrated in Figure 10-5, uses a reaction similar to the LSDA process and
produces a similar dry mixture of fly ash, reaction products, and unreacted reagent. The
application of the FDA using lime to coal-fired boilers is generally limited to low- to medium-
sulfur fuels, in most cases where an SO
2
removal efficiency of 9495% is required.

Figure 10-5
Alstom FDA Process
The FDA process uses a much smaller reactor size and a much higher recycle rate and flue gas
velocity than are used in the LSDA process. Water and fresh lime are added to fly ash, reaction
products, and un-reacted reagent recovered from the downstream particulate control system,
which may be an ESP or a fabric filter. This mixture is re-injected into the upward flowing flue
gas in the dust collector. With the high solids-to-water ratio, evaporation occurs rapidly, cooling
and humidifying the flue gas while flash drying the particulate.
Water is injected in quantities similar to that required for a semi-dry SDA, to reduce the flue gas
temperature to within 3050F (1728C) of the adiabatic saturation temperature. The hydrated
lime reacts rapidly with the incoming SO
2
.
The waste by-product produced in the CDS or FDA is similar to the SDA by-product. However,
experience with CDS or FDA with hydrated lime injection indicates that SO
2
removals of 95%
are achievable, especially downstream of a circulating fluid bed boiler system, where limestone
10-12
is injected for SO
2
control. The un-reacted lime remaining in the boiler outlet flue gas helps with
SO
2
removal in the CDS or FDA. For this application, the downstream particulate collectors are
specifically designed to handle the extremely large circulating particulate loads.
11-1
11
SO
3
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Although sulfuric acid (H
2
SO
4
) aerosol emissions have not traditionally been regulated, most
permits for new plants contain limits for such aerosols and/or for condensable particulate, which
are in the broader category of PM
2.5
. Because sulfur trioxide (SO
3
) is the precursor to H
2
SO
4

aerosols, considerable effort has been devoted to the development of SO
3
control measures. The
amount of SO
3
that eventually reaches the back end of a coal-fired boiler (i.e., the target of
controls) varies with coal properties, boiler thermal profile, and operating conditions.
The increased concern results, in part, from increased flue gas concentrations following the
conversion of SO
2
to SO
3
in SCR systems that are now being installed reduce NO
X
emissions. At
the same time, flue gas temperatures are reduced, and additional water vapor is made available,
by wet FGD systems that are installed to remove SO
2
. When the increased concentration of SO
3

combines with water vapor, it may raise the acid dew point of the flue gas above the stack exit
temperature. This leads to formation of a condensed sulfuric acid mist that becomes apparent as a
visible trailing plume emitted from the chimney. Although the plume is typically blue, plumes
that appear brown or other colors have been attributed to H
2
SO
4
in varying atmospheric
conditions. Visible plumes have been observed with H
2
SO
4
concentrations as low as 5 ppmv and
also may be influenced by the presence of ammonium bisulfate, some nitrous compounds, and
other substances. Figure 11-1 contrasts chimney plumes created without and with SO
3
control.
11-2

Figure 11-1
Visible Results of SO
3
Control Using Sorbent Injection
59

Various methods have been evaluated to reduce the sulfuric acid mist concentrations in the flue
gas, especially from plants burning eastern U.S. bituminous coal. Although both wet and dry
FGD systems remove some SO
3
, a larger fraction is able to bypass these systems. The most
highly developed technologies today use an alkali sorbent in combination with specification of
SCR catalyst with low SO
2
-to-SO
3
conversion. Increasing numbers of permits for new plants are
requiring the Owners to install a wet ESP as a final polishing step following the wet FGD
system.
Coal cleaning can be part of an SO
3
reduction strategy, as it lowers incoming sulfur (hence SO
2

and proportionally SO
3
). An equally important benefit of coal cleaning is reduction of iron
compounds that make the fly ash serve as an SO
2
-to-SO
3
oxidation catalyst. Ongoing EPRI
research aims to understand the mechanisms of SO
3
formation and depletion in the boiler in order
to be able to reduce boiler outlet SO
3
through operational means
SO
3
and Acid Mist Formation in Coal-Fired Boilers
There are numerous factors that affect the formation and depletion of SO
3
in the boiler, and the
amount of SO
2
generated in the boiler that is oxidized to SO
3
and then hydrolyzed to H
2
SO
4
is
quite variable. For typical eastern U.S. medium- to high-sulfur coal, about 1% of the SO
2
is
oxidized to SO
3
by the time the flue gas exits the economizer. At the other extreme, western U.S.
coals, especially Powder River Basin, produce virtually no SO
3
. Their highly alkaline fly ash
removes the bulk of any SO
3
that is generated.

59
P. Nolan, Developments in Sorbent Injection Technology for Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions Control, U.S.
Department of Energy Environmental Controls Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 18, 2006.
11-3
SO
3
is formed in the boiler furnace during combustion of the coal and downstream of the furnace
as a result of catalytic oxidation. In the furnace, most of the sulfur in the coal combines with
oxygen in the combustion air to form SO
2
. Some of this SO
2
is further oxidized to SO
3
through a
combination of homogeneous reactions and heterogeneous reactions in which the fly ash
(suspended in the flue gas as well as deposited on the tubes) acts as a catalyst. In boilers that
have SCR systems for post-combustion NO
X
control, the SCR catalyst may oxidize additional
SO
2
and significantly increase the SO
3
concentration in the flue gas.
The terms SO
3
, H
2
SO
4
, and sulfuric acid mist represent different forms of the same
pollutant and are often used interchangeably. At the low flue gas temperatures downstream of the
air heater, the SO
3
hydrolyzes (combines with water vapor) to form H
2
SO
4
vapor. Sulfuric acid
mist (or aerosol) is formed when the flue gas temperature drops below the acid due point (which
is higher than the water dew point), in or downstream of the FGD system or shortly after the
stack exit. This condensation forms very fine droplets that are only minimally removed by
impact in the wet FGD system or its mist eliminators.
The amount of SO
2
converted to SO
3
by the SCR catalyst is a function of the catalyst properties.
The first SCR catalysts installed on coal-fired power plants in the United States typically
converted 0.51.5% of the incoming SO
2
to SO
3
. Suppliers are now claiming they can provide
catalysts that oxidize as little as 0.1% of the SO
2
across each catalyst layer. In the example
below, it is assumed that 1% of the SO
2
entering the SCR reactor will be converted to SO
3
.
The following example outlines the relative concentrations and conversions that may be
observed at a plant.
Sulfur in coal: 2.5%
SO
2
in the flue gas in the boiler: 1737 ppm
SO
3
generated in the boiler: 17 ppm (assuming 1% conversion of SO
2
)
SO
3
generated in the SCR 17 ppm (1% conversion in the SCR)
Total entering the wet FGD 34 ppm
Nominal capture by the FGD 1015 ppm
Total SO
3
(H
2
SO
4
) emitted 1924 ppm
In this example, the flue gas H
2
SO
4
concentration of 34 ppm would result in a visible plume.
Plants burning western U.S. coals, whose sulfur content is less than 1%, might chose to use a
spray dryer and baghouse (fabric filter) for SO
2
and particulate control. This fuel produces very
little SO
3
, and the spray dryer/baghouse combination efficiently captures any remaining SO
3
.
Outlet SO
3
emissions should be <1 ppm.
Sorbent Injection Control Technologies
SO
3
has been successfully controlled by duct injection of several types of alkaline sorbents
containing calcium, magnesium, sodium, or ammonia. These sorbents typically are injected
upstream of the primary particulate control device (ESP or baghouse) in a manner that causes
11-4
them to mix well with the flue gas. The sorbents and SO
3
react to form end products that are
solid compounds that can be removed in a particulate control device.
Sorbents successfully used in the control of SO
3
include magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide,
sodium bisulfate, and sodium sesquicarbonate (trona). Ammonia is also effective in removing
SO
3
but it can prevent the fly ash from being sold for use elsewhere.
Sorbents can be added to the fuel or injected in the boiler at different locations: in the ductwork
between the SCR and air heater; between the air heater and the particulate emission control
device. Figure 11-2 shows injection points for different sorbents.
Injection Methods
Proper reagent distribution, mixing, and residence time are important for achieving high SO
3

removal efficiencies. The injection system and the injection points should be chosen to optimize
these variables for maximum SO
3
removal.
Injecting sorbents downstream of the air heater, with the inherent temperature gradients at this
location, presents a unique design consideration. It is important to recognize gas stratification in
the design of the sorbent injection system.
Sorbents that are injected as dry powdered solids are typically delivered by rail tank car or tanker
truck and stored in silos. Pneumatic conveying systems are normally used to transfer dry powder
to the silo and from the silo to injection points. In-line milling systems may be used to ensure
that the sorbent reaching the injection point is in fine particle form.
Sorbents that are injected in slurry form are usually delivered as a concentrated slurry by rail
tank car or tanker truck and transferred by pump to a slurry storage tank. Batches of concentrated
slurry are transferred from the storage tank to a day storage tank where additional water is
added to dilute the slurry to the desired concentration. From the day tank, the slurry is pumped to
the injection points where atomizing nozzles distribute it into the flue gas stream. Dual flow
nozzles, with air injection, may be used produce a fine spray to ensure evaporation and reaction
with the SO
3
. Depending on the settling and caking properties of the sorbent, the day tank may
require agitation to ensure that a consistent concentration of slurry is delivered for injection.
Wet slurry injection generally requires longer contact time in the flue gas as the moisture must be
evaporated to realize the proper SO
3
removal reaction. Poor atomization of the slurry may result
in solids build-up on the boiler internals and ductwork.
11-5

Figure 11-2
Preferred Injections Points for Various Sorbents
60

Sorbent Properties
Magnesium Hydroxide
Two types of magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)
2
), also known as hydrated magnesium oxide, can
be injected in the boiler furnace to remove SO
3
generated during combustion. One is a by-
product from a magnesium lime-based wet FGD system. The other is a commercially available
product. Both are delivered as a slurry containing 50% solids. The concentrated slurry is diluted
on-site to approximately 15% solids prior to injection into the furnace.
Removal of up to 90% of SO
3
generated in the furnace has been demonstrated with magnesium
hydroxide injection. Magnesium hydroxide has not been effective in controlling SO
3
formed in
an SCR reactor, as the flue gas temperature downstream of the SCR unit is not high enough for
the reactions to occur.
Magnesium-based compounds have been used successfully for decades for capture of SO
3
in oil-
fired units. Their use in coal-fired units has been limited. Magnesium oxide is effective because
it reacts directly with SO
3
to form magnesium sulfate. Magnesium sulfate is water-soluble, so it
is unlikely to form hard-to-remove deposits on equipment and ductwork.
In coal-fired units, it is believed that magnesium oxide can form a film on furnace heat transfer
surfaces and prevent catalysis of SO
2
to SO
3
by iron oxides. Also, magnesium oxide is known to

60
Figure from NETL report, Economic Comparison of SO
3
Control Options for Coal-fired Power Plants.
11-6
modify coal ash fusion temperatures and slag properties, so that injection of magnesium oxide
can reduce furnace slagging or make slag deposits more friable.
However, compared with other sorbents, this option appears to have relatively high operating
and maintenance costs. The delivered cost of the sorbent (due to the weight of water in the
slurry) and the molar ratio required to achieve high SO
3
removal rates tend to be high relative to
other sorbents. Also, in systems where a significant amount of SO
3
is formed in the SCR unit,
magnesium hydroxide might need to be used in conjunction with another SO
3
control method.
Sodium Bisulfate (SBS)
A patented technology injects sodium bisulfate (Na
2
HSO
4
) in solution form upstream or
downstream of the air heater. It is necessary to have sufficient length of duct, free of internal
obstructions, to provide about two seconds of residence time downstream of the injection point.
This provides necessary drying and reaction time and helps prevent deposition of un-reacted or
moist solids on duct surfaces.
The preferred injection location is upstream of the air heater because higher temperatures
promote faster drying and slightly higher reaction rates, as well as offering maximum corrosion
protection by reducing the SO
3
concentration before the air heater. In addition to decreasing the
chance that corrosive sulfuric acid will form deposits on the cold-end surfaces of the air heater,
this allows for lower flue gas temperatures at the air heater outlet, improving the plant heat rate.
In a typical power plant burning medium-sulfur coal, the air heater outlet temperatures can be
lowered by approximately 25F (14C) and still remain above the acid dew point temperature.
Testing has shown that a molar ratio of Na-to-SO
3
of 2:1 is required to achieve >85% SO
3

removal. Reducing SO
3
concentrations upstream of the air heater also helps minimize the
potential fouling effects of ammonia slip from the SCR. Specifically, the combination of
ammonia with SO
3
can form ammonium bisulfate (NH
4
HSO
4
), which is a leading contributor to
air heater fouling and plugging. For SBS injection upstream of the air heater, residence time
must also be sufficient to dry the reaction products so that sodium bisulfate and sodium
pyrosulfate do not contribute to air heater fouling.
Trona
Another patented SO
3
mitigation technology uses injection of trona (Na
2
CO
3
NaHCO
3
2H
2
O).
Like other sodium-based sorbents, trona is very reactive and effective in removing SO
3
. The SO
3

reacts with the trona to form solid sodium sulfate and sodium bisulfate.
Trona is injected in dry form, which both minimizes the capital investment needed to deliver the
sorbent to the flue gas and the required sorbent preparation equipment. Dry trona is also
relatively benign, minimizing safety concerns. A possible supplemental benefit of trona injection
is improved ESP performance. The sorbent cost is low, but the transportation cost from the mine
in Wyoming can be high. O&M costs are minimal relative to other sorbent technologies. Trona is
delivered as a solid and is conveyed to storage silos before being pneumatically injected into the
ductwork downstream of the air heater and upstream of the particulate control device. As with
any solid, material handling systems must incorporate proper silo design and control of
temperature and moisture to maintain free flow.
11-7
Proper nozzle and lance design are imperative for reliable operation. Flue gas temperature is an
important consideration in preventing deposition in the ductwork, which could occur if the trona
and/or SO
3
reactants become liquid.
Reported test results indicate that the trona reactions do not proceed with the same efficiency as
SBS injection and that trona-to-SO
3
molar ratios of 5:1 are needed to achieve removal
efficiencies >85%. The slower reaction rate is one factor in the solids deposition problems that
have occurred with trona injection upstream of the air heater. Therefore, trona is injected
downstream of the air heater, in a preferred temperature window of 275340F (135170C),
where trona is rapidly calcined to sodium carbonate, which neutralizes the acid gases. Removal
efficiencies approaching 80% have been reported with molar ratios less than 2.5:1. At
temperatures above 360F (180C), the sorbent can become sticky and adhere to downstream
surfaces.
Particle size plays a large role in the efficiency of SO
3
removal by the trona injection process.
Trona is typically delivered as T-200 (23 microns), but use of smaller trona particles leads to
significant increases in SO
3
removal along with reduced trona consumption. Obtaining the more
finely ground trona requires off-site or on-site grinding because Solvay Chemicals, the current
U.S. supplier, does not offer the smaller particle sizes.
Hydrated Lime
Hydrated lime, Ca(OH)
2
, has been successfully used as a sorbent to mitigate SO
3
. It is injected on
a dry basis after the air heater and ahead of the particulate control device. Test data indicate that
high-surface-area lime hydrate provides the best performance and creates less maintenance
issues compared with low-surface-area forms.
Hydrated lime injection has been observed to reduce ESP performance at some units whereas
other others have had no ESP performance issues. Specifically, sites with marginally sized ESPs
have reported a reduction in ash collection due to calcium buildup and increased resistivity,
which may in turn be a result of the increased particle loading to the ESP.
Ammonia
Ammonia is injected in vapor form between the air heater and the particulate control device. The
reaction produces a particulate, ABS, which is removed in the particulate control device.
Injection of ammonia upstream of the air heater is not feasible for SO
3
control because the ABS
changes phase and causes fouling as it is cooled in the air heater.
This application uses NH
3
-to-SO
3
molar ratios in the range of 1:1 to 2:1. A molar ratio of 1:1 will
produce mostly ammonium bisulfate, whereas a 2:1 ratio will yield mostly ammonium sulfate.
Most plants operate at the higher molar ratios to avoid ash handling problems caused by
ammonium bisulfate and because ammonium sulfate is the more desired product.
Low ratios are used to weight the reaction toward ABS production in power plants that produce
little SO
3.
In these cases, NH
3
injection improves ESP performance by increasing the
cohesiveness of the fly ash. With the injection point downstream of the air heater, the ammonium
bisulfate will be liquid and/or a sticky solid at the flue gas temperatures in the duct.
11-8
The molar ratio should not exceed 2:1 because this can increase reaction with SO
2
and cause
formation of ammonium bisulfite. In this environment, ammonium bisulfite forms submicron
particles that can not be absorbed by the FGD system and can produce a visible plume.
Where allowed, ammonia is typically delivered by rail or truck as anhydrous ammonia. The
ammonia is stored on-site in pressurized tanks. The equipment includes an ammonia
control/dilution skid. The anhydrous ammonia is fed to an ammonia flow control station. The
ammonia is diluted with heated air and injected downstream of the air heater.
As in any process requiring a control system that is designed for proper operation, an ammonia
injection system must be designed, maintained, and operated such that adequate measures are
taken to prevent over-injection. When using anhydrous ammonia, the plant also must follow
significant protocols to protect environmental and public safety.
Particulate Control Impact
SO
3
content in the flue gas can have positive impact on the ESP performance. Units burning low-
sulfur coals frequently inject small quantities of SO
3
for ash conditioning to improve ESP
particulate removal efficiency. Removal of all SO
3
would negate this positive effect. SO
3
is not
injected when higher sulfur coals are used.
Sodium injection enhances the ESP collection efficiency by reducing the fly ash bulk resistivity.
This has been shown to offset the negative impact of removing the SO
3
.
Sorbent injection for SO
3
removal increases loading of the particulate collector. Because ESPs
essentially perform as constant efficiency devices, this may lead to a small rise in particulate
emissions. Although this increase is expected to be small, because the sorbent is injected at
single digit molar ratios to the SO
3
(i.e., a few tens of ppm), the resulting ESP outlet emissions
could increase enough to trigger U.S. New Source Review rules (25 TPY for total particulate
or 15 TPY for PM
10
). ESPs that are sufficiently large and/or have operating margin (i.e., can
increase power input above normal current levels) should be capable of removing the additional
particulate and avoid emission increases. However, if the ESP is already marginal or undersized,
the additional particulate loading will very likely cause emission increases.
Fabric filter particulate collectors should be capable of handling the additional particle load
without negative impact to removal efficiency. They should be evaluated, however to ensure that
total flow area and automatic cleaning systems are adequate for preventing development of
excessive pressure differential.
Ammonia is sometimes injected upstream of an ESP specifically to enhance its performance. The
ammonia improves ESP performance by increasing fly ash cohesiveness.
Fly Ash Quality
Many power plants market the fly ash that is produced at their facility. Most of the fly ash is used
in the production of concrete and cement products. The products formed by the SO
3
removal
process utilizing sorbent injection can directly impact the ash marketability. If the fly ash cannot
be sold, it is landfilled as a waste product.
The standard specification used in the concrete industry (ASTM C-618) places limits on various
constituents in fly ash to be used by the industry. Close attention should be give to the alkali
11-9
content limit which is 1.5% maximum, expressed as Na
2
O. Injection of sorbents can result in fly
ash approaching or exceeding this limit.
It has been reported that injecting SBS can result in 5080% of total sodium allowed in the fly
ash by the ASTM standard, with additional alkali contributed by the mineral content of the fly
ash. This should be considered before SBS is selected as the control method for SO
3
.
Trona-based sodium products have similar impacts on fly ash quality which are more
pronounced than for SO
3
control using the SBS technology. With the high molar ratio required
when using trona, it is very likely that the limit of 1.5% alkali in fly ash will be exceeded. This
should be considered before trona is selected as the control method for SO
3
.
The most prevalent issue associated with ammonia injection for SO
3
control is the strong
ammonia odor that can result even at very low concentrations of ammonia in the fly ash. With 2
ppmv ammonia slip from the SCR, the ammonia content of the fly ash can be equivalent to 100
300 ppmw (parts per million by weight) in the fly ash. This is a small fraction of available
ammonia that is seen with SO
3
control by ammonia injection. The total ammonia content of ash
from a system using ammonia sorbent could be as high as 10007000 ppmw. Because the
reaction productssolid ammonium sulfate and ammonium bisulfateare readily soluble in
water, the solids could readily dissolve into their constituents and liberate ammonia into the air
with just the moisture from humidity in the air.
Fly ash with high amounts of ammonia will be unacceptable for use in concrete due to odor
problems associated with the mixing, pouring, and curing of the concrete. However, some ash
marketing firms offer additives or other beneficiation processes that fix or remove the ammonia
from the fly ash.
Wet Electrostatic Precipitators (WESP)
Wet electrostatic precipitators are used in incinerators and some industrial processes to control
acid mists, sub-micron particulate, metals, and dioxins/furans as the final polishing devices
downstream of other air pollution control systems. Removal efficiencies >90% for PM
2.5
and
SO
3
have been reported, along with near-zero opacity. Detailed information on WESP operation,
configurations, and design considerations can be found in EPRI report 1009775, Update of
Particulate Control Guidelines, A State-of-the-Art Report for Utility Wet Electrostatic
Precipitators. New developments in WESP technology offer the promise of reduced cost
(membrane WESP) and enhanced mercury control (plasma-enhanced WESP).
Although the basic technology is over 100 years old, power plant experience with WESP is
extremely limited. The majority of installations are at industrial sites. In Japan there are a few
installations downstream of FGD units at power plants in that burn coal with less than 1.2%
sulfur. In North America, several power plant installations are beginning to accumulate
significant operating time. Still, industrial experience provides most of the available experience
base from which lessons learned can be drawn to establish good designs for power plant
applications. As there are potential pitfalls when a technology is transferred from one industry to
another, power companies should use caution and implement conservative designs to minimize
the impact of potential unknowns.
A WESP is designed and operates much like a dry ESP, but uses wetted plates to capture and
hold the particulate. The collectors are washed continuously by flooding from the top and/or by
11-10
spraying liquid, usually water, from the top and/or gas path entry. The plate washwater retains
the particles that are attracted to the collecting surface, thereby avoiding re-entrainment
emissions (typically the source of ~50% of the emissions from an advanced dry ESP). As the
water flows down the plates, it carries with it all collected material (fine particles, aerosols, etc.)
and is then collected in troughs located at base of the WESP. It is then bled to a waste water
treatment system to be neutralized and cleaned of the collected material, before being recycled to
the WESP. At installations where the WESP follows a wet FGD, the WESP water cycle is
usually integrated with the scrubber water cycle to optimize water usage.
Resistivity of the collected material is generally not a major factor in removal performance in the
WESP because the liquid on the plates typically has a low resistivity. Because resistivity does
not constrain the power that can be applied to a WESP, these units usually incorporate very
aggressive discharge electrode designs to simultaneously maximize the applied current and the
product of the applied voltage and current. The high power levels allow a WESP to have higher
collection efficiencies than a dry ESP of comparable size. It should be noted that even though
power densities in a WESP can be double the power density in a dry ESP, the total power
consumed by a WESP is still modest compared with power consumed by other pollution control
systems such as FGD systems.
Horizontal Flow WESP
One possible layout for a horizontal flow WESP following an FGD is two parallel casings with
half of the flue gas being treated in each box. The two layouts most often proposed are over-and-
under and side-by-side arrangements. The over-and-under design typically has a lower capital
cost and is normally the proposed arrangement unless a particular configuration is specified by
the power producer. The inlet duct arrangement from the FGD system to the WESP is less
complex in this arrangement and requires less duct material. However, due to the low flue gas
temperature and associated acidic conditions, the ductwork must be fabricated of corrosion-
resistant materials.
The disadvantage to this layout is constrained operability and maintainability. Removal and
installation of the transformer/rectifier (TR) sets for the lower box will be difficult due to the low
overhead caused by the upper box. Further, if the WESP should require a rebuild, the over-and-
under design may make it difficult to gain access to the internals of the lower casing.
The over-and-under design can have increased risk of deterioration if any corrosive washwater
drips from valves, flanges, or access doors onto the top of the lower box where the TR sets are
typically located.
11-11

Figure 11-3
Side Cut-Away View of Horizontal Flow Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
61

WESP units require a source of washwater to be sprayed near the top of the collector plates
either continuously or at timed intervals. The water flows with the collected particles into a series
of troughs from which the fluid is pumped or drained. A portion of the fluid may be recycled to
reduce the total amount of water required. The washwater may be neutralized and reused in the
process. The remainder is pumped to the FGD system to be used as makeup.
Tubular WESP
The tubular design is most likely to be used when the WESP is located on top of an FGD
absorber to serve as a combined mist eliminator and polishing step for fine particulate, aerosols,
etc. Some major WESP manufactures are considering the use of plates in their vertical flow
design to simplify design and maintenance. However, this approach has not yet been
demonstrated at full scale.
In a tubular WESP, the exhaust gas flows vertically through conductive tubes, with many tubes
operating in parallel. Typically, these systems will use two or more stages in series because the
high SO
3
loading causes space charge effects in the first stage. The tubes may be formed as a
circular, square, or hexagonal honeycomb. Square and hexagonal pipes can be packed closer

61
Figure from Alstom Wet Electrostatic Precipitators Presentation, August 2005.
11-12
together than cylindrical pipes, reducing wasted space. Pipes are generally 312 inches (80300
mm) in diameter and 312 feet (14 m) in length. The high voltage discharge electrodes are long
wires or rigid masts suspended from a frame in the upper part of the WESP that run through
the axis of each tube. Both an upper and lower frame generally support the rigid discharge
electrodes. Sharp points are added to the electrodes, either at the entrance to a tube or along the
entire length in the form of stars, to provide additional ionization sites. Some major WESP
manufactures are considering the use of plates in their vertical flow design to simplify design and
maintenance. However, this new approach has not been demonstrated at full scale. Figure 11-4
shows a side view of a tubular WESP installed on top of a wet FGD system.
11-13

Figure 11-4
Example of Tubular WESP Installation above FGD
62

The power supplies for the WESP convert industrial AC current to pulsating DC current in the
range of 20,000100,000 volts, as required. Each electrode-pipe combination establishes a
charging zone through which the particles must pass. Either conventional 60 Hz power supplies
or the newer high-frequency supplies can be used. The high-frequency supplies have the
advantage of being more energy efficient.
Tubular WESP units also require a source of washwater to be sprayed near the top of the
collector pipes either continuously or at timed intervals. When used as mist eliminators on top of
the FGD, the water flows with the collected particles into the underlying wet FGD.

62
Figure from Alstom Wet Electrostatic Precipitators Presentation, August 2005.
11-14
The collection section of a WESP must be conductive, but the material has to be resistant to the
corrosive conditions caused by acid mist in the flue gas. Historically, WESP have been
constructed of conductive fiberglass, carbon steel, stainless steels, and various high-alloy
materials, depending on the duty. However, this experience comes from industrial applications.
Power plant designs must reflect the conditions of coal-fired boiler flue gas, which is extremely
variable. Material selection should be based on worst-case scenarios in order to protect the
equipment against upset conditions and minimize the chances for a unit shutdown due to failure
of the WESP.
Materials being proposed for WESP units range from relatively mild alloys such as SS316 to
317LM, Alloy C-276, Alloy 2205, AL6XN, and even non-metallic fabric membranes. The
WESP water treatment system should be considered in the material selection process as this
system plays a large roll in determining the lifetime of the materials in a WESP. As the
technology matures, materials may be selected for the corrosive resistance required in specific
zones of the WESP. In addition, linings may come into use at appropriate locations in the WESP.
Emerging Technologies for SO
3
Control
Membrane WESP
The membrane WESP is a new type of wet precipitator, in which fabric membranes replace the
metal collecting electrodes. Testing indicates that membranes made from materials that transport
liquid (primarily water) by capillary action are effective collection electrodes. Capillary flow
promotes well-distributed water flow both vertically and horizontally which is necessary for
particle collection, removal and transport. Membranes may avoid the tendency experienced in
some WESP units of beading of the flushing water as it flows down the plate surface due to
both surface tension effects and surface imperfections. Because beading causes the flushing
liquid to be non-uniformly distributed over the surface, with channeling, dry spots are formed on
the collecting plates. This inhibits current flow and results in increased emissions. It is hoped that
membrane WESP will more reliably maintain rated performance.
Plasma-Enhanced WESP
With parallel growth of interest in using WESP technology for mercury control, there may be a
need to consider design tradeoffs to simultaneously optimize removal of SO
3
and removal of
mercury. The plasma-enhanced WESP may be may be one tool used for this optimization,
although current emphasis is on mercury removal.
Mercury adsorbed onto particulate and mercury in oxidized forms is readily removed from the
flue gas using a wet FGD system. However, the remaining elemental mercury vapor passes
through the air pollution control devices. Most mercury research has focused on sorbent injection
followed by a baghouse for plants without an FGD system (typically plants burning low-sulfur
coal). Tests of WESP technology at the Bruce Mansfield pilot plant indicate that a WESP can
remove both oxidized and particulate forms of mercury at levels similar to those for SO
3
.
To increase elemental mercury removal efficiencies using WESP technology, a new technology
is being developed that uses the central electrode of a standard WESP to inject a mercury
oxidizing reagent gas directly into the flue gas stream. As the reagent gas passes through this
11-15
corona discharge, reactive species are formed that subsequently oxidize elemental mercury into
fine particulate. The mercury particulates acquire a negative charge in the electrical field and are
attracted to positive collecting electrodes where they are adsorbed into the liquid layer and are
removed from the process in the wash cycle.
Lime Spray Drying for SO
3
Removal
A slight modification of the lime spray drying absorption (LSDA) process is under investigation
as a process for SO
3
removal. This application differs from the LSDA process used for SO
2

removal by varying the degree of flue gas cooling. The spray dryer for SO
2
removal lowers the
flue gas temperature to as low as 30F (17C) approach to the adiabatic saturation temperature
water. The lime spray drying process for SO
3
removal only lowers the temperature to
approximately 300F (150C), which makes for good conditions for SO
3
removal (and HCl
removal), but minimizes SO
2
removal.
Power Plant Applications of Sorbents for SO
3
Control
Most experience with injection of alkali sorbents for removal of SO
3
from power plant flue gases
is with units firing high-sulfur oil where trace metals, mainly vanadium, increase oxidation of
SO
2
. Furnace injection of Mg(OH)
2
(magnesium hydroxide) has been popular for this use
because it reacts directly with SO
3
to form magnesium sulfate, a water-soluble compound that is
unlikely to form hard-to-remove deposits on equipment and ductwork. As noted above, a
drawback of this process is the high cost of commercial magnesium hydroxide.
Duke Energys 1400 MW Zimmer Unit 1 provides a notable case study for application of this
SO
3
control method on a coal-fired plant. Zimmers conventional, natural oxidation MEL
(Thiosorbic) FGD process was updated in 2000 with the addition of bleed stream oxidation and
additional process equipment for recovery of Mg(OH)
2
by-product. This process, shown in
Figure 11-5, reduces the cost of Mg(OH)
2
by roughly 70% compared with purchase of
commercial magnesium hydroxide. The process was invented by Carmeuse Lime and developed
in a pilot project at Zimmer in 1995.
In 2004, in conjunction with addition of an SCR system, Zimmer began using its Mg(OH)
2
by-
product for reduction of furnace-generated SO
3
.
63
This followed successful full scale tests of the
application, by DOE/NETL, at FirstEnergys 800 MW Bruce Mansfield Unit 3 and AEPs 1300
MW Gavin Unit 1.
64
The tests at Gavin and Mansfield showed capture of 90% of furnace-
generated SO
3
and 70% of total SO
3
for a plant equipped with SCR. At Gavin, testing found a
total of about 2.3% of coal sulfur converted to SO
3
, with conversion of 1% occurring in the SCR
catalyst.

63
L.B. Benson, K.J. Smith, R.A. Roden, E. Loch, and J. Potts, Control of Sulfur Dioxide and Sulfur Trioxide Using
By-Product of a Magnesium-Enhanced Lime FGD System, Paper #130, Carmeuse North America Technology
Center (http://www.carmeusena.com/Corporate/resources.asp?body=white_papers).
64
Furnace Injection of Alkaline Sorbents for Sulfuric Acid Removal, Final Report Cooperative Agreement No.:
DE-FC26-99FT40718, (http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/E&WR/pm/pubs/40718final.PDF).
11-16

Figure 11-5
Magnesium-Enhanced Lime SO
3
Control Process with Bleed Stream Oxidation and Mg(OH)
2

Recovery
65

At Zimmer, Mg(OH)
2
slurry is injected into the furnace through air atomizing nozzles in the
front wall of the furnace. The slurry is about 20% suspended solids with 65% of that being
magnesium hydroxide. The design injection rate was based on an Mg-to-SO
3
molar ratio of 8:1
assuming 1% conversion of SO
2
to SO
3
.
To obtain 90% removal of SCR-generated SO
3
, Zimmer also implemented injection of hydrated
lime, as dry powder, downstream of the air heaters. The design rate for this injection was based
on a Ca(OH)
2
-to-SO
3
molar ratio of 7.7:1 assuming 1% conversion of SO
2
to SO
3
by the SCR
catalyst and 4.1% sulfur in coal.
As noted above, this process is comparatively economical to install on plants that already use
variations of the Thiosorbic MEL FGD process. This comprises about 17,700 MW of coal-
fired electric generating capacity in the United States, as shown in Figure 11-6.

65
Benson, op. cit.
11-17

Figure 11-6
Power Plants Using the Thiosorbic Magnesium-Enhanced Lime FGD Process
66

It should be noted that the DOE tests applied four different calcium and magnesium-based
sorbents in full-scale utility boilers. In addition to the magnesium hydroxide derived as a by-
product of the magnesium enhanced lime wet FGD process, DOE tested three commercially
available sorbents: dolomite, pressure-hydrated dolomitic lime, and commercial magnesium
hydroxide. At Bruce Mansfield, the dolomite was injected as a powder, whereas the other three
reagents were injected as slurries in the upper furnace.
The commercial Mg(OH)
2
performance was nearly identical to the by-product Mg(OH)
2
.
Dolomite and dolomitic lime required excessively high molar ratios to obtain desired
performance at this injection location.
Power Plant Applications of WESP for SO
3
Control
In the United States and Canada, as of the early 2000s, wet electrostatic precipitators were used
to reduce opacity and control sulfur trioxide at four power plants.
67
AES Deepwater, firing
petroleum coke, has the longest operating hours of these four. The largest of these four WESP
installations, and the only WESP installation on a coal-fired plant in the United States, is at the

66
Ibid.
67
R.C. Staehle et al., The Past, Present and Future of Wet Electrostatic Precipitators in Power Plant Applications,
presented at the Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, DOE/EPRI/EPA/AWMA, May 19-
22, 2003, Washington, DC. (Report BR-1742, http://www.babcock.com/pgg/tt/pdf/BR-1742.pdf).
11-18
Xcel Energy Sherburne County Generating Station (Sherco). NB Power Dalhousie Station was
converted for Orimulsion firing in 1995 and added a single-field WESP for SO
3
control in 2000.
NB Power Coleson Cove Station added WESPs to its three 350 MW units during conversion in
2004 to allow Orimulsion firing.
AES DeepwaterWESP with 100% High-Sulfur Petroleum Coke and Future SCR
AES Deepwater (Figure 11-7) is a 155 MW petroleum coke-fired cogeneration plant located on
the Houston Ship Channel in Pasadena, Texas. This plant utilizes a dry electrostatic precipitator
to limit the levels of particulates and unburned carbon entering the limestone-based, gypsum-
producing wet FGD system. A wet venturi scrubber removes additional particulate prior to the
wet FGD.

Figure 11-7
AES Deepwater After WESP Installation
68

Deepwater commissioned the WESP in 1986 to reduce SO
3
and opacity. The decision to add the
WESP after the scrubber developed from the following observations:
Although particulate limits are necessary for regulatory compliance, control of unburned
carbon is required to prevent contamination of salable by-product gypsum.
The petroleum coke fuel has a high vanadium content, which results in relatively high level
of SO3 entering the wet FGD where the gas quenching action completes the formation of
sulfuric acid mist. Only about 2030% of the mist is captured in the FGD system because of
the fine particle size of the mist droplets. The inlet concentration of SO3 varies from 35 to

68
Source: Babcock & Wilcxox.
11-19
100 ppm at 3% O2 depending on furnace operating conditions and vanadium content in the
petroleum coke.
The limit for total particulates including sulfuric acid and condensables was set at 0.005
grains/scfd, thus requiring a collection level of >90% on sulfuric acid alone.
SO
3
and particulate control across the wet ESP is typically 9597%. Additional SO
3
removal
occurs upstream of the WESP in the wet FGD. Additional particulate is collected by the dry
ESP and the wet venturi scrubber ahead of the FGD.
In 2005, Deepwater was controlling opacity to about 8% while firing 100% on petroleum coke
with 5% sulfur content.
69
The scrubber upstream of the WESP accomplishes about 7% of total
SO
3
removal.
Sorbent injection, using MgO or sodium bisulfite, was considered prior to the decision to install
the WESP. This evaluation determined that residence time in the existing ducting would be
inadequate for the targeted SO
3
reduction.
The current system comprises are twelve WESP modules, of which eleven are needed for
complete performance. Maintenance requirements keep one module out of service on a nearly
continuous, rotating basis. Maintenance includes removal of scale build-up, adjustment of water
flow distribution, correction of electrode and plate distance correction, and remediation of
leakage.
When the planned installation of SCR and low-NO
X
burners is completed in 2007, Deepwater
will become the only plant in the U.S. that uses SCR while firing 100% petroleum coke (the AES
Somerset plant in upstate New York uses SCR while firing 20% petroleum coke). After the SCR
system commences service, WESP performance will be monitored closely to determine if an
upgrade is needed, or if SO
3
reduction can be accomplished with more frequent than normal
catalyst change-out.
ShercoTwo 750 MW Bituminous PC Units with WESP Controlling Opacity
At Xcel Energys Sherburne County Generating Station (Figure 11-8), 12 wet ESP modules were
installed in 200001, on each of the two 750 MW units. Stack opacity has been controlled as
intended during several years of successful operation of the wet ESP modules have. The project
cost of just over $50 million is just over half of the estimated $90 million cost of a baghouse for
the same application.
The driving force behind the installations on Sherco Units 1 and 2 was the need to limit stack
opacity below 20%. Sherburne County burns subbituminous coals with enough calcium oxide in
the flue gas to absorb what SO
3
exists. With no dry ESPs, WESPs were installed to address a
problem of opacity that the combined particulate/wet scrubbers were not completely able to
handle. Of the twelve 75 MW modules on each unit, only 10 modules are needed for full load.

69
Personal Communication, Leon Ballard, AES Deepwater Station to Tony Armor, EPRI, May 23, 2005.
11-20

Figure 11-8
Xcel Sherco Station
70

The following observations were documented during the initial years of WESP operation:
Wet ESPs have limited stack opacity to about 1012% (compared to pre-WESP levels of 30
40%).
Particulate removal efficiency has exceeded 90% with residence time of one second available
within the wet ESPs treatment zones.
Due to the high calcium content of the fly ash, material scaling occurs in the bottom portion
of the first field collector tubes.
The first fields primarily capture the re-entrained droplets and carryover from the wet FGD
thus allowing for relatively stable electrical operation for fine particulates capture in the
second fields.
Periodically, each module receives a thorough, off-line manual high pressure washdown to
remove scale. Unit 1 modules have averaged about 6 months between cleanings whereas Unit
2 modules have averaged about one year. The difference is thought to result from the low-
NO
X
burners on Unit 2 that produce an easier-to-clean softer ash.
Normal daily operation includes water flushing of each module with its power supply de-
energized.

70
Energy Success Stories: Partners For Affordable Energy, Dave Heberling, General Superintendent for
Environmental and Plant Services, Sherco, Ron Elsner, Project Manager,
www.powerofcoal.com/environmental_success/details.
11-21
The conditions that require more frequent cleaning for Unit 1 also lead to some other
maintenance issues. To avoid corrosion related to arcing and sparking on the lower field
electrodes and collector tubes, the Unit 1 wet ESP modules will be equipped with two-pass
demisters. The upper fields have not had this problem and go 4-5 years without cleanings. Also,
installation of 316 SS sleeves over the original 304 SS electrodes has helped with corrosion
control. It was originally thought that the alkaline nature of fly ash and absence of sulfuric acid
mist in this application allowed the use of 304L stainless steel for the WESP internals.
71

Other lessons learned include:
Wet ESPs are able to overcome difficult conditions for dust build-up through scheduled wash
downs.
Wet ESPs are able to efficiently collect non-acid particulate, as well as sulfuric acid mist.
DalhousieWESP with Orimulsion-Firing
A single-field wet ESP system was installed on the 312 MW Dalhousie plant in 2000. Wet FGD
was added as part of the conversion for Orimulsion firing completed in 1994. Dalhousie began
firing 100% Orimulsion in 1995. Orimulsion 400 is an emulsion of 30% water and 70% natural
bitumen extracted from the Orinoco belt in Venezuela. On an HHV basis, it has roughly 50%
more sulfur than No. 6 fuel oil. Like heavy fuel oil, Orimulsion has high vanadium content that
catalyzes conversion of SO
2
to SO
3
in the furnace.
Coleson CoveThree 350 MW Oil-Fired Units
Experience at Dalhousie provided the background for modifying three 350 MW units at NB
Powers Coleson Cove Station to fire Orimulsion.
72
As part of this refurbishment, two 525 MW
FGD absorbers were installed to control SO
2
emissions from the three 350 MW units. Integrated,
upflow wet ESP modules were installed on top of the scrubbers to control SO
3
emissions to
below 5 ppmvd @ 3% O
2
, limit fly ash particulates below 0.015 lb/MBtu (6.5 g/GJ), and control
opacity. After a fuel supply agreement could not be reached, the plans for Orimulsion were
discontinued and the plant reverted to firing No. 6 fuel oil from Venezuela with 1.52.5% sulfur.

71
Personal Communication, Bob Henningsgard, Xcel Energy Sherburne County Station to Tony Armor, EPRI, May
25, 2005.
72
Coleson Cove Orimulsion Conversion Project, R. Telesz, K. MacLean, R. Ojanpera, Combined Power Plant Air
Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, EPRI/DOE/EPA/AWMA, May 19-22, 2003, Washington, DC. (Report BR
1740: http://www.babcock.com/pgg/tt/pdf/BR-1742.pdf).
11-22

Figure 11-9
Coleson Cove Shown Prior to the Installation of Wet FGD and Wet ESP Systems
73

Considerations for the Coleson Cove refurbishment and WESP installation included the
following:
The plants original burners (which had uncontrolled NO
X
emissions of 0.9 lb/MBtu or 0.39
kg/GJ) were replaced with low-NO
X
burners and reburning.
The WESP units use three electrical fields in series and four independently energized high
voltage bus sections across each wet ESP electrical field. This conservatively sectionalized,
twelve bus section design allows for small sections to be de-energized during periodic water
flushings while maintaining overall emissions within design levels.
To achieve the desired level of control on sulfuric acid at all times, collection efficiency
requirements had to exceed 90%. Figure 11-10 shows a schematic of the layout for the
Coleson Cove plant for each of the two wet FGD absorbers with a three-field upflow type
wet ESP mounted at the top of each. This design is similar to the one for AES Deepwater.
Scrubbed flue gas enters the inlet field of the wet ESP after exiting the wet FGD mist
eliminator.
The gas exits the top of the wet ESP through a final mist eliminator section which captures
any re-entrained droplets that may be present during flushing cycles, and transitions directly
into the stack through an outlet hood. This design lowers the balance of plant costs compared
with the wet ESP as a stand-alone system outside of the wet FGD vessel.
The Coleson Cove plant is located on a shoreline, with laydown space at a premium. This
also favored the integrated arrangement of the wet FGD absorber and wet ESP.

73
Ibid.
11-23

Figure 11-10
Wet ESP Arrangement for Coleson Cove Station
74

As the WESP units were being prepared for final acceptance testing in 2005, the stack was
reported to be dramatically cleaner, no longer producing its prior SO
3
plume, while SO
3
at the
economizer outlet was 23 ppm at full load and 40 ppm at low load.
75
One reported problem was
the fit up around the beams supporting the massive 56-foot-diameter wet WESP. This allowed
the ceramic insulators to be exposed to dirt. Continuous purge air was introduced to keep the
components clean.

74
R.C. Staehle et al., op. cit.
75
Personal Communication, Keith Maclean, New Brunswick Power to Tony Armor, EPRI, May 27, 2005.
12-1
12
MULTI-POLLUTANT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Multi-pollutant control systems seek to reduce costs relative to emissions control approaches
using independent systems for each pollutant. Expected savings are in the range of 1025%
compared with separate controls for NO
X
, SO
X
, and Hg. The sale price of by-products is often the
key to favorable economic performance with these processes.
Multi-pollutant control systems generally use complimentary chemical reactions and physical
phenomena for multiple ends. The term generally implies greater integration of processes than is
seen with current efforts to leverage removal of a pollutant through relatively minor
modifications to other environmental processes (for example, selection of an SCR catalyst with
increased tendency to oxidize mercury to form solid mercuric oxide).
Among the 50 plus processes in development, a few leaders are far enough advanced to be
considered for plants needing to add SCR, FGD, and Hg controls in the next two to four years.
Powerspan ECO Process
76, 77

Powerspans Electro-Catalytic Oxidation (ECO) process is one example of an integrated multi-
pollutant control technology that is nearing commercial viability. The description provided here
shares many common elements with other multi-pollutant technologies.
The ECO process achieves reductions in emissions of NO
X
, SO
2
, fine particulate matter, and
mercury from the flue gas of coal-fired power plants. The technology also reduces emissions of
other air toxic compounds such as arsenic and lead, as well as acid gases such as hydrochloric
acid. The ECO process is installed downstream of the air heater and the particulate collector
(ESP or fabric filter) that collects fly ash and other particulate.
ECO was successfully pilot tested and demonstrated at FirstEnergy Corporations R.E. Burger
Plant. The pilot plant has been operating since 2002. The 50 MW commercial demonstration unit
has been operating since 2004.
Three-Step Processing of Flue Gas
ECO treats flue gas in three steps using a barrier discharge reactor, an ammonia-based scrubber,
and a wet electrostatic precipitator. The reactor and the scrubber bring about a series of reactions
that occur at relatively low temperatures (150350F, or 65180C) to absorb or adsorb gaseous
pollutants with solid and liquid compounds that can be physically removed from the flue gas
stream. The scrubber and the WESP perform this removal.

76
C. McLarnon and M. Jones, Electro-Catalytic Oxidation Process for

Multi-Pollutant Control at FirstEnergys R.E.
Burger Generating Station, Presented at Electric Power 2000, Cincinnati, April 5, 2000.
77
C. McLarnon et al., Final Technical Report for Mercury Removal in a Non-Thermal, Plasma-Based Multi-
Pollutant Control Technology for Utility Boilers, Final Report to U.S. DOE, December 2004.
12-2
Oxidation
The barrier discharge reactor generates a non-thermal plasma in which energetic electrons create
hydroxyl (OH) and atomic oxygen (O) radicals that oxidize gaseous pollutants to higher oxides:
Nitric oxide (NO) is oxidized to nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
) and nitric acid (HNO
3
)
A small portion of sulfur dioxide (SO
2
) is converted to sulfuric acid (H
2
SO
4
) at higher
moisture levels and lower temperatures
Elemental mercury (Hg) is oxidized to mercuric oxide (HgO)
Scrubbing
A dual-loop ammonia scrubber follows the barrier discharge reactor. As flue gas travels
upwards, after entering near the bottom of the scrubber tower, the lower circulation loop
quenches it to saturation. The upper loop removes SO
2
and oxides of nitrogen and neutralizes the
acids, forming ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, which are high value fertilizer
products. High levels of NO
X
and SO
2
removal are enabled by the conversion of NO to NO
2
in
the reactor and the synergy between SO
2
scrubbing and NO
2
capture in the scrubber. Without
these two effects, NO and NO
2
would pass through the scrubber.
Capture of Aerosols and Particulates
Some of the particulates that have bypassed the ESP, along with acid aerosols created in the
reactor, are captured by the sprays in the scrubber absorber tower and carried to the basin at the
bottom of the tower. At the same time, the upward flow of flue gas entrains droplets of reagent
solution, along with particulates formed or captured in the solution, and carries them toward the
WESP located above the scrubber in the absorber tower. Before the flue gas reaches the WESP,
mist eliminators remove larger droplets and particulates. The WESP then captures most of the
fine acid aerosols produced by the discharge reactor, aerosols generated in the scrubber, and fine
particulate matter, which includes oxidized mercury.
Collection of Liquid Streams
A separator tray captures most of the reagent and reaction product circulating in the upper loop
and returns it to the Upper Loop Recycle Tank. The quench sprays and some carryover from the
upper loop fall into the Reaction Basin at the bottom of the tower. Another tray captures the
runoff of makeup/flush water and solids from WESP along with recycle slurry used to flush the
mist eliminators. Except for a small amount that escapes through the WESP, all liquids and
solids that enter the absorber tower ultimately end up in the reaction basin, which is also the
recycle tank for the lower quench loop. This includes:
All material removed from the flue gas, which is in the form of dissolved ammonium sulfate
and nitrate salts, dissolved and suspended mercury and other metals, and captured fine
particulate matter. The concentration of solid material in the liquid is very low and the liquid
is basically clear.
Reagent and makeup water introduced to the upper loop
Makeup water used to flush the WESP
12-3
Air is blown into the reaction basin to complete the oxidation of any remaining sulfite or nitrite
and to keep mercuric oxide from being reduced back to elemental mercury. Agitators help
distribute the air and keep the small amount of solids in suspension. The solution in the tank is
kept near the concentration at which ammonium sulfate saturates and begins to crystallize by the
simultaneous evaporation of water, during quenching, and removal of a liquid bleed stream,
which is sent to the product processing system.
By-product Recovery
The bleed stream of concentrated, clear liquid presents a very convenient opportunity to remove
constituents not desired in the fertilizer by using simple filters and absorbent beds. The relatively
high concentration of the material in a clear liquid stream makes this processing significantly
easier and cheaper than could be done with solids or slurries.
After the unwanted compounds are removed, the ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate are
crystallized, separated from the liquid flow by centrifuge, and granulated to produce a
commercially valuable fertilizer. The ammonium nitrate is not separable from the ammonium
sulfate; it adds to the value of the fertilizer because it increases the nitrogen content.
There is no liquid discharge from an ECO system. The concentrate is returned to the reaction
basin. The only streams leaving the process are the granulated co-product stream and the low
volume of concentrated solids removed from the liquid before it is processed into fertilizer.
Performance Data and Other Considerations
Reported results from 6 months of testing at the 50 MW demonstration facility include:
90% NO
X
reduction
98% SO
2
reduction
85% Hg reduction
~0.01 lb/MBtu (10 mg/Nm
3
) particulate
Ongoing investigation is addressing the tendency of some reaction products to reverse the
oxidation of mercury accomplished in the barrier discharge reactor. The steady-state mercury
concentration must be maintained at a low level to minimize the rate of mercury reduction and
re-emission.
A CO
2
capture add-on module is under development.
Other Multi-Pollutant Processes
ReACT Process
The Regenerative Activated Coke Technology (ReACT) process is a second generation Bergbau
Forschung (Mitsui) process marketed worldwide by J-Power EnTech Inc. Upgrades to the
process, which uses ammonia injection with a moving bed of activated coke, include use of
multiple coke flowpaths and a form of coke pellets with reduced attrition. The original and
enhanced versions of the process have been used in Japan on several industrial facilities,
including the 350 MW Takehara AFBC plant and the 600 MW Isogo Unit 1 PC plant. Reported
12-4
performance includes Hg reductions up to 98%, SO
2
reductions of 9098%, and NO
X
reductions
of 5080%. NO
X
reduction performance is reported to be best when fuel sulfur content is below
2%.
In the ReACT process, ammonia is added to the flue gas before it enters an adsorber vessel. The
NH
3
reacts with SO
2
to form sulfuric acid, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium bisulfate. These
products are subsequently adsorbed onto the bed material along with mercury. NO
X
is
catalytically reduced, on the coke surface, reacting with NH
3
to form nitrogen and water.
Coke is circulated between the adsorber and regenerator by conveyor. After the coke is
transferred to the regenerator vessel, it is heated indirectly to 750930F (400500C). This
releases SO
2
, which is processed into sulfur, sulfuric acid, or other products. The coke is cooled
and screened to remove fines and captured fly ash before being returned to the adsorber vessel.
The mercury is retained on the coke until the coke is removed as fines or during a changeout
every few years.
A 2.50 MW equivalent test to investigate the performance of the ReACT process with U.S.
bituminous and subbituminous coals is scheduled to begin in spring of 2007 on one of the ~250
MW units at Idaho Power and NRG Energys Valmy Generating Station in Nevada.
Airborn Process
The Airborn Process uses sodium bicarbonate injection and wet sodium scrubbing with an
oxidant. Airborn Technologies Inc. (ATI) developed this enhancement of the long-established
wet sodium scrubbing process by using ammonia to regenerate sodium sulfate. This produces
high purity (+98%) sodium bicarbonate for reuse and (+99%) ammonium sulfate, which is sold
as fertilizer to improve the overall economics of the process.
The Airborn Process is also able to capture NO
X
and oxidized mercury. Work is in progress to
add CO
2
capture. Targeted performance includes SO
2
removal >99.5%, SO
3
removal >99.5, NO
X

removal >98%, and oxidized Hg removal >98%. In experiments using different oxidants, ATI
has reported near 100% capture of NO
X
and near 100% capture of elemental mercury, which
otherwise does not dissolve and passes through the process. Data available to date are from small
scale tests at CANMENT Energy Technology Center in Ottawa and a 5 MW pilot at Kentucky
Utilities Ghent Station. Oxidant screening tests were carried out at the Energy and
Environmental Research Center (EERC) in North Dakota.
Mobotec ROFA/ROTAMIX Process
The ROFA/ROTAMIX process aims to enhance combustion and reagent performance through
optimized mixing. The Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA) process uses off-center injection of high
velocity air to produce high turbulence and rotating swirl. Enhanced mixing reduces thermal
NO
X
production by creating more even combustion. The mixing also enables more complete
combustion, which improves carbon burnout, reduces carbon monoxide, and allows use of lower
excess air levels. Rotamix injects reagent/sorbent through the ROFA portsammonia or urea for
enhanced NO
X
control, limestone or trona for SO
X
control, and MinPlus for Hg control.
The ROFA process has been installed on thirteen coal-fired PC boilers with 2470 MW capacity
in the United States. The combined process is being tested on Dynegys 89 MW Vermilion
Unit 1 and Carolina Power and Lights 174 MW Cape Fear Unit 6. Early field results show Hg
12-5
reductions up to 6590%, SO
2
reductions of 6570%, SO
3
reductions of 90%, and NO
X

reductions up to 75%. Addition of SCR is expected to reduce NO
X
further. Particulate control
also appears to improve due to better distribution across the ESP with the improved mixing in the
furnace.

A-1
A
TERMINOLOGY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMNS

ABMA American Boiler Manufacturers
Association Standards
ABS ammonium bisulfate
ACI American Concrete Institute
AGMA American Gear Manufacturers
Association
AISC American Institute of Steel
Construction
ALS ammonium lignosulfonate
AMCA Air Movement and Control
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
ARI Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute
ASA Acoustical Society of America
Standards
ASCE American Society of Civil
Engineering
ASHRAE American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
ASHRAE American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Standards
ASL site elevation above mean sea
level
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
ASNT American Society of
Nondestructive Testing
ASSE American Society of Sanitary
Engineering Standards
ASTM ASTM International, originally
known as the American Society
for Testing and Materials
AWS American Welding Society
Standards
AWWA American Water Works
BACT best available control
technology
barg bars, gauge
BEC bare erected cost
BOD biological oxygen demand
boiler in subcritical plants, the
equipment that produces the
steam for power production; the
steam generator.
Btu British thermal unit
CCPI Clean Coal Power Plant
Initiative of the United States
DOE
CEMS continuous emissions
monitoring system
CF capacity factor
CFB circulating fluidized bed
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COE levelized busbar cost of
electricity, often expressed in
$/MWh
CTI Cooling Technology Institute
DAF dry and ash-free; synonym for
MAF
DCS digital control system
DNB departure from nucleate boiling
DI de-ionized
DOE United States Department of
Energy
dscf dry standard cubic feet
dscm dry standard cubic meter
EAF equivalent availability factor
A-2
EIA Electronic Industries Association
EJMA Expansion Joint Manufacturers
Association
EPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
EPC engineering procurement and
construction contract or
contractor
EPRI Electric Power Research
Institute
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAC flow accelerated corrosion
FD forced draft (fan)
FDA flash dryer absorber
FM Factory Mutual Insurance
Company
FOF forced outage factor
FOR forced outage rate
fps feet per second
FT fluid temperature
FW Foster Wheeler
GADS Generating Availability Data
System
GE the General Electric Company
generator a device for producing
electricity; the piece of rotating
machinery that produces
electricity by inducing electrical
current in stationary coils by
turning a rotating electromagnet
within them. Not to be confused
with steam generator, a device
that produces steam.
GTAW gas tungsten arc welding
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HDPE high density polyethylene
HEI Heat Exchange Institute
Standards
Hg mercury
HHV Higher Heating Value (heating
value of fuel if heat of
condensation of water vapor
from its combustion products in
a bomb calorimeter at 77F
(25C) is included)
HI Hydraulics Institute
HMI Hoist Manufacturers Institute
Standards
HMI human/machine interface
HP high pressure
HVAC heating ventilation and air
conditioning
IBC International Building Code
2000
ID Induced Draft (fan)
IDC Interest during construction
IEEE Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers
IP intermediate pressure
I.R. infrared radiation
ISA Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society
ISBL Inside Battery Limits
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
ISO International Standards
Organization
K.O. knockout drum
kW, kWe kilowatt electric
kWt kilowatt thermal
LAER lowest achievable emissions
rate
LBtu low Btu content coal
LHV lower heaving value (fictitious
heating value of fuel if the heat
of condensation of water vapor
is ignored; i.e., if the water in the
combustion products were
assumed to remain in the vapor
state in the bomb calorimeter)
LOI loss on ignition
LP low pressure
MAF moisture and ash-free; synonym
for DAF
MCR maximum continuous rating
A-3
MBtu 10
6
Btu, (million Btu)
MPTA Mechanical Power Transmission
Association
MS main steam
MSS Manufacturers Standardization
Society Standards
MTPD metric tons/day
MW, MWe megawatt electrical
MWt megawatt thermal
NA, N/A not applicable
NAAMM National Association of
Architectural Metal
Manufacturers
NAAQS national ambient air quality
standards
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering
ND not detected
NEMA National Electrical
Manufacturers Association
NERC North American Electric
Reliability Council
NETL DOE National Energy
Technology Laboratory
NFPA National Fire Protection
Association
NO
X
nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NSPS New Source Performance
Standards
NSR New Source Review
O&M Operating and Maintenance
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OHSA Occupational Health and Safety
Administration
P&ID piping and instrumentation
diagram
PC, pc pulverized coal
PFI Pipe Fabrication Institute
PHA Process Hazard Analysis
PM particulate matter
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmvd ppmv, dry basis
ppmvw ppmv, wet basis
PRB Powder River Basin
PSD Prevention of Significant
Deterioration
psia lb/square inch (14.696 psia = 1
atm)
psid lb/square inch difference, used
for pressure drop
psig lb/square inch gauge [ (psia)
(local atmospheric pressure in
psia) ]
PSM Process Safety Management
PVC polyvinyl chloride
Q heat
RBD Reliability Block Diagrams
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RH reheat
RMA Rubber Manufacturers
Association
RMP Risk Management Plan
RMS root-mean-square
RO reverse osmosis
S sulfur content of fuel
SAMA Scientific Apparatus
scf standard cubic feet
SCR selective catalytic reduction (for
NO
X
control)
SMACNA Sheet Metal and Air
Conditioning Contractors'
National Association
SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction
(for NO
X
control)
SO
2
sulfur dioxide
SO
X
sulfur oxides
SSPC The Society for Protective
Coatings
ST steam turbine
A-4
steam generator the equipment in a
subcritical or supercritical power
plant that produces the
superheat and reheat steam for
power generation from
feedwater; in a subcritical plant,
also provides for the
evaporation (boiling) of water;
synonymous with boiler for
subcritical plants. Supercritical
plants do not boil water, there
is no phase change under
supercritical pressure, so
steam generator is the
preferred term for this
equipment in supercritical units.
The steam generator is a device
for producing steam, and should
not to be confused with a
generator, which is a device for
producing electricity.
SWS sour water stripper
t short ton (2,000 lbs)
T&D transmission and distribution
(electrical)
t/h, tph short tons per hour (2000 lb/h)
t/y,tpy short tons per year (2000 lb/y)
T250 the temperature at which the
slag viscosity is 250 poise
TBD, tbd to be determined
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure
TEMA Tubular Exchanger
TG turbine-generator,
(turbine-generator)
TOC total organic carbon
ton short ton, (2000 lb)
tonne metric ton, (1000 kg or 2205 lb)
TPC total plant cost
UL Underwriters Laboratory
US, U.S. United States
USACE United States Army Corps of
Engineers
USC ultra-supercritical steam plant
USD, US$ United States dollar
USDOE United States Department of
Energy
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
UTS Universal treatment standards
VHP very high pressure turbine
section
VOC volatile organic compounds
VWO valves wide open
y, yr year
ZLD zero liquid discharge

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
Export Control Restrictions
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is
granted with the specific understanding and
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign
export laws and regulations. In the event you are
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with
your companys legal counsel to determine whether
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
with major locations in Palo Alto, California;
Charlotte, North Carolina; and Knoxville,
Tennessee, was established in 1973 as an
independent, nonprofit center for public interest
energy and environmental research. EPRI brings
together members, participants, the Institute's
scientists and engineers, and other leading
experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the
challenges of electric power. These solutions
span nearly every area of electricity generation,
delivery, and use, including health, safety, and
environment. EPRI's members represent over
90% of the electricity generated in the United
States. International participation represents
nearly 15% of EPRI's total research,
development, and demonstration program.
TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity

2007 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1012237

Advanced Pulverised Coal Power Plants EPRI 2007 208p

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Advanced Pulverised Coal Power Plants EPRI 2007 208p

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CoalFleet Guideline for

Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi