FS of IGCC - 1014510 PDF

Feasibility Study for an Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle Facility at a Texas Site
1014510
Feasibility Study for an Integrated

Gasification Combined Cycle
Facility at a Texas Site
1014510
Technical Update, October 2006
Cosponsor
CPS Energy
145 Navarro
San Antonio, TX 78296
Project Manager
J. Kosub
EPRI Project Manager

G. Booras
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
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
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. Inc.
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 and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Burns & McDonnell
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
Principal Investigator
J. Schwarz
This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
CPS Energy.
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Feasibility Study for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Facility at a Texas Site. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1014510.
iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Interest in integrated gasification combined-cycle technology (IGCC) has grown sharply since
the passage of the Energy Policy Act in 2005. Many new projects are being planned since the
AEP and Duke 600-MW IGCC plants were announced nearly two years ago. This report
compares the cost and performance of IGCC with a supercritical pulverized coal plant (SCPC)
based on lower-rank Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. IGCC options included 100% PRB and
50/50 PRB/petcoke cases. The addition of CO2 capture equipment also was evaluated as a retrofit
for the 100% PRB IGCC and SCPC facilities.
Results & Findings
The net plant heat rates for the IGCC and SCPC plants without CO2 capture are similar, with the
100% PRB IGCC case having a slightly worse heat rate while the PRB/petcoke blend IGCC case
has a slightly better heat rate than the PRB-fired SCPC. IGCC has an advantage in terms of SO2,
PM10, and mercury emissions, with NOx emissions being similar for both technologies. SCR was
not included for the IGCC unit due to concerns that ammonium bisulfate (ABS) deposits could
plug the finned heat transfer surfaces of the HRSG downstream of the SCR. In addition, IGCC
technology consumes less water than SCPC technology.
Capital costs for the IGCC cases are approximately 20% higher than the cost for the SCPC case.
There is about a 2.5% capital cost savings for the 50/50 PRB/petcoke IGCC over the 100% PRB
IGCC due to the higher heating value of the blended fuel (lower water and ash contents). The
100% PRB SCPC unit has the lowest busbar cost of all alternatives.
Installation of CO2 capture equipment as a retrofit for both technologies results in a very
significant decrease in plant output. IGCC net plant output decreases by approximately 25%, and
the SCPC decrease in output is 29%. Likewise, the net plant heat rate of the facilities also
increases by approximately 39% for the IGCC and 41% for the SCPC. Water consumption also
is increased by approximately 23% for IGCC and 34% for SCPC.
All these factors result in an increase of the levelized busbar cost by approximately 45% for the
IGCC and 58% for the SCPC post-CO2 capture. SCPC technology still provides the lowest
busbar cost after CO2 capture retrofit, although by less of a gap than pre-CO2 capture. The
avoided cost of CO2 capture is less for an IGCC, implying that IGCC technology is the more
economical choice for retrofit of CO2 capture technology.
Challenges & Objective(s)
The Shell gasification process chosen for this application uses a dry-feed system, which has
advantages over slurry-feed gasification processes for low-rank coal (for the non-CO2 capture
case). However, the Shell gasification process produces syngas with higher concentrations of CO
and less H2 than would be produced by a slurry-feed gasifier. When adding CO2 capture
v
equipment to the Shell gasification process, more steam is required to convert the CO to CO2 and
H2 than would be required for a slurry-feed gasifier. This situation results in less steam available
to the steam turbine, which equates to less plant output for the CO2 capture case than may be
seen if using a slurry-feed gasifier. If the objective of the owner is to capture CO2, then a slurryfeed gasifier may be a better choice than a dry-feed gasifier. Another option would be a water
quench version of the Shell gasifier, which would require some additional development.
Applications, Values & Use
In recent years, several factors have caused the cost of power projects to increase at a higher rate
than in years past. World demand for many commodities has increased sharply, resulting in a
100-300% cost increase for some commodities, including steel (in particular, stainless or highalloy steel), concrete, copper, oil, and nickel. The compounding effect of labor productivity, high
labor rate escalation, commodity cost escalation, risk mitigation, and contractor markups results
in much higher project costs for both IGCC and SCPC than may have been anticipated one or
two years ago. It is important that owners who are planning to add new generation have access to
the most recent cost and performance estimates.
EPRI Perspective
This is the first EPRI study performed that evaluates CO2 capture as a retrofit to existing IGCC
and SCPC units. Other EPRI studies have evaluated CO2 capture on new units specifically
designed for and incorporating CO2 capture from the start. Additionally, this is the first detailed
study performed by EPRI that evaluates IGCC and pulverized coal (PC) technology with CO2
capture when using a lower-rank, higher-moisture PRB coal. Other detailed studies performed by
EPRI focused primarily on higher-rank bituminous coals (using slurry-feed gasifiers), where
IGCC has been shown to provide a more distinct advantage.
Approach
Burns & McDonnell was engaged by CPS Energy and EPRI to perform a feasibility study for a
nominal 550-MW (net) IGCC facility to be located at a greenfield site in the Texas Gulf Coast
region. The IGCC options were based on Shell coal gasification technology with GE 7FB gas
turbines. EPRIs in-house computer model was used to estimate the performance of the Shell
coal gasification process for both fuels. UOPs SELEXOL system was used as the basis for the
SM
IGCC CO2 capture technology, and Fluors Econamine FG Plus system was used for SCPC
CO2 capture technology. This report provides screening-level capital cost, performance,
operations and maintenance costs, availability factors, and emission rates for the two IGCC
alternatives. The capital costs include many site and owner-specific items that are not normally
included in EPRIs Technical Assessment Guide (TAG).
Keywords
Integrated gasification combined cycle
Pulverized coal
CO2 capture
PRB coal
vi
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................1-1

Overview ...............................................................................................................................1-1
IGCC Options ........................................................................................................................1-1
Deliverables...........................................................................................................................1-2
Results ..................................................................................................................................1-2
Current Market Conditions ....................................................................................................1-6
Limitations and Qualifications................................................................................................1-7
2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................2-1
Background ...........................................................................................................................2-1
Objectives .............................................................................................................................2-1
Status of the Technology.......................................................................................................2-2
Selection of Gasification Technology ....................................................................................2-2
Project Experience ................................................................................................................2-3
Fuel experience.....................................................................................................................2-4
Technical Approach and Data Sources.................................................................................2-4
3 STUDY CRITERIA..................................................................................................................3-1
Site Selection ........................................................................................................................3-1
Gas Turbine Selection...........................................................................................................3-1
Fuel Selection .......................................................................................................................3-1
Plant Capacity Selection .......................................................................................................3-3
Capacity Factor and Availability Factor Targets....................................................................3-4
4 PROCESS DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................4-1
Gasification System Description............................................................................................4-1
Air Separation Unit (ASU).................................................................................................4-1
Gasifiers ...........................................................................................................................4-4
vii
Gasifier Performance Estimate by EPRI......................................................................4-5

Slag Handling ...................................................................................................................4-6
Fly Ash System.................................................................................................................4-7
Syngas Wash Towers.......................................................................................................4-7
COS / HCN Hydrolysis .....................................................................................................4-8
Syngas Cooling and Condensation ..................................................................................4-9
Mercury Removal ...........................................................................................................4-10
Acid Gas Removal (AGR)...............................................................................................4-10
Sulfur Recovery and Tail Gas Treating ..........................................................................4-13
Sulfur Recovery Units (SRU) .....................................................................................4-13
Tail Gas Treating Unit (TGTU)...................................................................................4-15
Tail Gas Compression ...............................................................................................4-16
Thermal Oxidizer........................................................................................................4-16
Sour Water Stripping ......................................................................................................4-16
Syngas Saturation ..........................................................................................................4-17
Power Block Description .....................................................................................................4-17
Gas Turbines ..................................................................................................................4-17
Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG)....................................................................4-18
Steam Turbine ................................................................................................................4-18
Steam Condenser...........................................................................................................4-19
Steam System ................................................................................................................4-19
Condensate System .......................................................................................................4-19
Feedwater System..........................................................................................................4-19
Natural Gas System .......................................................................................................4-19
Balance of Plant ..................................................................................................................4-20
Coal Handling .................................................................................................................4-20
100% PRB Option......................................................................................................4-20
50% PRB / 50% Petcoke Option................................................................................4-20
Cooling System ..............................................................................................................4-20
Auxiliary Boiler................................................................................................................4-21
Buildings .........................................................................................................................4-21
Water Treatment.............................................................................................................4-21
Raw Water/Service Water..........................................................................................4-22
Demineralized Water .................................................................................................4-23
viii
Wastewater ................................................................................................................4-23
Sanitary Drains ..........................................................................................................4-23
Flare ...............................................................................................................................4-23
Fire Protection ................................................................................................................4-23
Plant Drains ....................................................................................................................4-24
Electrical Systems ..........................................................................................................4-24
Auxiliary Power Supply ..............................................................................................4-24
Generator and Excitation ...........................................................................................4-25
Switchyard .................................................................................................................4-25
Essential AC and DC Power Supply ..........................................................................4-26
Freeze Protection ......................................................................................................4-26
5 TERMINAL POINTS ...............................................................................................................5-1
General .................................................................................................................................5-1
Site Access ...........................................................................................................................5-1
Rail Siding .............................................................................................................................5-1
Sanitary Waste ......................................................................................................................5-1
Natural Gas ...........................................................................................................................5-1
Raw Water Supply.................................................................................................................5-1
Wastewater Discharge ..........................................................................................................5-2
Electrical Interface.................................................................................................................5-2
6 IGCC PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES ....................................................................................6-1
Performance Estimate Assumptions .....................................................................................6-1
Performance Estimate Results..............................................................................................6-1
7 IGCC CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES......................................................................................7-1
Capital Cost Estimate Assumptions ......................................................................................7-1
Indirect Construction Costs (Included in EPC Cost)..............................................................7-2
Owner Indirect Costs.............................................................................................................7-3
Costs not included.................................................................................................................7-4
Capital Cost Results..............................................................................................................7-4
8 IGCC OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ..........................................................................8-1
O&M Assumptions.................................................................................................................8-1
O&M Exclusions ....................................................................................................................8-2
ix
O&M Results .........................................................................................................................8-2

9 IGCC AVAILABILITY .............................................................................................................9-1
General .................................................................................................................................9-1
Assumptions and Clarifications .............................................................................................9-1
Availability Factor ..................................................................................................................9-1
10 IGCC EMISSIONS ESTIMATES ........................................................................................10-1
General ...............................................................................................................................10-1
11 SUPERCRITICAL PC ESTIMATES ...................................................................................11-1
General ...............................................................................................................................11-1
SCPC Capital Cost Assumptions ........................................................................................11-1
SCPC Capital Cost Results.................................................................................................11-2
SCPC Performance Assumptions .......................................................................................11-4
SCPC Performance Estimate Results.................................................................................11-4
SCPC O&M Cost Assumptions ...........................................................................................11-5
SCPC O&M Exclusions .......................................................................................................11-5
SCPC O&M Results ............................................................................................................11-5
SCPC Emission Rates ........................................................................................................11-6
Availability Factor ................................................................................................................11-8
12 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................12-1
General ...............................................................................................................................12-1
Assumptions........................................................................................................................12-1
Economic Analysis ..............................................................................................................12-3
Sensitivity Analysis..............................................................................................................12-5
13 CO2 CAPTURE ...................................................................................................................13-1
General ...............................................................................................................................13-1
IGCC CO2 Capture ..............................................................................................................13-3
IGCC Modifications for CO2 Capture ..............................................................................13-4
Sour Shift ...................................................................................................................13-4
Syngas Cooling and Condensation............................................................................13-5
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) ..........................................................................................13-5
IGCC Impacts from CO2 Capture....................................................................................13-5
IGCC Performance CO2 Capture ............................................................................13-5

IGCC Capital Cost CO2 Capture .............................................................................13-7
IGCC Operations and Maintenance CO2 Capture...................................................13-7
IGCC Emissions CO2 Capture ................................................................................13-9
IGCC Pre-Investment Options for CO2 Capture.......................................................13-10
SCPC CO2 Capture ...........................................................................................................13-10
SCPC Modifications for CO2 Capture ...........................................................................13-12
SCPC Impacts from CO2 Capture.................................................................................13-13
SCPC Performance CO2 Capture .........................................................................13-13
SCPC Capital Cost CO2 Capture ..........................................................................13-14
SCPC Operations and Maintenance CO2 Capture................................................13-15
SCPC Emissions CO2 Capture .............................................................................13-17
SCPC Pre-Investment Options for CO2 Capture......................................................13-17
CO2 Capture Economics....................................................................................................13-18
14 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................14-1
Byproduct Sales ..................................................................................................................14-1
Co-Production .....................................................................................................................14-1
Plant Degradation................................................................................................................14-2
Lignite Gasification ..............................................................................................................14-2
15 SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................15-1
A PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS............................................................................................. A-1
B SITE LAYOUT DRAWINGS.................................................................................................. B-1
C WATER MASS BALANCE DIAGRAMS............................................................................... C-1
D ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAMS ................................................................................. D-1
E CAPITAL COST DETAIL ...................................................................................................... E-1
F HEAT BALANCE DIAGRAMS ...............................................................................................F-1
G O&M COST DETAIL............................................................................................................. G-1
H SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL UNITS CONVERSION TABLE ......................................... H-1
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Gasification Block Flow Diagram ..............................................................................4-1
Figure 4-2 Generic ASU Process Flow Diagram .......................................................................4-4
Figure 4-3 SELEXOL Process Flow Diagram ..........................................................................4-12
Figure 4-4 Block Flow Diagram Sulfur Recovery and Tail Gas Treating...............................4-13
Figure 12-1 20-Year Levelized Busbar Cost (2006 US Dollars) ..............................................12-3
Figure 12-2 Breakout of 20-Year Levelized Busbar Cost (2006 US Dollars) ...........................12-4
Figure 12-3 Sensitivity Analysis SCPC Unit 100% PRB Coal............................................12-5
Figure 12-4 Sensitivity Analysis IGCC 50% PRB Coal / 50% Petcoke ..............................12-6
Figure 12-5 Sensitivity Analysis IGCC 100% PRB Coal ....................................................12-6
Figure 13-1 CO2 Storage Supply Curve for North America ......................................................13-3
Figure 13-2 Fluor EFG+ Block Flow Diagram ........................................................................13-11
Figure 14-1 Products from Syngas ..........................................................................................14-2
Error! No table of figures entries found
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Executive Summary Table (Table 1 of 2) ..................................................................1-3
Table 1-2 Executive Summary Table (Table 2 of 2) ..................................................................1-4
Table 2-1 IGCC Facilities Past and Current............................................................................2-4
Table 3-1 Fuel Analyses ............................................................................................................3-3
Table 4-1 ASU Material Balances..............................................................................................4-3
Table 4-2 Summary of Gasifier Modeling Results .....................................................................4-6
Table 4-3 Assumed Raw Water Quality..................................................................................4-22
Table 6-1 IGCC Performance Summary....................................................................................6-2
Table 7-1 IGCC Capital Cost Estimate Summary (2006 US Dollars) ........................................7-5
Table 8-1 IGCC O&M Summary (2006 US Dollars)...................................................................8-3
Table 10-1 IGCC Target Emission Rates ................................................................................10-2
Table 11-1 550 MW (Net) SCPC Capital Cost Estimate Summary (2006 US Dollars) ............11-3
Table 11-2 550 MW (Net) SCPC Performance Summary........................................................11-4
Table 11-3 550 MW (Net) SCPC O&M Summary (2006 US Dollars) ......................................11-6
Table 11-4 500 MW (Net) SCPC Emissions Estimates ...........................................................11-8
Table 13-1 CO2 Purity Specification.........................................................................................13-2
Table 13-2 IGCC Performance Impacts from CO2 Capture .....................................................13-6
Table 13-3 IGCC Capital Cost Additions for CO2 Capture Retrofit...........................................13-7
Table 13-4 IGCC O&M Impacts from CO2 Capture..................................................................13-8
Table 13-5 IGCC Emissions Impacts from CO2 Capture .........................................................13-9
Table 13-6 SCPC Performance Impacts from CO2 Capture ..................................................13-14
Table 13-7 SCPC Capital Cost Additions for CO2 Capture Retrofit........................................13-15
Table 13-8 SCPC O&M Impacts from CO2 Capture...............................................................13-16
Table 13-9 SCPC Emissions Impacts from CO2 Capture ......................................................13-17
Table 13-10 CO2 Capture Busbar Costs ...............................................................................13-18
Table 15-1 Summary Table (1 of 2) .........................................................................................15-2
Table 15-2 Summary Table (2 of 2) .........................................................................................15-3
xv
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

F
106
$
$/kW
$/kW-yr
$/MMBtu
$/MWh
$/ton
$/yr
%
ABS
AC
AGR
ALPC
ASU
BOP
Btu
Btu/kWh
CF
CIT
CO
CO2
COS
CPS
DC
DCS
DSF
ECBM
EFG+
EOR
EPA
EPC
EPRI
FGCU
FGD
ft
gal
GE
GIS
GSU
GTG
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
Hg
degrees Fahrenheit
million
dollars (U.S.)
dollars per kilowatt
dollars per kilowatt-year
dollars per million British thermal unit
dollars per megawatt-hour
dollars per ton
dollars per year
percent
ammonium bisulfate
alternating current
acid gas removal
Air Liquide Process and Construction
air separation unit
balance of plant
British thermal unit
British thermal unit(s) per kilowatt-hour
capacity factor
compressor inlet temperature
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbonyl sulfide
CPS Energy
direct current
distributed control system
deep saline formations
Enhanced coal bed methane (recovery)
Econamine FG PlusSM (Fluor CO2 capture system)
enhanced oil recovery
Environmental Protection Agency
engineer-procure-construct
Electric Power Research Institute
Flue Gas Conditioning Unit
flue gas desulfurization
foot (feet)
gallon(s)
General Electric
geographic information system
generator step-up (transformer)
gas turbine generator
hydrogen
water
hydrogen sulfide
hydrogen cyanide
mercury
xvii
HHV
HP
hr
HRSG
HVAC
IGCC
in
IOU
kPa
kV
kW
kWh
lb
lb/hr
lb/MMBtu
lb/MWh
LHV
lit
LP
LTGC
LTSA
LV
3
m
MCC
MEA
MHI
MM
MMBtu
MMcf
MP
Mt
MV
MW
MWh
N2
NAAQS
NaOH
NFPA
NH3
NOx
O&M
PC
PCM
ppmv
ppmvd
ppmvd @ 15% O2
PPT
PRB
psia
psig
S
SCPC
SCR
SO2
SO3
SRU
STG
STPD
xviii
higher heating value

high pressure
hour
heat recovery steam generator
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
integrated gasification combined cycle
inch(es)
investor owned utility
kilopascal(s)
kilovolt(s)
kilowatt(s)
kilowatt-hour
pound(s)
pound per hour
pound(s) per million British thermal units
pound(s) per megawatt-hour
lower heating value
liter(s)
low pressure
low temperature gas cooling
long term service agreement
low voltage
cubic meters
motor control center
monoethanolamine (solvent)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
million
million Btu
million cubic feet
medium pressure
metric ton
medium voltage
megawatts
megawatt-hour
nitrogen
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Sodium Hydroxide
National Fire Protection Association
ammonia
nitrous oxide
operations and maintenance
pulverized coal
power control module
part(s) per million by volume
part(s) per million by volume (dry)
part(s) per million by volume (dry) corrected to 15% oxygen
power potential transformer
Powder River Basin (coal)
pound(s) per square inch (atmospheric)
pound(s) per square inch (gauge)
sulfur
supercritical pulverized coal
selective catalytic reduction
sulfur dioxide
sulfur trioxide
sulfur recovery unit
steam turbine generator
short tons per day
SWS
TGTU
TPD
TTD
UPS
U.S.
V
v%
vol
wt
wt%
yr
sour water stripper

tail gas treatment unit
ton(s) per day
terminal temperature difference
uninterruptible power supply
United States
volt(s)
percent by volume
volume
weight
percent by weight
year(s)
xix
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Electric Power Research Institute & CPS Energy
Feasibility Study for an Integrated Combined Cycle Facility at a Texas Site
DOCUMENT
Report/Appendices
DESCRIPTION
Findings of IGCC Feasibility Study
NUMBER
OF PAGES
221
CERTIFICATION(S)
xxi
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology has been the source of much interest
in the world of advanced coal-fired generation. IGCC technology provides a bridge between the
two mature technologies of coal gasification and combined cycle technology by producing a
medium-Btu value syngas from coal or other solid fuel and firing it in a modified conventional
gas turbine as part of a combined cycle application.
Burns & McDonnell was engaged by CPS Energy (Owner) and EPRI to perform a feasibility
study for IGCC technology to be located at a greenfield Texas Gulf Coast location.
IGCC Options
Due to the availability of petroleum coke (petcoke) and PRB coal in the area, two IGCC options
were evaluated:
Option 1 100% PRB
Option 2 50% PRB / 50% Petcoke (% by weight)
For this evaluation, a 2x1 (two gas turbine/HRSG trains and 1 steam turbine) configuration was
selected. The IGCC facility consists of the following major equipment:
1 high-pressure air separation unit (ASU) with 2x50% main air compressors and nitrogen
compressors, utilizing a portion of air extracted from the gas turbine compressors at
lower ambient temperatures (air-side integration).
2 Shell gasifiers.
TM
1 SELEXOL acid gas removal (AGR) system.
2 sulfur recovery units (SRU).
1 tail gas treating unit (TGTU).
2 General Electric (GE) 7FB gas turbine generators (GTG).
1-1
Executive Summary
2 heat recovery steam generators (HRSG).
1 steam turbine generator (STG).
Balance of plant (BOP).
Deliverables
This report provides screening level capital cost, performance, operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs, availability factors, and emission rates for the two IGCC alternatives defined
above. As a part of creating this information Burns & McDonnell also generated process flow
diagrams, layout drawings, water mass balances, and electrical one-line diagrams.
Another objective of this study was to compare IGCC technology to supercritical pulverized coal
(SCPC) technology using steam conditions of 3500 psig/1050F/1050F. Therefore capital cost,
performance, O&M costs, availability factors, and emission rates were also developed for a
SCPC Unit firing 100% PRB coal with a net output of 550 MW. This information was used to
create a 20-year levelized busbar cost to determine the overall cost of generation for the three
alternatives.
The addition of CO2 capture equipment was also evaluated as a retrofit for the 100% PRB IGCC
and SCPC facilities. UOPs SELEXOL system was used as the basis for the IGCC CO2 capture
SM
technology and Fluors Econamine FG Plus system was used for SCPC CO2 capture
technology. Capital cost, performance, O&M, and emission rates were developed and used to
calculate a 20-year levelized busbar cost for both technologies.
Results
A summary table is provided in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.
1-2
Executive Summary
Table 1-1
Executive Summary Table (Table 1 of 2)
Case
Fuel
PRB (% wt.)
Petcoke (% wt.)
PRB (% heat input)
Petcoke (% heat input)
HHV (Btu/lb)
Capital Cost (2006 USD)
EPC Capital Cost
Owner's Costs
Total Project Cost
EPC Capital Cost, $/kW (73F Ambient)
Total Project Cost, $/kW (73F Ambient)
Performance
43F Dry Bulb, 40F Wet Bulb
Gross Plant Output, MW
Auxiliary Load, MW
Net Plant Output, MW
Net Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh (HHV)
Auxiliary Load, MW
Auxiliary Load, MW
O&M Cost (2006 USD)
Fixed O&M, $/kW-yr
Variable O&M, $/MWh
Total O&M Cost, $/Year (85% CF)
Availability Factor
Economic Analysis
Capacity Factor
20-year levelized busbar cost, $/MWh (2006 Real $)
Avoided CO2 Cost, $/Mt CO2 avoided
100% PRB
Base Cases
IGCC
50% PRB / 50% Petcoke
SCPC
100% PRB
CO2 Capture Cases

IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB IGCC
100% PRB
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
50%
50%
36%
64%
11,194
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
$1,318,980,000
$155,240,000
$1,474,220,000
$2,390
$2,670
$1,287,540,000
$139,500,000
$1,427,040,000
$2,330
$2,580
$1,072,580,000
$129,760,000
$1,202,340,000
$1,950
$2,190
$179,220,000 (Note 1)
$17,960,000 (Note 1)
$197,180,000 (Note 1)
$3,630 (Note 1)
$4,040 (Note 1)
$269,430,000 (Note 1)
$26,570,000 (Note 1)
$296,000,000 (Note 1)
$3,440 (Note 1)
$3,840 (Note 1)
736.6
137.4
599.2
9,090
734.2
137.2
597.0
8,950
623.3
65.4
557.8
9,030
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
709.9
156.8
553.0
9,220
711.1
158.0
553.0
9,070
614.5
64.5
550.0
9,150
630.1
216.8
413.3
12,800
521.4
131.6
389.8
12,910
681.5
153.2
528.4
9,350
682.6
154.5
528.2
9,210
613.2
64.4
548.8
9,170
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
$25.19
$5.95
$38,426,700
$25.19
$5.66
$37,245,400
$20.68
$4.60
$30,209,800
$34.74
$8.55
$40,661,400
$31.19
$6.97
$32,563,000
85%
85%
90%
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
85%
$45.03
N/A
85%
$40.89
N/A
85%
$39.28
N/A
N/A
$65.41
$26.28
N/A
$62.00
$29.64
Notes:
1) CO2 Capture capital costs are based on retrofit of the existing IGCC or PC facilities as provided in the base case alternatives. $/kW values reflect total installed cost to date (including original costs provided
in the base case) divided by net plant output with CO2 capture.
1-3
Executive Summary
Table 1-2
Executive Summary Table (Table 2 of 2)
Case
NOx Emissions
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd @ 15% O2
lb/MWh (net)
SO2 Emissions
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
PM10 Emissions (front half)
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
CO
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd
lb/MWh (net)
CO2
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
Hg
% Removal
lb/TBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
100% PRB
Base Cases
IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB
CO2 Capture Cases

IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB IGCC
100% PRB
0.063
15
0.581
0.062
15
0.562
0.050
N/A
0.458
0.061
15
0.781
0.045
N/A
0.581
0.019
0.173
0.023
0.210
0.060
0.549
0.004
0.051
0.0003
0.003
0.007
0.065
0.007
0.065
0.015
0.137
0.007
0.090
0.015
0.194
0.037
25
0.337
0.036
25
0.337
0.150
N/A
1.373
0.035 (Note 1)
25 (Note 1)
0.448 (Note 1)
0.150
N/A
1.937
215
1,985
213
1,934
215
1,967
22
276
22
278
90%
0.778
7.17E-06
90%
0.496
4.50E-06
70%
2.315
2.12E-05
90%
0.778
9.96E-06
70%
2.315
2.99E-05
Plant Cooling Requirements, MMBtu/hr (@ 73F)

2,141
2,179
2,490
2,101
3,330
Steam Cycle Cooling Requirement, MMBtu/hr
1,480
1,480
2,300
1,120
1,354
BOP Auxiliary Cooling Requirement, MMBtu/hr
661
699
190
981
1,976
Total Plant Makeup Water Requirement
GPM (@ 73F)
4,980
5,231
5,800
6,147
7,757
Acre-ft/year (@ 85% CF)
6,830
7,170
7,950
8,430
10,640
Notes:
1) GE is currently in the process of developing tools to accurately predict CO emissions for high hydrogen fuels. It is estimated that CO emissions will be less than shown for IGCC CO2 capture technology,
however to what extent is unknown at this time.
1-4
Executive Summary
The capital costs are based on mid-2006 overnight EPC costs. Escalation through a commercial
operation date (COD) is not included. Additionally, sales tax, interest during construction,
financing fees, and transmission lines or upgrades are not included in the capital cost estimates.
As can be seen SCPC technology provides the lowest capital cost, best efficiency, and lowest
O&M when comparing the two 100% PRB options. Additionally, the 100% PRB SCPC unit has
the lowest busbar cost of all alternatives.
The heat rate for the fuel blended IGCC case is slightly better than 100% PRB SCPC technology
(with the exception of the 93F case); however firing petcoke in a PC unit is also possible,
although not specifically evaluated for this report. Petcoke firing in a conventional PC boiler is
typically limited to approximately 20% (by heat input) due to the low volatiles present in the fuel
which can create flame stability issues. Firing 20% petcoke in the PC boiler will result in
approximately 1% improvement in heat rate over that shown for the PC unit, thus closing the
gap, if not eliminating any performance benefit of the IGCC.
IGCC has an advantage in terms of SO2, PM10, and mercury emissions, however using the
emissions allowance costs provided in Chapter 8, these lower emissions are not enough to
overcome the capital cost and performance differences between the technologies.
The IGCC evaluated has higher NOx emission rates than for the SCPC unit. This is because an
SCR was not included for the IGCC unit due to concerns that ammonium bisulfate (ABS)
deposits could plug and corrode the heat transfer surfaces of the HRSG downstream of the SCR.
Additionally, if an SCR were used, a larger AGR and SRU would be required to lower the sulfur
content of the syngas (to reduce particulate formation from the excess ammonia with SO2/SO3 in
the flue gas) resulting in increased capital cost. For these reasons, an SCR was not included;
however subsequent evaluations should be performed to evaluate the cost/benefit/technological
risk tradeoff. If an SCR were used, NOx emissions could be reduced to levels below that
provided for the SCPC unit.
IGCC technology consumes less water than SCPC technology. This is primarily due to the
steam turbine output of the IGCC being less than half that of the SCPC unit. Although the steam
condenser duty is less for the IGCC, the auxiliary cooling requirements of the IGCC are higher
than the SCPC unit (primarily due to the ASU cooling requirement), resulting in about a 15%
overall lower cooling tower duty and water consumption.
The installation of CO2 capture equipment as a retrofit for both of these technologies results in a
very significant decrease in plant output. The IGCC net plant output decreases by approximately
25% and the SCPC decrease in output is 29%. Likewise, the net plant heat rate of the facilities
also increases by approximately 39% for the IGCC and 41% for the SCPC. Water consumption
is also increased by approximately 23% for IGCC and 34% for SCPC.
All of these factors result in an increase of the 20-year levelized busbar cost by approximately
45% for the IGCC and 58% for the SCPC post CO2 capture. SCPC technology still provides the
lowest busbar cost after CO2 capture retrofit, although by less of a gap than pre-CO2 capture.
The avoided cost of CO2 capture is less for an IGCC implying that IGCC technology is the more
economical choice for retrofit of CO2 capture technology (if you owned both an existing IGCC
1-5
Executive Summary
plant and SCPC plant and were going to retrofit only one, you would choose the IGCC), however
the lower initial capital cost (pre-capture) of SCPC technology still results in an overall lower
busbar cost for SCPC technology.
This is the first EPRI study performed that evaluates CO2 capture as a retrofit to existing IGCC
and SCPC units. Other EPRI studies have evaluated CO2 capture on new units specifically
designed for and incorporating CO2 capture from the start vs. new units that are not designed
with CO2 capture in mind. This study attempts to answer the question of what are the impacts
from adding CO2 capture to an existing SCPC or IGCC plant at a later date.
The Shell gasification process chosen for this application utilizes a dry-feed system, which has
advantages over slurry-feed gasification processes for low rank coal (for the non-CO2 capture
case). The Shell gasifiers produce syngas with higher concentrations of CO and less H2 than
would be produced by a slurry-feed gasifier. When adding CO2 capture equipment to the Shell
gasification process, more steam is required to convert the CO to CO2 and H2 than would be
required for a slurry-feed gasifier. This results in less steam available to the steam turbine,
which equates to less plant output for the CO2 capture case than may be seen if using a slurryfeed gasifier. If the objective of the Owner is to capture CO2, then a slurry-feed gasifier may be a
better choice than a dry-feed gasifier.
Additionally, this is the first detailed study performed by EPRI that evaluates IGCC and PC
technology with CO2 capture when using a lower rank, higher moisture PRB coal. Other detailed
studies performed by EPRI focused primarily on higher rank bituminous coals (using slurry-feed
gasifiers), where IGCC has been shown to provide a more distinct advantage.
The performance information provided by UOP and Fluor for the CO2 capture equipment is
different from data obtained for other recently published studies. A resolution of the differences
is outside the scope of this project, however it is anticipated that the differences are related to the
CO2 purity that was specified for this project. It should be noted that none of the technologies
(IGCC, SCPC, or CO2 capture) evaluated in this study were optimized to provide the best costto-benefit ratio (i.e. lowest busbar cost). The designs used as the basis for this evaluation are just
one of many possible configurations that should be further optimized in the future.
Changes in market conditions, improvements in IGCC technology, different fuel specifications,
or CO2 purity specifications could be enough to swing the economics in favor of IGCC.
Therefore, it is recommended that utilities consider IGCC technology for future generation
needs. However, based on the results and design basis used in this study, SCPC provides the
lowest busbar cost of the three alternatives at this time.
Current Market Conditions

In recent years, several factors have caused the cost of power projects to increase at a higher rate
than in years past. Specifically in the Gulf Coast area, the destruction of Hurricane Katrina has
resulted in a large labor demand for reconstruction efforts. In order to meet labor requirements,
much of the construction labor force has been pulled from out of state, resulting in a construction
labor shortage across the country (in an industry that was already in high demand). The high
demand for qualified labor has resulted in job-hopping for many workers. The result is that
1-6
Executive Summary
labor productivity has been very poor compared to that of just a few years ago, yet the cost of
construction labor is increasing at a rapid rate.
In addition to Hurricane Katrina rebuilding projects, engineering firms and construction
contractors are very busy with new power generation projects and air pollution control projects
designed to clean up SO2 and NOx emissions from older coal-fired units. This increased demand
results in increased contingency, overhead, and profit levels for contractors. Some clients have
even had challenges finding qualified contractors that are willing to bid on their projects.
Beyond labor issues, the world demand for many commodities has also increased sharply, due in
large part to Chinas economic growth. This high demand has resulted in a 100-300% cost
increase for some commodities including steel (in particular stainless or high alloy steel),
concrete, copper, oil, and nickel resulting in increased equipment costs and vendor markups.
The compounding effect of labor productivity, high labor rate escalation, commodity cost
escalation, risk mitigation, and contractor markups results in much higher project costs than may
have been anticipated one or two years ago.
Limitations and Qualifications

The estimates and projections prepared by Burns & McDonnell relating to construction costs,
performance, and O&M are based on our experience, qualifications, and judgment as a
professional consultant. Since Burns & McDonnell has no control over weather, cost, and
availability of labor, materials, and equipment, labor productivity, unavoidable delays, economic
conditions, government regulations and laws (including interpretation thereof), competitive
bidding and market conditions or other factors affecting such estimates or projections, Burns &
McDonnell does not guarantee that actual rates, costs, performance, etc., will not vary from the
estimates and projections prepared herein.
1-7
2
INTRODUCTION
Background
CPS Energy, located in San Antonio, Texas, is the nations largest municipally owned energy
company providing both electricity and natural gas to its customers. In December of 2005, CPS
Energy agreed to fund an IGCC study, as part of a settlement during the air permitting process
for a new pulverized coal plant. Under the terms of the agreement, the IGCC study scope
compares SCPC and IGCC technologies at a generic site in Texas. CPS Energy also agreed to
make the report available to the public. This study provides typical decision support input for a
power plant investment decision for a generic municipally-owned utility. The study includes
generic investment decision information such as, cost of capital, forecasted fuel costs, etc. The
study does not include competitive, sensitive CPS Energy power plant investment decision
information.
CPS Energy contacted Burns & McDonnell to perform a technical and economic feasibility
study for a nominal 550 MW 2x1 IGCC unit.
Objectives
The primary objectives of this study were to provide screening-level information for use in
evaluating a 2x1 IGCC facility to be located at a generic Texas Gulf Coast site. This information
consists primarily of capital cost, performance, and O&M cost estimates.
To achieve these objectives, Burns & McDonnell provided a conceptual design for the facility,
consisting of preliminary process design, overall plant heat balances, preliminary process flow
diagrams, preliminary electrical one-line diagrams, and preliminary site layout drawings. This
information was then used to establish the plant preliminary capital cost estimate.
Once the conceptual design information was produced, IGCC technology was compared to
conventional coal fired SCPC technology in a pro forma economic analysis to determine which
technology resulted in the lowest busbar cost of the facility.
Additionally, the impacts of adding CO2 capture as a retrofit to the IGCC and SCPC technologies
were evaluated. The impacts for performance, capital cost, O&M, emissions, and levelized
busbar cost were determined.
If any of the technologies presented in this report are of interest to the Owner, it is recommended
this feasibility study be followed up with more detailed studies to further define the project and
2-1
Introduction
to tailor the information for a specific site. These follow-on studies should include gasifier and
gas turbine manufacturer involvement.
Status of the Technology

Conventional combined cycle technology is a proven technology that has been used for many
years in the power industry. Similarly, gasification technology is a proven technology that has
been used extensively in the chemical industry to produce products such as ammonia and
hydrogen. IGCC technology combines these two proven technologies by producing a mediumBtu value syngas from coal or other solid fuel (petcoke) and firing it in a modified conventional
gas turbine as part of a combined cycle application.
When combining these two technologies, high levels of integration between the two processes
are often required to increase plant efficiency and to make IGCC competitive with other coalfired electric power generation technologies. This integration is created by using heat
exchangers to capture heat produced in the gasification process and utilizing it to increase the
output and efficiency of the steam cycle, yet at the same time increasing the complexity of the
plant.
IGCC projects generally utilize conventional equipment (gas turbines, heat exchangers,
compressors), that when combined with the complexity of integration into an IGCC facility, has
led to less than desirable availability factors and forced outage rates in the past. It has generally
been the failure of this conventional equipment that has lead to the poor reliability and
availability of the existing IGCC facilities. It is anticipated that advancements in IGCC design
and increased IGCC operational experience are expected to improve availability and lower the
forced outage rates for IGCC technology.
Development of the IGCC technology truly commenced in the 1970s during the energy crisis.
Research and development during this timeframe led to the construction of the Texaco Cool
Water facility in California, and the LGTI facility in Louisiana. Both of these facilities have
been decommissioned. Experiences and lessons learned from these facilities were brought
forward during the 1990s with the development of the Polk and the Wabash IGCC facilities.
Ongoing operation of these two facilities in the United States and the Buggenum and Puertollano
facilities in Europe continue to help improve the future generation of IGCC facilities.
Selection of Gasification Technology

Burns & McDonnell was requested to perform a cursory evaluation of the gasification
technologies available, and select a technology to be used as a basis for this study. Focus was
given only to the major technologies that currently have commercial IGCC offerings in the
United States. This consists of GE, ConocoPhillips, and Shell gasification technologies.
GE and ConocoPhillips use slurry-feed gasifiers, whereas Shell uses a dry-feed gasifier. Slurryfeed gasifiers typically work well on high rank bituminous coals. When utilizing PRB as a
feedstock, however, the slurry has a lower concentration due to the high inherent moisture
content of the PRB coal. As a result of feeding less dense slurry to the gasifier, the cold gas
2-2
Introduction
efficiency decreases and oxygen consumption increases, typically resulting in decreased

performance.
GE has several gasifiers operating in the United States and worldwide. The GE gasification
technology is an oxygen-blown slurry-feed entrained flow gasifier. Most of the operating GE
gasifiers are the quench design. Their IGCC offering is the radiant design intended to maximize
the steam production for power generation. The GE gasification process works well on
bituminous coal and/or petcoke, and they are currently working on a design for PRB, with the
intention of having a commercial offering toward the end of 2006. GE was approached about
participating in this study, and due to their current workload, declined to participate.
ConocoPhillips has an operating, full commercial scale gasifier at the Wabash IGCC facility.
Their process is a 2-stage oxygen-blown slurry-feed entrained flow gasifier. At the LGTI IGCC
facility, which was decommissioned in 1995, ConocoPhillips gasified over 3.7 million tons of
PRB. ConocoPhillips was also approached about participating in this study, and due to their
current workload, declined to participate.
Shell currently has three coal gasifiers operating worldwide. Two started up this year in China
and the Shell gasifier is used at the NUON IGCC facility in the Netherlands. Eleven other Shell
coal gasifiers are currently under construction in China. The Shell coal gasification process is an
oxygen-blown dry-feed entrained flow gasifier that is suitable for PRB gasification. The dryfeed system of the Shell gasifier also likely provides some performance benefits over slurry-feed
gasifiers when designing for low-rank coals such as PRB. Shell was approached about
participating in the study and also declined to participate directly, but agreed to allow EPRI to
perform modeling of their gasification system and supply the results to Burns & McDonnell.
Based on the likely performance benefits associated with the Shell process for PRB coal, it was
agreed that the Shell gasification process would be used as the basis for this evaluation.
It should be noted that all of the gasification technologies described above perform differently
and have different O&M requirements. The GE and ConocoPhillips gasifiers are refractory
lined, whereas the Shell gasifier has a steam tube membrane wall. The refractory lined gasifiers
require a periodic replacement of the refractory due to wear in the high slag flow areas, whereas
the membrane wall tubes require little maintenance. Also, the Shell process is a dry-feed, versus
slurry-feed for the GE and ConocoPhillips processes. Due to the higher concentrations of water,
the syngas from the GE and ConocoPhillips gasifiers has higher concentrations of CO2 and H2
and the syngas from the Shell process has a higher concentration of CO.
Project Experience
Table 2-1 shows the current and previous IGCC facilities that were developed in the United
States and in Europe. All of the United States facilities were developed with funding assistance
from the Department of Energy.
2-3
Introduction
Table 2-1
IGCC Facilities Past and Current
321
Commercial
Operation
Date
1998
252
1996
GE
Operating
PSI Energy
262
1995
Conoco Phillips
Operating
NUON
Sierra
Pacific
Dow
Chemical
Texaco
254
1994
Shell
Operating
99
1997
KRW
Decommissioned
160
1987
Conoco Phillips
Decommissioned
125
1984
GE
Decommissioned
Facility
Owner
Puertollano
Polk
County
Wabash
River
Buggenum
Elcogas
Tampa
Electric
Pinon Pine
LGTI
Cool Water
Capacity
(MW)
Gasifier
Manufacturer
Status
Prenflo
Operating
Fuel experience
Within the United States, relatively little IGCC experience exists with PRB as the feedstock. As
noted previously, between 1987 and 1995, the LGTI facility gasified over 3.7 million tons of
PRB. This represents the majority of the United States operating experience with PRB
gasification.
There has been significant operating experience with petcoke. Petcoke lends itself well to
gasification due to the higher heating content, low moisture, and low ash. However, petcoke
does have significantly higher sulfur content. Due to the trace metals in the petcoke, either a
fluxant or coal needs to be blended with the petcoke to enable the ash to flow out of the slagging
gasifiers. Currently, the fuel for the Polk IGCC facility is a blend of coal and petcoke, and
petcoke is being utilized at the Wabash IGCC facility.
Shell has processed both PRB coal and petcoke during the early 1990s at a 250 tpd
demonstration plant at Shells Deer Park, TX refinery. Shell has reported a cold gas efficiency
of 78.0% with 99.7% carbon conversion and 99.9% sulfur capture during 297 hours of tests on
PRB and 78.9% cold gas efficiency with 99.5% carbon conversion and 99.8% sulfur capture
during 169 hours of operations on petcoke.
Technical Approach and Data Sources

As noted above, the Shell coal gasification process was selected for this study. EPRI provided
the gasifier yield and thermal performance for the gasification plant (up to the wash column
inlet). Burns & McDonnell performed the preliminary design of the low temperature gas cooling
and scrubbing section, COS/HCN catalyst section, AGR, SRUs, TGTU, power block, and
balance of plant. The following vendors were used to provide additional information:
2-4
UOP provided an equipment list and performance information for the SELEXOL unit.
Introduction
Air Liquide Process and Construction (ALPC) provided cost and performance
information for the ASU.
Sud-Chemie provided cost and performance information for the COS/HCN catalyst.
NUCON provided cost and performance information for the mercury removal bed.
Fluor provided cost, performance, and emissions information for the Econamine FG Plus
Plant (EFG+) for SCPC CO2 capture.
The information provided herein does not represent a thorough performance or cost optimization.
Further optimizations (capital cost investment vs. performance, emissions, or O&M benefits) can
be performed that would likely improve the busbar cost of all technologies (SCPC, IGCC, and
CO2 capture).
2-5
3
STUDY CRITERIA
Site Selection
The site for this project is based on a generic greenfield site located in the Texas Gulf Coast.
The ambient conditions used as the design basis of this study are the 2% dry bulb (dry bulb
temperature is exceeded 2% of the year), average dry bulb, and 95% dry bulb (dry bulb
temperature is exceeded 95% of the year)
The ambient conditions are as follows:
2% Dry Bulb: 93F with coincident wet bulb temperature of 77F.
Average Dry Bulb: 73F with coincident wet bulb temperature of 69F.
95% Dry Bulb: 43F with coincident wet bulb temperature of 40F.
The finished grade of the site is assumed to be 100 ft. Additional assumptions about the site can
be found in Chapter 7.0
Gas Turbine Selection

The gas turbines selected as the basis for this project are GE 7FB gas turbines. EPRI and Burns
& McDonnell have access to more readily available information for GEs 7FB gas turbines than
from other manufacturers. Also, GE has much experience with syngas operation, having
accumulated over 300,000 hours of operation on syngas; however GE has no operating
experience with firing syngas in the 7FB. Although GE has this significant syngas operating
experience, other gas turbine manufacturers are able to offer similar gas turbines that should
result in a comparable result.
Fuel Selection
PRB fuel is currently utilized by several utilities in Texas. This low-sulfur coal has proven to be
an economical choice for generation in Texas.
Additionally, petcoke, a byproduct of the refining process, has proven to be an economical fuel
alternative for other generating facilities across the nation. Refineries are typically eager to
3-1
Study Criteria
remove this byproduct from their site; therefore petcoke is relatively inexpensive from the
refinery. The expense of petcoke is dictated by transportation costs from the refinery to the
power plant. The prospect of petcoke firing is typically limited by the following factors:
1) Projects planning to fire petcoke are typically located near refineries that produce coke as
a byproduct.
2) The quantity of petcoke is typically only available in sufficient quantities to supply a part
of the overall heat input to a large power facility.
3) Firing 100% petcoke in a PC unit is only achievable using a special down-fired boiler.
Conventional designed PC units are limited to approximately 20% petcoke firing due to
the low volatiles in the coal.
Therefore, petcoke is typically blended with other fuels when used in large scale power
generation.
Because this project is located in the Texas Gulf Coast, petcoke should be available as an
alternate fuel source from nearby refineries. Therefore, two independent IGCC options were
evaluated for this project:
Option 1 100% PRB Coal
Option 2 50% PRB Coal / 50% Petcoke (% by weight)
Fuel analyses are provided in Table 3-1.
3-2
Study Criteria
Table 3-1
Fuel Analyses
100% PRB
PRB (% wt.)
Petcoke (% wt.)
PRB (% heat input)
HHV (Btu/lb)
100% Petcoke
100%
0%
50%
0%
100%
50%
100%
0%
36.40%
0%
100%
63.60%
8,156
14,231
11,194
17.53
Proximate Analysis (% wt.)

Moisture
30.24
4.83
Volatile Matter
31.39
10.60
21.00
Fixed Carbon
33.05
84.44
58.74
Ash
5.32
0.13
2.73
Carbon
48.18
83.62
65.88
Hydrogen
3.31
3.02
3.17
Nitrogen
0.70
0.85
0.78
Chlorine
0.01
0.01
0.01
Sulfur
0.37
6.60
3.49
Oxygen
11.87
0.94
6.41
Ash
5.32
0.13
2.73
Ultimate Analysis (% wt.)
Moisture
30.24
4.83
17.53
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.091
0.05
0.07
N/A
Mercury (ppm)
Ash Fusion Temperatures
Reducing Atmosphere
Initial Deformation
2150F
2800+F
Softening
2170F
2800+F
N/A
Hemispherical
2190F
2800+F
N/A
Fluid
2210F
2800+F
N/A
N/A
Oxidizing Atmosphere
Initial Deformation
2220F
2,505F
Softening
2240F
2,597F
N/A
Hemispherical
2260F
2,610F
N/A
Fluid
2280F
2,611F
N/A
Plant Capacity Selection

The largest IGCC facility that has been constructed in the United States is a 1x1 (one
gasification/gas turbine/HRSG train and one steam turbine). Currently, 2x1 IGCC technology is
the primary focus of IGCC development by both manufacturers and developers due to improved
economies of scale. It is possible to improve the economies of scale of an IGCC facility further
by adding an additional gasification/gas turbine/HRSG train (3x1 facility). However due to a
general aversion to risk in the industry, it is unlikely that a 3x1 IGCC facility will be developed
until 2x1 IGCC technology has been proven successfully in the United States. Therefore, a 2x1
IGCC facility is the basis of this study.
3-3
Study Criteria
The plant capacity for this project is dictated by the capacity of the gas turbines coupled with the
available energy that can be recovered from the gas turbine and gasification process. For this
project, the 2x1 IGCC facility has a nominal net plant output of 550 MW.
Capacity Factor and Availability Factor Targets

Capacity Factor (CF) is defined as the actual MWh produced in a year divided by the maximum
possible MWh produced in a year. Generally, capacity factors for units are dictated by economic
issues. Lower production cost technologies operate at base load (capacity factors above 70%),
whereas higher production cost technologies tend to operate as peaker plants or for serving an
intermediate load (operating throughout the day and ramping down at night).
The large capital and operating expenditure (yet lower fuel cost) of a coal plant are typically only
justified by operating the unit at base load. Due to the increase of natural gas prices and limited
base load resources, capacity factors of conventional PC plants are typically at 85% or higher.
The O&M estimates and economic evaluation provided in this study assume a capacity factor of
85%, with a 100% load factor (operating 85% of the time at full load and off-line the other 15%
of the time).
The Availability Factor (AF) is defined as the sum of service hours and reserved shut down
hours divided by the total hours per year. Essentially, it is the percentage of hours in a year that
the plant is available to operate.
Some IGCC facilities have been evaluated with a spare gasifier to increase availability factors
and allow increased operational flexibility. It was decided that the increased operating and
capital expenses of the spare gasifier are not justified for this project at this time. The resulting
availability factor is approximately 85% for the IGCC technologies evaluated.
Additional information on plant availability factors can be found in Chapter 9.0.
3-4
4
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Gasification System Description

For this report, the Gasification System refers to all of the equipment required to make syngas.
This includes the ASU, gasifiers, slag handling, candle filters, wash towers, COS/HCN
hydrolysis, mercury removal, syngas cooling and condensation, AGR, SRUs, tail gas treatment,
sour water stripping, and syngas saturation. Process flow diagrams are included in Appendix A
for reference. A block flow diagram is provided in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1
Gasification Block Flow Diagram
Air Separation Unit (ASU)

Atmospheric air is dried and then cryogenically distilled in the ASU to produce 95% oxygen and
several nitrogen steams. The air separation unit selected for this study is a high-pressure ASU,
meaning that the columns all operate at a higher pressure than a conventional low-pressure ASU.
The selection of an HP or LP ASU depends primarily on the amount of nitrogen required under
4-1
Process Description
pressure vs. the oxygen requirement. Because of the large nitrogen requirement, the primary
benefit of the HP ASU is the reduced power requirement for N2 compression.
The majority of the oxygen produced in the ASU is supplied at high pressure (780 psia) for use
in the gasifiers. A small amount of low pressure oxygen is used as the oxidant in the SRU.
Uses for the nitrogen streams are as follows:
High pressure (1089 psia) N2 with 0.1% O2 is used for conveying the fuel into the gasifier and
other purposes in the gasification block.
Medium pressure (480 psia) N2 with 2% O2 is used as diluent in the gas turbines for NOx
control.
Low pressure (140 psia) N2 with 2% O2 is used for regeneration of the molecular sieve driers
and miscellaneous purges.
Cryogenic pumps are used to supply the high pressure nitrogen and oxygen streams to the
gasifier. The cryogenic pumps were chosen because of their lower auxiliary power consumption
and lower cost than gas compression. Additionally, pumping liquid O2 is generally viewed to be
safer than compression of gaseous O2. The high-pressure liquid oxygen and nitrogen are then
vaporized prior to the gasifier. The medium pressure and low pressure nitrogen streams are
pressurized by nitrogen compressors.
The ASU scope includes storage of high-pressure, high-purity nitrogen equivalent to 12 hours of
production in liquid form. Additionally, 20 minutes of production as gas is available at pressure
to provide nitrogen during the period of time that back-up liquid vaporization comes on line.
The back-up system is to be designed to deliver high pressure nitrogen within 10 minutes after
being activated.
The material balances around the ASU for the 100% PRB cases (43F and 93F) are provided in
Table 4-1, which are used to set the design requirements of the ASU. Since very little difference
exists between the ASU for the 100% PRB case and the 50% PRB / 50% petcoke case, the same
ASU design was used for both options. Additionally, Figure 4-2 provides a block flow diagram
for a generic ASU.
4-2
Process Description
Table 4-1
ASU Material Balances
Case 93F PRB Coal
Stream
H2O
O2
N2
Ar
Total
% O2
Temp, F
Pres. psia
Total lb/hr
<------------------------------------Nitrogen Product Streams----------------------------->

Ambient Air
GT Air
Total Air In Total Dry Air O2 Product Conveying HP To Process LP Misc Sieve Regen. Remaining
N2 to GT
lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr
lb-moles/hr
lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr
1,390
1
1,392
1,392
11,057
11
11,068
11,068
10,383
2
4
2
187
490
677
41,211
41
41,252
41,252
164
1,930
4,000
1,555
9,164
24,439
33,603
492
0
492
492
383
1.9
4.1
1.6
9
93
102
54,150
54
54,204
52,812
10,930
1,934
4,008
1,559
9,360
25,021
35,773
20.4%
20.4%
20.4%
21.0%
95.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
93
15
1,552,965
810
218
1,547
1,554,511
382
760
352,142
1,529,437
280
1068
54,206
280
1068
112,353
56
140
43,692
56
140
263,066
56
140
703,991
453
290
992,132
Case 43F PRB Coal

Stream
H2O
O2
N2
Ar
Total
% O2
Temp, F
Pres. psia
Total lb/hr
<------------------------------------Nitrogen Product Streams----------------------------->

Ambient Air
GT Air
Total Air In Total Dry Air O2 Product Conveying HP To Process LP Misc Sieve Regen. Remaining
N2 to GT
lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr
lb-moles/hr
lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr lb-moles/hr
253
168
422
422
7,281
4,854
12,135
12,135
11,360
2
4
2
187
580
767
27,138
18,092
45,230
45,230
179
1,930
4,000
1,555
9,164
28,402
37,566
323
216
539
539
419
1.9
4.1
1.6
9
103
113
34,996
23,330
58,326
57,904
11,958
1,934
4,008
1,559
9,360
29,085
38,867
20.8%
20.8%
20.8%
21.0%
95.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
93
15
1,010,697
810
218
673,785
1,684,482
1,676,887
382
760
385,263
280
1068
54,206
280
1068
112,353
56
140
43,692
56
140
263,066
56
140
818,321
453
290
1,088,982
Note: The air provided by the GTG (stream 2) is cooled to ambient temperature by heat exchange with steam cycle condensate and auxiliary
cooling water prior to being sent to the ASU. The N2 to the gas turbine (stream 11) is heated from ~350F at the discharge of the final stage of
compression to 453F using IP boiler feedwater as the heat source prior to the gas turbine.
The following major equipment items are included:
Main air compressor and booster air compressor (2 trains x 50%).
Nitrogen compressor (2 x 50%).
Cryogenic oxygen pumps (2 x 100%).
Cryogenic nitrogen pumps (2 x 100%) for high pressure N2.
Cold box.
Switching valves, driers and regeneration heater.
MV and LV Switchgear and MCC.
Transformers from 13.8 KV.
Liquid N2 storage and associated backup vaporizer.
Electrical / control room.
Commissioning spares.
4-3
Process Description
Figure 4-2
Generic ASU Process Flow Diagram
Additionally, heat exchangers are provided to cool the extracted air from the gas turbine to
ambient temperature prior to the ASU and to heat the nitrogen from the ASU to the gas turbine.
These costs are not included in the ASU cost provided by ALPC, however they are included in
the BOP costs.
Gasifiers
The gasification plant for this project is comprised of two Shell oxygen-blown entrained-flow
gasifiers, each capable of supplying enough syngas for operation of one gas turbine at full load.
Each gasification train is comprised of coal milling and drying equipment, coal pressurization
lockhopper, high pressure oxygen and coal feed systems, gasifier vessel, slag removal system,
syngas cooling, syngas recycle compressor, and particulate removal systems.
The Shell gasifier uses a dry-coal feed system. This system requires the feedstock moisture
content to be reduced to approximately 5% prior to injection to the gasifier. Therefore, coal
drying equipment is required which utilizes syngas (or natural gas during startup) to drive off the
excess moisture in the fuel. The coal dryer is combined with the coal milling equipment in a
vertical roller mill which pulverizes the coal to the required consistency. The dried and
pulverized coal is raised above the gasifier operating pressure in a set of lockhoppers and
conveyed to the gasifier using high pressure nitrogen. PRB fuel is highly reactive and has a high
potential for spontaneous combustion; consequently the oxygen concentration in the
milling/drying and coal feeding systems is minimized via the injection of nitrogen at various
locations. A detailed evaluation of the operation of the coal dryer relative the PRB fuel was not
performed.
4-4
Process Description
The fuel and high pressure oxygen react in the gasifier at high temperatures (2,700 F) and
approximately 560 psia to produce syngas. The gasifier, operating in an oxygen deficient
(reducing) atmosphere, is designed to operate at conditions suitable to promote reactions which
produce a synthesis gas (syngas) and slag. The syngas produced in the gasifiers is rich in
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and water. There are also lesser amounts of several components
including carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, methane, argon, and nitrogen.
The gasifier vessel walls are cooled using water-wall membranes that produce medium-pressure
(MP) steam at approximately 650 psia. The syngas is quenched by recycle of cooled,
particulate-free syngas to ~1,700F. The syngas then passes to the syngas cooler which also uses
medium pressure feedwater as a cooling medium. Heat from the syngas is transferred to the
feedwater resulting in the generation of medium pressure saturated steam that is transferred to
the HRSG in the power block for superheating and re-introduced to the steam turbine as hot
reheat steam. After being partially cooled in the syngas cooler, the syngas passes through a
candle filter to remove entrained solids from the syngas. Additionally the syngas is passed
through a water wash scrubber which is primarily used to remove fine particulate, chlorides, and
any other water-soluble compounds (see Syngas Wash Towers section below).
Alternatively, HP steam can be generated in the syngas cooler, however this greatly increases the
cost of the syngas cooler and associated piping (alloy materials vs. carbon steel), resulting in
~$60-$70 million increase in total project cost. Shell claims that the use of HP steam generation
in the syngas cooler can result in a 1.5% improvement in IGCC efficiency; however this option
was viewed as cost prohibitive at this stage of the project. It is recommended that this option be
evaluated in more detail at a later developmental stage of the project.
Gasifier Performance Estimate by EPRI
EPRI used its internal IGCC modeling tool, which uses a Gibbs Free Energy Minimization
approach to estimating gasifier product composition and temperature. EPRI relied heavily on the
performance data Shell published in a 2004 Gasification Technologies Conference paper to set
the inputs for the gasifier model. That paper presented performance estimates for the Shell coal
gasification process on a generic Powder River Basin coal and on a 50/50 mixture of PRB and
petcoke. One difference between the Shell design premises and those used by EPRI was the
purity of the oxygen feed stream. Shell assumed it was 99 v% O2, while EPRI chose 95 v% as
several engineering studies have shown that to be the optimal value for IGCCs producing power
only.
A summary of the main inputs and outputs from the gasifier performance model at the 43F
ambient condition is provided in Table 4-2.
4-5
Process Description
Table 4-2
Summary of Gasifier Modeling Results
100% PRB
50% PRB / 50%

Petcoke
Model Inputs
O2/coal feed ratio (95v% O2)
lb/lb-coal1
0.771
0.881
Steam/coal
lb/lb-coal1
0.034
0.104
N2/coal
lb/lb-coal1
0.110
0.107
Syngas Exit Pressure
psia
574
574
Heat Flux to Gasifier Wall
%coal HHV
0.6
1.4
Carbon Conversion
%
99.5
99.0
Model Results
Syngas Exit Temperature
F
2732
2913
Gasifier Wall Steam Production MMBtu/hr
32.7
74.8
Syngas Exit Composition
CH4
%vol
0.019
0.018
CO
%vol
59.91
64.85
CO2
%vol
2.66
1.10
COS
%vol
0.013
0.110
H2
%vol
26.78
25.23
H2S
%vol
0.168
1.21
H2O
%vol
4.13
1.65
HCN
%vol
0.005
0.011
NH3
%vol
0.005
0.003
N2
%vol
5.33
4.80
AR
%vol
0.97
1.02
O2 Feed Rate
lb/hr
377,816
364,983
Steam Feed Rate
lb/hr
16,688
42,939
N2 for Coal Conveying
lb/hr
54,069
44,371
Coal Feed Rate
lb/hr
490,171
414,125
Coal Feed Rate2
MMBtu/hr
5,444.3
5,340.7
Unquenched Syngas Flow Rate lb/hr
901,760
850,367
Syngas Production Rate2
MMBtu/hr
4,561.7
4,453.4
Flyslag (overhead) Production
lb/hr
10,084
6,185
Slag (bottom) Production
lb/hr
26,900
9,866
Cold Gas Efficiency3
%
83.8
83.4
1
As fed coal basis (dried to 5 wt% H2O)
2
HHV basis
3
As fed coal HHV basis only, energy value of feed steam and dryer fuel not included
Slag Handling
Slag formed in the coal gasification process flows to the bottom of the gasifier. This slag is
quenched in a slag bath that is located within the gasifier vessel. Water is circulated through the
slag bath to recover the heat from the slag. The hot slag water is cooled with a heat exchanger.
The cooled slag settles to a slag accumulator and lockhopper vessel. Once the slag has settled to
the lockhopper vessel, the valves between the slag accumulator and lockhopper vessel are closed.
The lockhopper provides a transition between the pressurized gasifier and the atmospheric slag
dewatering system. Once isolated from the gasifier, the lockhopper is depressurized and the
4-6
Process Description
valves are opened at the outlet of the lockhopper vessel. The slag and water mixture are then
discharged to the slag dewatering system. This lockhopper system operates in batch mode
continually to remove slag from the gasifier as it is accumulated.
The slag from the outlet of the lockhopper is dewatered using a submerged scraper conveyor.
The slag slurry water from the bottom of the submerged scraper conveyor is pumped to a
clarifier where the clean slag slurry water is recycled to the lockhopper and the fines are
collected and re-injected into the gasifier. The coarse slag from the outlet of the submerged
scraper conveyor is conveyed to a slag storage pile. The coarse slag can then be landfilled or
sold to market. The glassy, inert slag produced in the Shell gasifier is very low in carbon content
which makes the slag attractive for sale.
Fly Ash System
After the syngas cooler, the syngas passes through first a cyclone and then ceramic candle filters
that remove particulate matter (flyash) from the syngas. Similar to removing the slag from the
gasifier, the flyash is removed from the cyclone and candle filter vessels with a batch process
using lockhoppers. The coarse flyash that was removed by the cyclone can be recycled to the
coal mill if it contains a significant amount of unconverted carbon. Otherwise, the coarse flyash
along with the finer flyash collected by the candle filters is temporarily stored on site and either
landfilled or sold to cement manufacturers or to other markets for flyash.
Syngas Wash Towers
Raw syngas flows from the candle filter to the syngas wash towers where the syngas is washed
with water. The purpose of the water wash is twofold: 1) to recover any particulates that pass
through the candle filters and 2) to recover chlorides that dissolve in the wash water and remove
them from the system at concentration less than 300 ppm (to avoid corrosion of the carbon steel
tower and piping). The wash water is primarily fresh demineralized water to which recycled
water streams from the saturator water circulation loop (a purge stream) and the sour water
stripper bottoms are added.
The water streams from the bottom of the syngas wash towers flow to a common system
consisting of several operations:
The first step is a flash at 7 psia. Liquid from the flash is cooled with make-up demineralized
water used for syngas saturation before being filtered and sent to the cooling tower as makeup water.
Solids recovered from the filtration mentioned above (particulates not removed by the candle
filters) are sent to the coal pile. The amount of solids is estimated at only 110 lb/day.
Vapor from the 7 psia flash is condensed under vacuum using an air cooler.
Liquid condensed in the air cooler is separated from the small amount of vapor and is
pumped to the sour water stripper.
4-7
Process Description
Vacuum conditions in the condensate drum are maintained by a steam jet ejector. Effluent
from the ejector flows to the sour water stripper.
This design was generated by Burns & McDonnell in absence of detailed design information by
Shell and does not represent Shells standard syngas scrubbing and sour water treatment design.
It is recommended that the design of this system be evaluated in detail in conjunction with Shell
at a later development stage of the project.
The syngas wash system consists of the following equipment:
Syngas wash tower (one tower for each of two parallel trains).
Recovered water flash drum (one common drum for two parallel trains).
Recovered wash water pumps (one common pump with a full spare for two parallel trains).
Recovered wash water exchanger (one common exchanger for two parallel trains).
Recovered wash water filters (one common filter with a full spare for two parallel trains).
Flashed water condenser (one common air cooler for two parallel trains).
Flash water condensate drum (one common drum for two parallel trains).
Flashed water steam ejector (one common ejector for two parallel trains).
Flashed water condensate pumps (one common pump with a full spare for two parallel
trains).
Washed syngas flows to the COS/HCN hydrolysis reactors.

COS / HCN Hydrolysis
The syngas contains trace amounts of carbonyl sulfide (COS) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and
relatively large amounts of both H2 and H2O. Hydrolysis of COS is required because the AGR
removal step (SELEXOL) only removes about 50% of the COS fed to AGR. The quantity of
COS present in the raw syngas is such that if not hydrolyzed the concentration of COS alone in
the feed to the gas turbines would be 60 ppmv for the 100% PRB case and 480 ppmv for the 50%
PRB / 50% petcoke case compared to the required 30 ppmv level for COS plus H2S. The use of
catalytic hydrolysis reduces the contribution of COS in the gas turbine feed gas to 1 ppmv and 5
ppmv for the 100% PRB and 50% PRB / 50% petcoke cases, respectively.
Hydrolysis of HCN occurs simultaneously with COS and effectively removes the HCN from the
GTG feed gas. Removal of HCN, which is a form of fuel-bound nitrogen, results in less NOx
emissions from the gas turbines. The same catalyst is appropriate for both hydrolysis steps.
The COS and HCN are hydrolyzed according to the following reactions:
COS + H2O H2S + CO2
4-8
Process Description
COS + H2 H2S + CO
HCN + 2 H2O NH3 + H2 +CO2
Sud-Chemie provided operating conditions that are expected to result in COS and HCN
conversions greater than 99%.
Unconverted H2S along with other components in the tail gas from the TGTU are recycled and
mixed with the syngas just upstream of the feed / effluent exchanger associated with the
hydrolysis reactor. The feed gas to hydrolysis is further heated with high-pressure boiler
feedwater just prior to entering the hydrolysis reactor to raise the temperature to the required
level.
The COS and HCN Hydrolysis system consists of the following equipment:
Hydrolysis interchanger (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
Hydrolysis reactor (one reactor for each of two parallel trains).
After passing through the hydrolysis reactor, the syngas flows to syngas cooling and
condensation.
Syngas Cooling and Condensation
The syngas is cooled prior to flowing to mercury removal in a set of three heat exchangers:
Sweet syngas from AGR provides the heat sink for the first stage.
Condensate from the surface condenser of the steam turbine provides the heat sink for the
second stage.
Cooling water provides the heat sink for the third stage.
Water condensed from the syngas is separated from the syngas and flows to the sour water
stripper. Part of the condensate is recirculated to a point just upstream of the first stage of
condensation to assure that the stream entering the condenser is partially liquid.
Primary equipment items included:
Syngas interchanger (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
First stage syngas condenser (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
Second stage syngas condenser (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
Water knockout drum (one drum for each of two parallel trains).
Sour water pumps (one pump plus a full spare for each of two parallel trains).
4-9
Process Description
Mercury Removal
It is important that the temperature of the feed gas to mercury removal be above the dew point in
order to avoid contamination of the carbon bed with condensed water. For this reason the
saturated syngas from syngas cooling and condensation is heated to approximately 5F above the
dew point prior to flowing to the mercury removal beds.
Adsorbent beds are used to remove mercury from the syngas. One bed is provided for each train.
Information from NUCON was used as the basis for the study. A mercury removal of 90% or
greater is expected. This adsorbent is an activated carbon made from coal.
The mercury removal system consists of the following equipment:
Mercury removal preheater (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
Mercury adsorbent bed (one vessel for each of two parallel trains).
Mercury removal aftercooler (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
After passing through the mercury removal beds the syngas is cooled with cooling water prior to
flowing to AGR.
Acid Gas Removal (AGR)
UOPs SELEXOL AGR system is generally considered to be the standard for acid gas recovery
from IGCC syngas. However, it was felt that the relatively modest sweet syngas sulfur
specification (30 ppmv) and the low sulfur content of the PRB-only feed case might allow the
use of other technologies. Amine treating was one technology considered. After discussion with
UOP it was determined that the 30 ppmv specification benefits both the SELEXOL and amine
processes, and that for the operating pressure of this study SELEXOL will at least be competitive
with, if not preferred to, amine absorption. Further, the use of SELEXOL lends itself to future
CO2 capture while amine treating does not. As a result of this analysis, amine treating was
eliminated from further consideration for this study.
Another technology considered for the PRB-only, non-capture case was Sulferox. It was initially
anticipated that the small sulfur recovery capacity needed (25 LTPD) would permit the use of a
Sulferox unit or similar redox technology in place of a SELEXOL AGR with Claus SRU and
SCOT-type TGTU. However, discussions with one vendor suggested that the best use of the
redox unit would be as a replacement for the Claus/SCOT units. In this case the SELEXOL unit
is still needed for acid gas removal. Another disadvantage of redox sulfur recovery is the
relatively poor quality of sulfur product and additional handling and drying steps needed.
SELEXOL was subsequently chosen as the AGR technology for both the PRB-only and PRBPETCOKE cases for this study.
The SELEXOL solvent is a mixture of dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol. SELEXOL is a
physical solvent, as compared to amines that form chemical complexes and require more energy
to regenerate. SELEXOL solvent is chemically inert and is not subject to the same corrosion and
degradation problems as amines.
4-10
Process Description
SELEXOL solvent has a higher affinity for H2S than CO2. This allows a SELEXOL system to
achieve a very high rejection of H2S from the syngas, to meet the specification of less than 30
ppm of H2S + COS in the treated syngas, while allowing a controlled slip of CO2 depending on
the design requirements. Slip is defined as the percentage of CO2 that leaves the system with the
sweet syngas compared to the CO2 in the feed to SELEXOL. CO2 slip sets the concentration of
H2S in the acid gas product from the SELEXOL unit. Very high acid gas concentrations (greater
than 50% H2S) require large, costly equipment and solvent circulation rates. Very low
concentrations (less than about 25% for an oxygen-blown SRU that is also burning sour water
stripper gas) complicate downstream SRU design and operation.
For each of the feed cases, UOP was asked to provide SELEXOL unit material balances and
equipment lists for 25% and 50% H2S acid gas products. The information provided by UOP was
evaluated and, based on this evaluation, acid gas concentrations of 25% and 50% H2S were
selected for the PRB and PRB-PETCOKE cases, respectively. Although these are not
completely optimized selections, they are believed to give reasonable estimates of capital and
operating costs for the two cases.
SELEXOL consists of absorber and stripper towers, stripper reboiler, rich/lean solvent exchanger
and flash drums typical for such systems. A simplified process flow diagram for SELEXOL is
presented in Figure 4-3.
4-11
Process Description
Figure 4-3
SELEXOL Process Flow Diagram
The lean SELEXOL solvent is chilled using refrigeration to optimize the solvent circulation rate
and energy input. Low pressure steam is used to supply heat to the stripper reboiler.
Primary equipment items included:
(Note: The AGR unit is a single train serving both gasifier trains.)
H2S absorber.
H2S stripper with reboiler, condenser, reflux drum and pumps.
Rich flash coolers and drum.
Lean / rich exchanger.
Lean solvent chiller.
Rich flash compressor.
Refrigeration package.
4-12
Process Description
Sulfur Recovery and Tail Gas Treating

A block flow diagram of the SRUs and TGTU is shown in Figure 4-4. Acid gases from the AGR
unit and from the sour water stripper (SWS) unit are treated in two parallel Claus SRUs to
destroy hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Tail gas from the two SRUs is combined and fed to a
single TGTU to convert residual sulfur dioxide from the Claus process back to hydrogen sulfide
before it is compressed and recycled to the COS Hydrolysis sections of the gas cooling trains.
To minimize the volume of recycle gas all of the oxygen required for SRU operation is supplied
at 95% purity by the ASU. A thermal oxidizer is included to handle vent streams from the sulfur
pits and truck/rail loading facilities.
Figure 4-4
Block Flow Diagram Sulfur Recovery and Tail Gas Treating
Approximately 96% of the sulfur in the acid gas feeds is recovered in one pass through the
SRUs. By recycling the remaining hydrogen sulfide back through the gas cooling trains overall
sulfur recovery from the syngas streams is increased to over 99%.
Sulfur Recovery Units (SRU)
Hydrogen sulfide is destroyed to form sulfur byproduct in Claus-technology SRUs. H2S is
converted to sulfur according to the Claus reaction:
2H2S + SO2 (3/n)Sn + 2H2O
Sulfur dioxide is generated by reacting part of the H2S in the acid gas feed with oxygen in a
thermal reactor:
H2S + 1.5O2 SO2 + H2O
4-13
Process Description
The 2:1 mixture of SO2 and H2S is then passed through a series of catalytic reactor stages to
facilitate the Claus reaction. Sulfur is removed after each step by condensing it out of the vapor
phase.
Sour water stripper gas is also fed to the SRUs for the purpose of ammonia destruction.
Ammonia is destroyed in the thermal reactor by either combustion or dissociation:
2NH3 + 1.5O2 N2 + 3H2O
2NH3 N2 + 3H2
To destroy ammonia, the thermal reactor must operate above 2300-2400F. For the 100% PRB
case, the AGR acid gas feed contains only 25% hydrogen sulfide. As a result the heat content of
the stream is very low. Part of the AGR acid gas stream must be bypassed around the thermal
reactor and the remaining AGR acid gas must be preheated to achieve the high temperature
needed for ammonia destruction. This is referred to as a split-flow SRU, and is a common
application of the technology. For the 50% PRB / 50% petcoke, the AGR acid gas feed contains
50% hydrogen sulfide. The heat content of the stream is high enough to produce the necessary
temperature without bypassing or preheating.
Waste heat boilers downstream of the thermal reactors produce saturated 600 psia steam. Part of
the steam is used to heat the feeds to the catalytic reactor stages. The remainder is exported to
the steam cycle for power generation. Each SRU has three stages of sulfur condensation, reheat
and catalytic reaction. Low-level steam is produced in the sulfur condensers and exported to the
steam cycle.
Tail gas from the final sulfur condenser goes to the Tail Gas Treating Unit. Elemental sulfur
produced by the SRU is collected in a sulfur pit (sump). From there, the sulfur is pumped to the
railcar loadout facility for transportation off-site.
Two 50% SRU trains are included in the estimate. Primary equipment items included for the
SRU trains are:
AGR acid gas knockout drum (one for each train).
AGR acid gas knockout drum pumps (one operating pump with one full spare for each train).
AGR feed heater (PRB-only case, one for each train).
Sour water stripper acid gas knockout drum (one for each train).
Sour water stripper acid gas knockout drum pumps (one operating pump with one full spare
for each train).
Combustion air startup blower (one for each train).
Thermal reactor and acid gas burner (one for each train).
Waste heat boiler (one for each train).
Sulfur condenser (one for each train).
4-14
Process Description
Reheat exchangers (three for each train).
Catalytic reactor vessel (one vessel with three compartments for each train).
Final sulfur condenser (one for each train).
Low-pressure steam condenser (one for each train).
Sulfur pit (one for each train).
Sulfur transfer pumps (one operating pump with one full spare for each train).
Sulfur railcar loadout facility.
Tail Gas Treating Unit (TGTU)

The TGTU for this study consists of a catalyzed hydrogenation reaction step that converts
residual sulfur dioxide back to hydrogen sulfide, followed by gas cooling. There is normally
ample hydrogen and carbon monoxide present in the SRU tail gas for the reduction reaction.
However, if additional hydrogen is needed to feed the tail gas reactor, syngas can be added
upstream of the reactor.
The tail gas reaction is:
SO2 + 3H2 H2S + 2H2O
Gas cooling includes a waste heat steam generator followed by direct contact with water in a
packed quench tower. The small amount of water condensed in the quench tower is exported to
the sour water stripper unit.
The amine absorber and regenerator that are typically attached to TGTUs for hydrogen sulfide
recovery are not required in this service, since the tail gas is recycled to the gas cooling trains.
This eliminates a source of H2S/SO2 emissions and improves recovery of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen for power generation.
A single TGTU services both SRUs. The TGTU consists of the following equipment:
Tail gas feed heater.
Tail gas hydrogenation reactor.
TGTU waste heat boiler.
Quench tower.
Quench water pumps (one operating pump with one full spare).
Quench water air cooler.
Quench water trim cooler.
4-15
Process Description
Tail Gas Compression

Multistage reciprocating compressors are required to boost treated tail gas to the pressure
required for recycle to the gas cooling trains. Two full-capacity compressors with interstage
knockout drums are provided for reliability.
A net production of carbonyl sulfide is anticipated through the SRUs and TGTU due to reactions
of sulfur compounds with carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. As a result, the tail gas must be
recycled to a point upstream of the COS hydrolysis section. A small quantity of sour water is
created as the tail gas is compressed. This water is exported to the sour water stripper unit.
Thermal Oxidizer
Purging of sulfur pit vapor spaces and vent recovery from sulfur loading operations will create
vent streams containing mixtures of air and hydrogen sulfide. These vent streams are incinerated
in the thermal oxidizer.
Sour Water Stripping
The sour water stripper receives feed from four sources:
Vapor from the steam jet ejector associated with the system for handling the bottoms stream
from the water wash towers.
Condensate from the 7 psia flash of the bottoms stream from the water wash towers.
Sour water from the knockout drums associated with syngas cooling and condensing.
Sour water from the TGTU associated with sulfur recovery.
Water from the bottom of the sour water stripper joins the demineralized water and saturator
purge water streams and flows to the top of the water wash towers. A pump-around loop with an
air cooler provides condensing at the top of the sour water stripper. Low pressure steam serves
as the heat source for the reboiler of the sour water stripper. Gas containing primarily H2S and
ammonia, with lesser amounts of CO and H2, from the top of the sour water stripper is sent to the
SRU.
Primary equipment items included in the sour water stripper are:
Sour water feed/effluent exchanger (one common exchanger for two parallel trains).
Sour water stripper (one common tower for two parallel trains).
Sour water pump around pumps (one common pump with a full spare for two parallel trains).
Sour water pump around cooler (one common air cooler for two parallel trains).
Sour water reboiler (one common exchanger for two parallel trains).
4-16
Process Description
Syngas Saturation
Sweet syngas from the AGR, after exchanging heat with the sour syngas in the first condensing
stage, flows to the syngas saturators. The purpose of the saturators is to add vaporized water to
the syngas to bring the moisture content to 16.5 mole % for NOx reduction, which also results in
additional mass flow through the turbine section (i.e. more power). The wet syngas is further
preheated with high-pressure (HP) boiler feedwater to raise the temperature to 405F before
serving as fuel for the gas turbines.
Demineralized water, after heat exchange with the recovered water from the water wash towers,
is fed to the circulating loops of the syngas saturators in amounts required to achieve the desired
moisture content of the syngas. A small purge stream from the circulating loops joins the other
water streams that flow to the top of the water wash towers. This avoids buildup of any
components in the water that do not vaporize.
Water in the circulation loops is heated with HP boiler feedwater as required to maintain the
level in the bottom of the syngas saturators, thus assuring that the water added to the loop is
vaporized and added to the syngas.
Primary equipment included for syngas saturation is as follows:
Syngas saturator (one tower for each of two parallel trains).
Saturator heater (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).
Saturator circulation pumps (one pump plus a spare for each of two parallel trains).
Sweet syngas heater (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains)
After passing through the syngas saturators, the syngas is ready for use in the power block.
Power Block Description

The power block of the IGCC consists of the gas turbines, HRSGs, steam turbine, condenser, and
interconnecting pipe, pumps, etc. as required for the power production duty. The power block
of an IGCC is very similar to that of a standard combined cycle.
Gas Turbines
The Project consists of two GE PG7251FB (7FB) gas turbines rated at 232 MW each on syngas.
Like a conventional combined cycle or gas turbine plant, ambient conditions (in particular
compressor inlet temperature) can greatly affect the performance of an IGCC facility. A gas
turbine is a constant volume machine, therefore, lower compressor inlet temperatures result in
greater air density, which results in more power output and decreased heat rate. Similarly, higher
ambient temperatures result in lower air density, which results in lower output and higher heat
rate.
4-17
Process Description
Because of the low heating value of the syngas, the fuel mass flow through the gas turbine is
significantly higher than a standard natural gas fired turbine (approximately 4 times greater).
This additional mass flow, coupled with the additional nitrogen mass flow for NOx control,
increases the gas turbine output over that of a conventional gas turbine firing natural gas. This
causes the gas turbine to reach its shaft limit at a higher ambient temperature than it typically
would. Therefore, the gas turbine output must be limited to avoid exceeding the shaft limit of
the turbine (232 MW for the 7FB). This is accomplished by extracting a portion of the air from
the compressor section of the gas turbine for gas turbine compressor inlet temperatures (CIT)
below ~70F. This compressed air is utilized in the ASU, which reduces the additional auxiliary
load of compression required by the ASU compression system. At CITs above ~70F, the air
density is low enough that the total mass flow through the turbine does not result in sufficient
MW to exceed the shaft limit of the gas turbine. Thus air extraction from the compressor section
of the gas turbine is not available for ASU use at CITs above ~70F. Exporting of air from the
GTG to the ASU is referred to as air-side integration.
Since air-side integration improves the efficiency of the IGCC facility, it is beneficial to export
as much air as possible to the ASU. Therefore, 85% effective evaporative cooling is included on
the inlet to each gas turbine to lower the compressor inlet temperature, resulting in improved
mass flow available for the turbine and the ASU.
Alternatively, inlet air chilling could be used to further reduce the CIT. Inlet air chilling has a
higher capital cost than evaporative cooling and may not be economically justified since this
equipment will not be fully utilized for a significant portion of the year. It is recommended that
further studies regarding inlet air cooling methods and tradeoffs be pursued.
Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG)
Two HRSGs are utilized to capture the gas turbine exhaust heat. Triple pressure, naturalcirculation HRSGs are utilized to preheat feedwater, generate steam, and superheat both the
steam generated within the HRSG and the saturated steam from the gasification process. The
HRSGs also utilize a reheat section to further increase steam cycle efficiency.
Alternatively, two-pressure HRSGs could be utilized in lieu of three-pressure HRSGs, thus
eliminating the LP evaporator and superheater sections of the HRSG. The loss of the LP section
would result in reduced steam flow to the STG (i.e. less output), however since very little LP
steam is being generated in the HRSG (particularly for the 100% PRB cases), this increased
capital (approximately $5 million), may not be justified. Alternatively, a large amount of LP
steam is generated in the CO2 capture case (Chapter 13), which is of great benefit in that
scenario. Further analysis into the use of a two-pressure HRSG should be performed in the
future.
Steam Turbine
The total steam is expanded in a steam turbine to generate power. The steam turbine consists of
three turbine sections (HP, IP, LP), utilizing a dual down flow LP turbine exhaust. The steam
from the low pressure turbine exhaust is condensed by the heat rejection system.
4-18
Process Description
The design pressure is 1905 psia with 1050F main steam and hot reheat temperatures. The
turbine will drive a hydrogen-cooled electric generator.
Steam Condenser
The water-cooled steam condenser will be a single, rectangular shell, single pressure, split
waterbox, two pass steam condenser. The water-cooled condenser will include an air removal
section and baffled steam inlet connections for the 100% steam turbine bypass. Air removal
from the condensers upper portion will be via two full capacity vacuum pumps. To dissipate the
energy in the condensing steam, a circulating water system will supply cooling water from the
wet cooling tower to the water-cooled steam condenser. The steam condenser is designed with a
5F terminal temperature difference (TTD) and a 17F range at the 73F ambient condition.
Steam System
The steam system transports main steam (HP), reheat steam, intermediate pressure (IP) steam
and low pressure (LP) steam between the HRSGs and steam turbine. A steam turbine bypass
system is included to accommodate the steam generated by the HRSG during start-up of the gas
turbine before steam turbine admission, as well as during a full-load steam turbine trip.
Condensate System
The condensate system delivers condensate via two, 100% capacity vertical, condensate pumps.
These pumps transport condensate from the steam condenser hotwell, through the gland steam
condenser to the low pressure HRSG drum.
Feedwater System
The feedwater system provides feedwater to the HP and IP HRSG economizers, gasifier and
syngas cooler via two 100% capacity, HP/IP boiler feed pumps per HRSG. This system also
supplies desuperheating water requirements for the HRSGs and steam turbine bypass system.
Natural Gas System
The natural gas system provides pipeline quality natural gas to the gasifier and auxiliary boiler
for startup and the gas turbine for backup fuel. It is assumed that the natural gas is available at
the site boundary at sufficient pressure (~570 psig) to avoid the need for compressors.
4-19
Process Description
Balance of Plant
Coal Handling
Fuel delivery to the site is accomplished by rail. A rotary car dumper is provided for unloading
of the coal. The coal handling system provides for the stackout, storage, and reclaim of the solid
fuel for this project. Outdoor storage is assumed at this stage of the project. Layout drawings
provided in Appendix B help to illustrate these systems.
100% PRB Option
The coal handling system unloads the coal with a rotary car dumper and conveys the coal with a
stockout conveyor to the stockout pile. From the stockout pile, coal is moved with mobile
equipment to long term storage or to the reclaim system. The reclaim system consists of a
hopper, belt feeder, reclaim tunnel, and dust collection. The reclaim system supplies the coal to
the inlet of the coal drying and milling equipment supplied with the gasifier.
Because PRB is shipped long distances, 60 days of long term PRB storage is provided to lessen
the possibility of fuel interruption.
50% PRB / 50% Petcoke Option
The coal handing system for the fuel blend case is similar in concept to the 100% PRB option.
The stockout conveyor has an intermediate transfer tower that allows for stockout into one of
two piles. Weight feeders on the reclaim system allows for accurate blending of the fuel prior to
the coal drying and milling equipment. Each fuel has its own stockout pile and reclaim system.
Similar to the 100% PRB option, 60 days of long term PRB storage is included. Petcoke is
produced locally, thus reducing the potential for supply interruption, thus only 30 days of
petcoke storage is provided.
Cooling System
Cooling for the condenser, ASU, and other auxiliary cooling loads is accomplished by a multicell, counter flow, mechanical draft, wet cooling tower. Circulating water is transported between
the water-cooled steam condenser and cooling tower by two 60% capacity circulating water
pumps. Additionally, two 60% capacity auxiliary cooling water pumps are used to supply
auxiliary cooling water to the ASU, and other auxiliary cooling loads.
The cooling system is designed with a 2F recirculation allowance and an 11F approach (wet
bulb minus cold water temperature).
4-20
Process Description
Auxiliary Boiler
A natural gas fired package boiler (approximately 200,000 lb/hr @ 150 psig) is included for
preheat of the gasification area heat exchangers and providing steam to the critical systems
during plant startup. Since this system is only required during startup sequence procedure, it is
anticipated to be used less than 200 hours per year.
Buildings
The IGCC facility has the following major buildings:
Administration and control room building.
Water treatment building.
Warehouse.
Auxiliary boiler.
Yard maintenance building.
Cooling tower chemical building.
Water Treatment
Water mass balances are provided in Appendix C. Consumptive water uses include
potable/sanitary water, plant service water, demineralized water, cooling tower make-up, and fire
water. Raw water for the site is based on the wells with water quality shown in Table 4-3.
4-21
Process Description
Table 4-3
Assumed Raw Water Quality
Data Type
Data
Units
uS/cm2
Specific Conductance 607
Hardness
224 mg/L as CaCO3
Calcium
72
mg/L as Ca
Magnesium
11
mg/L as Mg
Sodium
44
mg/L as Na
Potassium
0
mg/L as K
Chloride
26
mg/L as Cl
mg/L as SO4
Sulfate
15
mg/L as SiO2
Silica
36
pH
7.5
Fluoride
0.4
mg/L as Fl
Total Alkalinity
189 meq/L as CaCO3
Raw water supply and wastewater discharge requirements (on a local, state, and federal level)
vary greatly from location to location. Once more information is known about that anticipated
project site, additional studies should be performed to verify raw water availability and
wastewater discharge viability for the project. These issues have the potential to greatly impact
the cost and performance of the project.
Raw Water/Service Water
Raw water from the on-site wells is routed to an on-site raw water storage pond that stores 30
days of raw water. This storage pond may not be required if a highly reliable source of water is
available, however most Owners of large coal generating stations are incorporating some amount
of raw water storage to hedge against potential shortfalls in water availability. From the raw
water pond, the water is routed to the raw water treatment where the majority of suspended
solids, iron, and manganese will be removed by filtration and sodium hypochlorite injection prior
to entering the service water storage tank (which also serves as the firewater storage tank).
Service water uses include coal pile dust suppression, gasifier slag quenching, pump seals,
equipment wash water, fire water, and other miscellaneous sources.
The raw water also serves as the major source cooling tower make-up (along with demineralizer
reject, and Gasifier and HRSG blowdown). The cooling tower requires water treatment
chemistry and blowdown to prevent scale and biological formation and corrosion on piping and
heat transfer surfaces.
4-22
Process Description
Demineralized Water
Raw water is routed to the demineralizer system that consists of reverse osmosis and
electrodeionization (EDI) equipment designed to produce high purity water for various uses in
the gasifier and HRSG. Reject from this system is routed to the cooling tower as an additional
make-up source. The demineralized water is stored in a demineralized water storage tank.
Wastewater
Blowdown from the cooling tower, coal pile wastewater, reject from the raw water treatment,
and clean effluent from the plant drains are routed to a common wastewater collection pond prior
to discharge to a nearby river.
Sanitary Drains
Plant sanitary drains are routed to an on-site septic system.
Flare
A flare system is included to burn off syngas produced the by gasifier during startup or in the
event of a unit trip or pressure excursion. The flare is located at a safe distance (600 ft. radius)
from accessible areas. A perimeter fence is placed around the flare to prevent people and
animals from approaching the flare.
A 200 ft. tall guyed flare with a 60 in. flare tip is provided in the estimate. A knockout drum and
pumps are included upstream of the flare.
Fire Protection
Fire protection water is supplied from the raw water storage tank with an electric motor driven
fire pump, a diesel engine driven fire pump and an electric motor-driven jockey pump. Fire
protection and detection systems will be in accordance with NFPA requirements. A fire water
loop with sectionalizing valves is included around the plant. Automatic and semi-automatic fire
protection systems employing detection and extinguishing equipment and hose stations are
included for the generator step-up transformers, steam turbine lube oil system, cooling tower,
buildings, Gasification Systems, and coal handling and storage. Fire hydrants, monitors, and fire
extinguishers will be strategically positioned throughout the plant for coverage of fuel
conditioning equipment, cooling tower fan deck, steam turbine, gas turbine, and gasificationrelated areas. The gas turbine fire protection system is supplied with the equipment. The fire
detection system will provide detection throughout the plant and annunciation in the main plant
control room.
4-23
Process Description
Plant Drains
The plant drains system collects liquid waste (non-sanitary) from plant areas and equipment and
transfers the waste to the wastewater treatment system. This system includes sumps and two
100% capacity pumps for each sump. Equipment drains will be located adjacent to all
equipment requiring intermittent or continuous drainage during operation or shutdown. Plant
drains with potential oil contamination will be drained to the oil-water separator.
Electrical Systems
The electrical systems for the IGCC facility consist of the auxiliary power supply, generator
feed, switchyard, essential AC and DC power supply, and freeze protection systems.
Auxiliary Power Supply
The auxiliary power system provides electric power for all systems in the plant.
The power distribution for the power block and gasifier plant is supplied from the main 13.8kV
distribution switchgear. The main 13.8kV distribution switchgear is supplied from two plant
auxiliary power transformers that are connected to the low side of the gas turbine GSU
transformers that are connected to the 345kV substation.
The main 13.8kV distribution switchgear supplies the following 4.16kV switchgear lineups
located in the power block and throughout the plant. Each of the 4.16kV buses is located in a
power control module (PCM) placed in the vicinity of the loads.
Power block switchgear A.
Power block switchgear B.
Coal handling switchgear.
Gasification switchgear.
Balance of plant bus.
Sulfur & slag bus.
Each of the 4.16kV switchgear lineups supplies multiple station service transformers that supply
480V load centers arranged in a main-tie-main configuration. The load centers supply the 480V
motor and non-motor loads. The 480V motor loads are supplied from motor control centers
(MCC) that are connected to the 480V load centers. The 480V load centers and 480V MCCs are
located in the PCM buildings along with the 4.16kV switchgear lineup. The station service
transformers are located outside the PCM buildings. The small power loads are supplied from
120/240-volt utility panels located in the PCM.
4-24
Process Description
The power distribution for the ASU is supplied from the ASU 13.8kV distribution switchgear.
The ASU 13.8kV distribution switchgear is supplied from two auxiliary power transformers that
are connected to a single overhead line from the 345kV substation. Each auxiliary power
transformer connects to a 13.8kV switchgear bus that supplies the ASU compressor motors and a
13.8kV to 480V station service transformer. The station service transformers connect to 480V
switchgear buses that are interconnected with tie breakers.
A plant emergency generator is connected to the 4160 volt bus. The natural gas engine-generator
is sized to start and operate the emergency loads of the facility.
Generator and Excitation
The generator system provides power from the gas turbine and steam turbine generators to the
generator step-up transformer.
The generator system consists of the following:
Auxiliary transformer.
Isolated phase bus.
Generator step-up transformer.
Protection devices.
Wiring, instrumentation, and controls.
The excitation system provides controlled DC power to the generator field. The exciter system
consists of the following:
Power potential transformer (PPT) that is connected to the generator terminals with an
isolated phase bus tap. The power potential transformer steps down the generator voltage
for use by the exciter.
Static exciter system supplied by the turbine manufacturer. The exciter systems convert
the AC power for the PPT to a DC power source applied to the generator rotor to
establish the generator field. The system controls the generator field current to regulate
the generator terminal voltage, power factor, or VAR flow.
Switchyard
The switchyard configuration is a three-bay breaker-and-a-half arrangement consisting of 9
breakers. The switchyard has dedicated positions for each generator step-up transformer, two
incoming transmission lines, and on-site transmission to the ASU.
4-25
Process Description
The high-voltage equipment is rated for 345kV nominal operating voltage.

Essential AC and DC Power Supply
The essential AC and DC power system provides highly reliable power to such essential low
power loads as DCS, logic systems, annunciators, events recorder, data loggers and computers,
communications equipment, intercommunications systems and emergency lighting. Essential
power for the gas turbine and its auxiliaries is provided by gas turbine manufacturer as part of
the gas turbine package.
Separate plant uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems are provided for the power block and
Gasification System. The equipment for the essential power supply consists of:
DC chargers and batteries.
Operator terminals.
DC switchboard.
Single phase UPS.
Electrolytic capacitors.
Wire, instrumentation, and controls.
Freeze Protection
The freeze protection system maintains temperature above the freezing point in piping and
equipment. The freeze protection system consists of
Heat tracing cable.
Voltage monitors.
Thermostats.
Contactors.
Control cabinets.
4-26
5
TERMINAL POINTS
General
The following terminal points identify the termination points or interfaces for those services or
facilities, which extend beyond the scope of the work included in this report.
Site Access
Site access roads shown on the layout drawings in Appendix B are included in the capital cost
estimate. Any roads or road upgrades to the site are not included in the estimate.
Rail Siding
The capital cost estimate includes a 5 mile rail siding to the site plus the track shown on the
layout drawings in Appendix B. It is assumed that all large equipment is delivered to the site via
rail. Heavy haul costs are included to offload the equipment from the rail to the foundations.
Modifications to any existing rail or road infrastructure are not included.
Sanitary Waste
Sanitary waste is disposed of in an on-site septic system.
Natural Gas
The capital cost estimate includes one mile of 12 in. natural gas pipeline to the site for startup
and backup fuel. Additionally, Burns & McDonnells estimate includes natural gas metering and
pressure regulation equipment. It is assumed that natural gas will be supplied by others at
sufficient pressure (~570 psig), temperature, quality, and flow to meet the requirements of the
IGCC facility without the need for natural gas compression or dew point heating.
Raw Water Supply

Raw water is assumed to be available through on-site wells. The capital cost estimate includes
the well water system. If well water is unavailable or other sources of water are required to
supplement the well water supply, the costs of these items are by others.
5-1
Terminal Points
Wastewater Discharge
Wastewater is assumed to be discharged to a river through a wastewater pipeline 5 miles in
length after being treated in the on-site wastewater treatment pond. The capital cost estimate
includes the cost of the wastewater pipeline and on-site wastewater treatment pond. Any other
means of wastewater discharge is outside the scope of this estimate.
Electrical Interface
The project capital cost estimate includes the electrical interconnection costs up to and including
the plant switchyard. Transmission lines to the site or transmission upgrades are by others.
5-2
6
IGCC PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES
Performance Estimate Assumptions

The following assumptions are used as the basis for the performance estimates:
Output and heat rate estimates are at new and clean conditions.
An 85% effective evaporative cooler is included and is on for the 93F case.
Performance is based on an elevation of 100 ft.
Performance is based on the fuel analysis provided in Table 3-1.
Gas turbine performance and Shell gasification performance estimated by EPRI without
vendor involvement.
Steam turbine consists of three turbine sections (HP, IP, LP) with a dual down flow
exhaust. The design throttle conditions are 1905 psia with 1050F main steam and hot
reheat temperatures.
Air-side integration is used to supplement air flow to the ASU when the gas turbine has
reached its shaft limit (for CIT below ~70F).
Performance is based on a wet cooling tower.
Performance Estimate Results

The results of the performance analysis are provided in Table 6-1. Heat balance diagrams
containing additional information are provided in Appendix F.
6-1
IGCC Performance Estimates
Table 6-1
IGCC Performance Summary
100% PRB
Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature, F

Ambient Wet Bulb Temperature, F
Elevation, ft.
Evaporative Cooling, On/Off
43
40
100
Off
73
69
100
Off
93
77
100
On
43
40
100
Off
73
69
100
Off
93
77
100
On
Coal Heat Input, MMBtu/hr (LHV)

Coal Heat Input, MMBtu/hr (HHV)
5,026
5,447
4,705
5,099
4,559
4,940
5,113
5,343
4,800
5,016
4,655
4,864
Gas Turbine Gross Output, MW (each)

Gas Turbine Gross Output, MW (total)
Steam Turbine Gross Output, MW
232.0
464.0
272.6
736.6
224.9
449.7
260.1
709.9
215.6
431.2
250.4
681.5
232.0
464.0
270.1
734.2
226.3
452.7
258.4
711.1
217.0
433.9
248.7
682.6
Auxiliary Load
Power Block, MW
Material Handling, MW
Air Separation Unit, MW
Gasifier, MW
CO2 Compression
22.5
6.3
101.3
2.3
0.0
22.0
5.9
122.1
2.1
0.0
21.8
5.8
119.1
2.0
0.0
22.0
4.5
101.1
2.2
0.0
21.9
4.3
122.9
2.1
0.0
21.6
4.1
120.0
2.0
0.0
Syngas Treatment, MW
Total Plant Auxiliary Load, MW
5.0
137.4
4.7
156.8
4.5
153.2
7.4
137.2
6.9
158.0
6.7
154.5

Net Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh (LHV)
599.2
8,390
9,090
553.0
8,510
9,220
528.4
8,630
9,350
597.0
8,560
8,950
553.0
8,680
9,070
528.2
8,810
9,210
Plant Cooling Requirements, MMBtu/hr (Total)

2,155
1,550
605
2,141
1,480
661
2,159
1,450
709
2,185
1,540
645
2,179
1,480
699
2,206
1,460
746
Total Makeup Water Requirement

GPM
4,390
6,830
4,980
6,830
5,580
6,830
4,619
7,170
5,231
7,170
5,800
7,170
The power block auxiliary load includes gas turbine auxiliary loads, steam turbine auxiliary
loads, power block pumping loads, transformer losses, iso-phase bus losses, and miscellaneous
BOP auxiliary loads (lighting, HVAC, air compression, etc.). Additionally, the power block
auxiliary loads include the cooling water pumps and cooling tower that provide the cooling loads
for the entire facility.
Material handling auxiliary loads include the loads associated with coal conveying and coal
milling and drying equipment.
Air separation unit auxiliary loads include the main air compressor, booster air compressor, cold
box, nitrogen compression, cryogenic pumping, and miscellaneous ASU auxiliary loads.
Gasifier auxiliary loads include recycle quench gas compressor loads and slag handling loads.
Syngas treatment auxiliary loads include AGR, SRU, TGTU, and miscellaneous process loads.
6-2
7
IGCC CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
Capital Cost Estimate Assumptions
All estimates are screening level in nature and do not reflect guaranteed costs (+/approximately 30%).
Project is based on a greenfield site.
Project cost is based on the terminal points as defined in Chapter 5.0.
It is assumed that 10 ft. of cut is required for half the site area and 10 ft. of fill is required
for the other half of the site area. Other areas may require more cut and fill, however an
average cut/fill of 10 ft. is assumed. Additionally, it is assumed there are no existing
structures, underground utilities, or hazardous materials on site.
Project costs are based on a preliminary site layout drawings included in Appendix B.
Project costs are based on preliminary electrical one-line diagrams included in Appendix
D.
Preliminary foundation design is based on the assumption that shallow, mat-type

foundations will be sufficient for all minor foundations. Major structures such as the gas
turbines, HRSGs, steam turbine, step up transformers, gasifiers, and the major equipment
for the ASU, AGR, SRU, TGTU, and coal reclaim are assumed to require piling.
The steam turbine, gas turbines, and HRSGs are located outdoors.
Sufficient area to receive, assemble, and temporarily store construction materials is

available.
The design fuel is based on the information provided in Table 3-1.
An on-site landfill is included for disposal of flyash and slag. The capital cost estimate
includes the initial 5-year cell. The ongoing cost of closing current cells and the addition
of future cells is covered in the landfill cost ($/ton) used in the O&M estimate.
Cooling is achieved through the use of conventional wet cooling towers.

7-1
IGCC Capital Cost Estimates
Construction costs are based on an engineer, procure and construct (EPC) contracting
philosophy. The Owner would have an EPC contract with a single Global EPC
contractor. It is assumed the Global EPC contractor will contract the ASU, gasification,
and syngas treatment as separate EPC contracts (under the Global EPC). The Global
EPC contractor is responsible for integration of the construction and design aspects of all
EPC contractors and assumes overall risk for schedule, performance, and capital cost.
Labor rates are based on prevailing wage rates and productivity factors for the Texas Gulf
Coast. Labor rates include a $9/hour per diem to account for non-local labor (assumed
90% outside 50 miles).
All capital cost estimates are in mid-2006 dollars and do not include escalation through
the COD, sales tax, interest during construction, financing fees or transmission
lines/upgrades.
Indirect Construction Costs (Included in EPC Cost)

The following project indirect costs are included in the EPC capital cost estimate:
7-2
Construction water and power.
Performance testing and CEMS/stack emissions testing (where applicable).
Initial fills and consumables, preoperational testing, startup, startup management, and
calibration.
Construction/startup technical service.
Heavy haul
Site surveys and studies.
Engineering and construction management.
Construction testing.
Operator training.
Startup spare parts.
Performance and payment bond.
EPC contingency.
EPC Fee.
Owner Indirect Costs

In addition to the estimated EPC costs, an estimate of anticipated Owners costs was also
provided. The Owners costs included in the estimate are as follows:
Project development costs.
Owner project management and project engineering (including startup).
Owners operations personnel prior to COD.
Owners construction management.
Owners engineer.
Permitting and licensing fees.
Land (1,500 acres for accommodation of future expansion to 3 x 550 MW units).
Political concessions / area development allowance.
Startup consumables, including fuel.
Credit for test power sales.
Initial fuel inventory (60 days PRB, 30 days petcoke).
Builders risk insurance.
Site security.
Owners legal costs.
Operating spare parts.
Permanent plant equipment and furnishings.
Owners contingency (5% of entire project cost).
7-3
Costs not included

The costs not included in the capital costs estimates include, but are not limited to the following:
Escalation through COD is not included. The EPC and Owners costs provided are in
overnight 2006 US dollars. This cost does not represent the cost of an EPC contract
signed today. It represents the cost of the project assuming zero time value of money.
Additional escalation needs to be applied by the Owner as a part of the Owners
Integrated Resource Plan to determine when the project would fit into the generation
needs of the Owner.
Sales Tax is not included. Because sales tax requirements differ greatly depending on
location (even within a state), sales tax has been excluded from this estimate. In some
instances, emissions controls equipment have been known to be tax exempt, so it is
possible that a large part of the IGCC facility may be tax exempt, if not all. Additionally,
some municipalities or utilities are tax exempt. If this project proceeds and a site is
chosen, it is recommended that a detailed investigation into sales tax be pursued at that
time.
Interest during construction is not included in the capital cost estimates provided herein.
Since the estimates provided are in overnight 2006 US dollars, applying interest during
construction is not feasible. However, interest during construction costs are a very
significant project cost that must included separately once a desired COD is determined,
which will increase the overall capital cost of the project. Interest during construction is
included in the 20-year levelized busbar cost ($/MWh) discussed in Chapter 12.
Financing fees are not included in the capital cost estimates provided herein. However,
financing fees are included in the 20-year levelized busbar cost ($/MWh) discussed in
Chapter 12.
Transmission lines to or from the site are not included. Additionally, transmission
upgrades, if required, are not included.
Capital Cost Results

The estimated capital costs for the project are provided in Table 7-1. Additional cost detail can
be found in Appendix E.
7-4
Table 7-1
IGCC Capital Cost Estimate Summary (2006 US Dollars)
550 MW (Net) IGCC

100% PRB
550 MW (Net) IGCC 50%

PRB / 50% Petcoke
Procurement
Gas Turbines
Steam Turbine
HRSGs
Other Mechanical
Electrical
Water & Chemical Treatment
Structural
Construction
Furnish and Erect
Material Handling
Air Separation Unit and N2 Storage
Gasification
Syngas Treatment
GTG/STG/HRSG Erection
Civil / Structural Construction
Mechanical Construction
Electrical Construction
EPC Contractor Indirect Costs
Construction Indirects
Construction Management
Pre-operational startup and testing
Other
Project Indirects
Project Management and Engineering
EPC Contingency
EPC Fee
Other
Total EPC Contractor Cost (2006 US $)
Owner's Engineer
Permitting and Licensing Fees
Land
Initial Fuel Inventory
Operating Spare Parts
Permanent Plant Equipment and Furnishings
Builder's Risk Insurance
Owner Contingency
Other
Total Owner's Cost (2006 US $)
Total Project Cost (2006 US $)
$
$
$
$
$
40,000,000
57,100,000
119,910,000
4,760,000
1,318,980,000
$
$
$
$
$
40,000,000
55,740,000
117,050,000
4,690,000
1,287,540,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
23,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
10,930,000
10,060,000
4,600,000
5,940,000
70,200,000
20,100,000
155,240,000
1,474,220,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
23,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
6,190,000
10,120,000
4,600,000
5,790,000
67,950,000
11,440,000
139,500,000
1,427,040,000
Total EPC Contractor Cost (2006 US $), $/kW (73F)

Total Project Cost (2006 US $), $/kW (73F)
$
$
2,390 $
2,670 $
2,330
2,580
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
86,000,000
22,950,000
28,080,000
46,720,000
47,820,000
2,380,000
1,600,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
86,000,000
22,950,000
28,080,000
47,220,000
50,320,000
2,380,000
1,600,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
36,660,000
102,400,000
354,310,000
149,990,000
20,730,000
94,740,000
42,070,000
23,030,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
44,300,000
102,400,000
306,360,000
158,150,000
20,730,000
96,290,000
42,070,000
23,480,000
24,710,000 $
8,230,000 $
4,790,000 $
24,710,000
8,230,000
4,790,000
$
$
$
7-5
8
IGCC OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
O&M Assumptions
The following describes the methodology and major assumptions used in the development of the
O&M estimate.
Fixed costs include such items as plant staffing, office and administration, training,
safety, contract staff, annual inspections, standby power energy costs and other
miscellaneous fixed costs.
Variable costs include such items as gas turbine, steam turbine, HRSG, gasifier, and
syngas treatment scheduled maintenance, water treatment, wastewater disposal,
consumables, landfill costs, balance of plant equipment maintenance and replacements,
unplanned maintenance activities, and estimated emissions allowance costs.
Emissions allowance costs are included in the variable O&M at $3,000/ton of NOx,
$1,000/ton of SO2, and $20,000/lb of mercury, based on input from CPS Energy.
Costs are shown in 2006 US dollars.
85% capacity factor (7446 hrs/year at 100% load).
2 cold starts per year.
Additional staff is required above that of a PC unit due to the additional process-related
equipment associated with an IGCC project. 126 full time operations and maintenance
personnel have been assumed.
The gas turbine major maintenance costs are based on Long Term Service Agreement
(LTSA) contracts with GE executed for similar equipment.
Other fixed and variable O&M estimates are based on information obtained by Burns &
McDonnell from plant operators of similar installations.
Raw water is available at zero cost (other than treatment costs) and wastewater is
discharged to a river at zero costs (other than treatment costs)
8-1
IGCC Operations and Maintenance
Flyash (the amount not recycled to the gasifier) and slag are landfilled on-site at a cost of
$11.29/ton. This cost includes the ongoing cost of closing old landfill cells and
expanding the landfill in the future.
Sulfur produced in the SRU is assumed to be sold at zero cost, thus avoiding any disposal
cost.
O&M Exclusions
The costs not included in the O&M estimates include, but are not limited to the following:
Property taxes.
Insurance (included in economic analysis).
Fuel and fuel supply costs (included in economic analysis).
Initial spare parts (included in capital cost estimate).
O&M Results
The estimated O&M costs for the project are provided in Table 8-1. Additional O&M cost detail
can be found in Appendix G.
8-2
IGCC Operations and Maintenance
Table 8-1
IGCC O&M Summary (2006 US Dollars)
100% PRB
Fixed O&M
Labor, $/yr
Office and Admin, $/yr
Major Inspections, $/yr
Standby Power Energy Costs, $/yr
Other Fixed O&M, $/yr
Fixed O&M, $/yr
$
$
$
$
$
$
Variable O&M (85% CF)

Emissions Allowance Costs, $/yr
NOx Emissions Allowance Cost
SO2 Emissions Allowance Cost
11,835,700
118,400
400,000
98,600
1,479,500
13,932,200
50% PRB / 50%

Petcoke
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,835,700
118,400
400,000
98,600
1,479,500
13,932,200
3,588,300 $
3,472,900
360,700 $
429,400
590,000 $
370,600
Hg Emissions Allowance Cost

Major Maintenance Costs, $/yr
Steam Turbine / Generator Overhaul
HRSG Major Replacements
Gasifier Replacements
Candle Filter Major Replacements
Gas Turbine Major Replacements
Syngas Treatment Major Replacements
Air Separation Unit Major Replacements
Mercury Carbon Bed Replacements
HCN/COS Hydrolysis Catalyst Replacements
Shift Catalyst Replacements
Demin System Replacements
Water Treatment, $/yr
Fly Ash & Slag Disposal
Other Variable O&M, $/yr
Variable O&M, $/yr (85% CF)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
260,400
200,000
885,800
300,000
8,148,700
375,000
275,000
530,300
640,000
3,600
1,479,100
1,560,200
5,297,400
24,494,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
260,400
200,000
765,900
300,000
8,148,700
395,000
275,000
530,300
640,000
3,600
1,523,700
642,100
5,355,600
23,313,200
Fixed O&M, $/kW-yr

Variable O&M, $/MWh
$
$
$
25.19 $
5.95 $
38,426,700 $
25.19
5.66
37,245,400
8-3
9
IGCC AVAILABILITY
General
Some IGCC facilities have been evaluated with a spare gasifier to increase availability factors
and allow increased operational flexibility. It is anticipated that adding a spare gasifier train will
improve the availability factor of the IGCC facility by approximately 5 percentage points. The
spare gasifier is typically operated in hot-standby mode which requires natural gas (or syngas if
available) to maintain the metal temperatures within the gasification system. This significantly
reduces gasifier startup time in the event that one of the gasifiers is forced off-line. The benefits
of the spare gasifier, however, come at a large operating and capital expense (approximately 20%
capital cost increase). For these reasons, a spare gasifier was not considered for this project.
Assumptions and Clarifications

Plant availability factors are typically determined from historical data of existing plants, which is
often a good predictor for the future. Since IGCC technology is relatively new, published
availability information is difficult to obtain.
The availability factor is a measure of the amount of the year that the plant or unit is available to
operate and produce electricity. It includes the effect of both planned and forced outages.
Past data from existing IGCCs has indicated availability factors of 83-85% for designs that do
not utilize a spare gasifier. These existing facilities had first year availabilities of approximately
75%, followed by 80% in the second year, followed by 83-85% in the third year and thereafter.
It is expected that improvements in gasifier designs will improve availability factors from
previous generation designs.
Availability Factor
For this assessment, an 85% availability factor is assumed for both IGCC options.
The availability factor of an IGCC facility will depend heavily on the structure of the O&M
programs and how well they are executed. The most effective IGCC facilities are those that
commit to and follow well organized plans.
As previously noted, the membrane wall design of the Shell gasifier will experience less frequent
maintenance than the GE and ConocoPhillips refractory lined gasifiers. Refractory lined
9-1
IGCC Availability
gasifiers will require periodic refractory replacement (perhaps every two years). This results in a
lower planned outage rate for the Shell gasifier, and therefore a higher availability factor.
9-2
10
IGCC EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
General
The emissions evaluated for this IGCC study are NOx, SO2, PM10, CO, CO2, and mercury. The
actual emissions limits and emissions control technology required for a facility are dictated by
the air permitting process. The emission rates herein are used to provide the basis of the capital
cost, performance, and O&M costs. Actual permitted rates may vary from the emission rates
shown below.
CO2 capture was not considered for the two base case options; however Chapter 13 provides
additional information regarding the impact to the capital cost, performance, and CO2 emissions
from the addition of CO2 capture equipment at a later date.
For purposes of this study, it is assumed the project is located in an attainment area for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Pollutants as set by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
For SO2 control, the AGR process selected for the basis of this project is SELEXOL. The AGR
is sized to achieve a total sulfur content of 30 ppmv in the syngas to the gas turbines (for the nonCO2 capture cases). High levels of sulfur removal are accomplished by first passing the syngas
through a COS hydrolysis reactor prior to the SELEXOL scrubber to convert small amounts of
COS in the syngas to H2S.
NOx control is achieved through the use of nitrogen injection and syngas saturation into the gas
turbine. The nitrogen acts as a diluent (similar to water injection) to control the flame
temperature which is a major source of NOx. Additionally fuel-bound nitrogen is effectively
eliminated by the removal of HCN and NH3 in the syngas cleanup system.
An SCR was not included at this phase of the project. Some of the ammonia utilized in an SCR
will react with SO3 in the exhaust gas to form ammonium bisulfate (ABS) that may plug the heat
transfer surfaces in the HRSG. If an SCR were to be used, the sulfur level in the syngas would
have to be reduced to approximately 15 ppmv to minimize the potential for ABS formation
which would increase the cost of the AGR and SRU. Therefore, the capital cost of the project
would increase. Also, the net plant output will be reduced due to the reduction in GTG output
(caused by increased exhaust pressure loss) and the additional steam and auxiliary power
requirements of the AGR and SRU. The benefit is that NOx emissions will be reduced from 15
ppmvd @ 15% O2 (from the output of the gas turbines) to approximately 3.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2,
however particulate emissions will increase. At $3,000/ ton for NOx emissions allowances costs
(see Table 8-1), the yearly savings provided by the addition of an SCR may make it an attractive
10-1
IGCC Emissions Estimates
option provided that the technical issues can be overcome. At this stage, SCR was not included
due to the technical issues stated above; however additional studies regarding the use of an SCR
should be performed in the future.
Particulate control for this project is achieved using candle filters and a water wash scrubber to
remove the particulate from the syngas. Beyond the syngas particulate control, there is no
additional post-combustion particulate control required.
CO is controlled by the gas turbine combustion system. Additional CO removal is not included.
Mercury control is achieved by using activated carbon adsorbent beds to remove mercury from
the syngas prior to combustion and is capable of removing 90+% of the entrained mercury.
The resulting emission rates are shown in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1
IGCC Target Emission Rates
100% PRB
50% PRB / 50%

Petcoke
0.063
15
0.062
15
lb/MWh (net)
SO2
0.581
0.562
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
PM10
0.019
0.173
0.023
0.210
0.007
0.007
0.065
0.065
0.037
25
0.337
0.036
25
0.337
NOx
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd @ 15% O2
lb/MMBtu (HHV)1
1
lb/MWh (net)
CO
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd
lb/MWh (net)
CO2
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
215
213
lb/MWh (net)
1,985
1,934
Hg
% Removal
90%
90%
lb/TBtu (HHV)
0.778
0.496
lb/MWh (net)
7.17E-06
4.50E-06
1) Particulate matter emissions rate is for front half only excluding back half
condensables, for the concentration of particulate matter less than 10 microns
in diameter
10-2
11
SUPERCRITICAL PC ESTIMATES
General
In order to compare IGCC to SCPC technology, Burns & McDonnell estimated the capital costs,
performance, O&M, and availability factor of a 550 MW (net) SCPC unit with steam conditions
of 3500 psig/1050F/1050F. For this assessment, only a 100% PRB fired SCPC was evaluated.
Although much more effort was put into developing IGCC cost estimates than the SCPC
estimate for this study, Burns & McDonnell believes the accuracy of the SCPC costs to be equal
in accuracy, if not greater than those provided for the IGCC estimates. This is largely due to
Burns & McDonnell involvement with other SCPC projects that have been constructed in recent
years and the fact that IGCC definitive cost data with vendor input is not available or is
considered confidential at this time.
SCPC Capital Cost Assumptions

The majority of the assumptions and exclusions discussed in Chapter 7.0 are applicable to the
SCPC capital cost estimates. Additional assumptions are as follows.
Wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) is assumed for SO2 control, and SCR for NOx control,
and a baghouse for particulate control.
The physical size of the wet FGD is increased beyond that required at this stage to
accommodate additional future SO2 removal as may be required by future environmental
regulations. Based on the Fluor EFG+ CO2 capture system (discussed in Chapter 13),
approximately 98% SO2 removal is required in the FGD, which is higher than currently
required. The design capability for future SO2 removal is integrated into the design of the
FGD system absorber by adding additional height to the absorber tower and by allocating
space for installation of additional recirculation pumps and spray headers that could be
added in the future should it be necessary to minimize SO2 concentrations entering the
CO2 capture system. It is estimated that the provision of this additional space within the
absorber tower would increase the initial installed cost of the FGD system by about
$5,000,000, which is included in the capital cost estimate.
Preliminary foundation design is based on the assumption that shallow, mat-type

foundations will be sufficient for all minor foundations. Major structures such as the
boiler, steam turbine, APC equipment, coal reclaim, and step up transformers are
assumed to require piling.
11-1
Supercritical PC Estimates
The boiler, steam turbine, and air pollution control equipment are located outdoors.
The design fuel is based on 100% PRB fuel as provided in Table 3-1.
An on-site landfill is included for disposal of flyash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge.
The capital cost estimate includes the initial 5-year cell. The ongoing cost of closing
current cells and the addition of future cells is covered in the landfill cost ($/ton) used in
the O&M estimate.
SCPC Capital Cost Results

The estimated capital costs for the project are provided in Table 11-1. Additional capital cost
detail can be found in Appendix E.
11-2
Table 11-1
550 MW (Net) SCPC Capital Cost Estimate Summary (2006 US Dollars)
550 MW (Net) SCPC

100% PRB
Procurement
Boiler/AQC
Steam Turbine
Other Mechanical
$
$
$
182,630,000
40,040,000
48,370,000
$
$
$
35,270,000
4,560,000
1,970,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
46,530,000
15,000,000
171,210,000
156,650,000
85,310,000
61,350,000
$
$
$
24,710,000
8,790,000
4,500,000
Electrical
Water & Chemical Treatment
Structural
Construction
Furnish and Erect
Material Handling
Chimney
Boiler/AQC/STG Erection
EPC Contractor Indirect Costs
Pre-operational startup and testing
Other
Project Indirects
Project Management and Engineering
EPC Contingency
EPC Fee
Other
Total EPC Contractor Cost (2006 US $)
Owner's Engineer
Permitting and Licensing Fees
Land
Permanent Plant Equipment and Furnishings
Owner Contingency
Other
Total Owner's Cost (2006 US $)
Total Project Cost (2006 US $)
$
$
$
$
$
38,120,000
46,430,000
97,510,000
3,630,000
1,072,580,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
10,690,000
5,750,000
5,780,000
4,830,000
57,250,000
15,050,000
129,760,000
1,202,340,000

$
$
1,950
2,190
11-3
SCPC Performance Assumptions

The majority of the assumptions discussed in Chapter 6 are applicable to the SCPC performance
estimates. Additional assumptions are as follows.
Performance is based on the 100% PRB fuel as provided in Table 3-1.
Steam turbine consists of four turbine sections (HP, IP, and 2 LP) with a two dual down
flow exhausts. The design throttle conditions are 3500 psia with 1050F main steam and
hot reheat temperatures.
Performance is based on a wet cooling tower, wet scrubber, and baghouse.
SCPC Performance Estimate Results

The results of the performance analysis are provided in Table 11-2.
Table 11-2
550 MW (Net) SCPC Performance Summary
100% PRB
Elevation, ft.
43
40
100
73
69
100
93
77
100

4,648
5,037
4,644
5,033
4,644
5,033

623.3
65.4
614.5
64.5
613.2
64.4

557.8
8,333
9,030
550.0
8,444
9,150
548.8
8,462
9,170

2,490
2,300
190
2,490
2,300
190
2,490
2,300
190

GPM
5,120
7,950
5,800
7,950
6,430
7,950
11-4
SCPC O&M Cost Assumptions

The majority of the assumptions discussed in Chapter 8 are applicable to the SCPC O&M
estimates. Additional assumptions are as follows:
103 full time operations and maintenance personnel.
Flyash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge are landfilled on-site at a cost of $11.29/ton.
This cost includes the ongoing cost of closing old landfill cells and expanding the landfill
in the future.
Delivered limestone for wet scrubbing is based on $18/ton.
Delivered ammonia for SCR use is based on $658/ton for 19% aqueous solution.
SCPC O&M Exclusions

The costs not included in the O&M estimates include, but are not limited to the following:
Property taxes.
Insurance (included in economic analysis).
Fuel and fuel supply costs (included in economic analysis).
Initial spare parts (included in capital cost estimate).
SCPC O&M Results

The estimated O&M costs for the project are provided in Table 11-3. Additional O&M cost
detail can be found in Appendix G.
11-5
Table 11-3
550 MW (Net) SCPC O&M Summary (2006 US Dollars)
100% PRB
Fixed O&M
Labor, $/yr
Fixed O&M, $/yr
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,687,800
96,900
280,000
98,600
1,211,000
11,374,300

2,810,100
1,127,900
1,734,700

Steam Generator Major Replacements
Baghouse Bag Replacement
SCR Catalyst Replacement
Consumables/Disposal, $/yr
Limestone Consumption
SCR Ammonia (Anhydrous)
Scrubber Sludge Disposal
Fly Ash Disposal
Bottom Ash (Sales) / Disposal
Other Chemical Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
339,200
893,900
253,400
312,000
4,300
1,759,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
524,700
1,041,800
634,700
1,412,600
351,900
-

$
$
5,634,800
18,835,500
Fixed O&M, $/kW-yr

Variable O&M, $/MWh
$
$
$
20.68
4.60
30,209,800
SCPC Emission Rates

A wet scrubber is assumed for SO2 control, an SCR for NOx control, and a baghouse for
particulate control.
11-6
The use of SCR is a proven technology on PC units. ABS formation is not as much of a concern
on a PC unit as for an IGCC unit. In a PC unit, maximum ammonia slip is designed to be less
than 2 ppmvd at the end of a specified operating period (2-3 years). This means the average slip
over that period is significantly less. Much of the remaining ammonia after the catalyst is
absorbed in the flyash. ABS formation will typically occur in the air preheaters if slip exceeds
this maximum point. Additionally, the heat transfer surfaces (except for the air heater) are
located upstream of the SCR in a PC boiler, thus limiting downstream cold areas where the ABS
can collect. The HRSG, however, has HP, IP, and LP heat transfer surface downstream of the
SCR, which can become plugged with the ABS particulate.
Ammonia salt formation is not as much of a concern on a PC unit as for an IGCC unit. In a PC
unit much of the remaining ammonia after the catalyst is absorbed in the flyash, thus ammonia
salt formation is limited primarily to that formed in the catalyst while in the presence of
ammonia. Additionally, the heat transfer surfaces (except for the air heater) are located upstream
of the SCR in a PC boiler, thus limiting downstream cold areas where the ammonia salts can
collect. An HRSG, however, has HP, IP, and LP heat transfer surface downstream of the SCR,
which can become plugged with the ammonia salts.
Approximately 70% mercury removal has been shown with the combination of an SCR, wet
scrubber, and baghouse alone. Additional mercury control can be achieved through the use of
halogenated carbon injection or activated carbon injection into the flue gas stream. This was not
considered for this assessment due to the small amount of test data that is currently available and
the potential for contamination of flyash and gypsum.
The estimated emission rates for the SCPC Unit are provided in Table 11-4.
11-7
Table 11-4
500 MW (Net) SCPC Emissions Estimates
100% PRB
NOx
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
SO2
0.050
0.458
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
PM10
0.060
0.549
lb/MMBtu (HHV)1
lb/MWh (net)1
CO
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
CO2
0.015
0.137
0.150
1.373
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
215
lb/MWh (net)
1,967
Hg
% Removal
70%
lb/TBtu (HHV)
2.315
lb/MWh (net)
2.12E-05
1) Particulate matter emissions rate is for front half only
excluding back half condensables, for the concentration of
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
Availability Factor
Historic data for SCPC units in the United States is typically from much earlier vintage units
(1970s). Since the 1980s, the majority of SCPC units have been installed in Europe and Asia.
Development of high strength materials has helped to minimize the thermal stresses that caused
problems in early units. Additionally, the development of Distributed Control Systems (DCS)
has helped make a complex starting sequence much easier to control and minimize tube
overheating due to lack of fluid. Additionally, newer units use a particle separator placed into
the fluid process during startup to minimize solid particle carryover, which causes erosion of the
turbine blades. Therefore, many of the early problems experienced with SCPC units have been
corrected.
Historically, an availability factor for subcritical PC units in the United States has been 87%.
Newer supercritical units located overseas have maintained availability factor equal to newer
subcritical units at approximately 90% or greater. It is estimated that a new SCPC unit will have
an availability factor of approximately 90%.
11-8
12
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
General
A pro forma economic analysis was prepared for the three solid fuel alternatives: an IGCC unit
utilizing 100% PRB coal, an IGCC unit utilizing 50% PRB coal and 50% petcoke, and a SCPC
unit firing 100% PRB. A 20-year economic analysis was developed based on the estimated
capital costs, performance, fuel costs, and operating costs of each alternative. A 20-year
levelized busbar cost in real dollars was determined for each alternative using a revenue
requirements analysis of debt service (including principal and interest), fixed O&M, variable
O&M, and fuel. The economic analysis was conducted on a real basis, and therefore, the
analysis does not include escalation for fuel or O&M.
The economic analysis assumes a debt term of 30 years. However, the busbar cost presented is a
levelized value for the first 20 years of the Project. There is not a significant difference in the
levelized busbar cost when comparing 20-year and 30-year project periods
Other EPRI reports and published papers have assumed a 30-year constant dollar busbar analysis
based on typical investor owned utility (IOU) financial assumptions. A municipal utility has
access to lower cost financing, through both lower interest rates and higher leverage factors.
Additionally, municipal utilities do not have income tax liability, nor an equity financing
component, which typically requires a larger rate of return compared to debt financing. As a
result, municipal utilities often have a lower cost of capital compared to typical IOU financing.
Burns & McDonnell estimated capital recovery costs based on debt service payments rather than
depreciation and interest. The annual capital recovery costs are equal to the cash flow
requirements for debt service payments for both principal and interest associated with 100% debt
financing of the project capital expenditures.
Assumptions
The following provides the assumptions utilized in the pro forma economic analysis.
Capital Cost Estimates:
Fuel Cost Assumptions:

PRB Coal Cost (Delivered, 2005$)
Table 7-1 and Chapter 11
$1.65/MMBtu
12-1
Economic Analysis
Petcoke Cost (Delivered, 2005$)
$1.14/MMBtu
Fuel Cost Escalation
Excluded (real basis)
Operating Assumptions:
Heat Rate Performance
Overall Capacity Factor
85%
Fuel Composition
IGCC Unit
100% PRB coal
IGCC Unit
50% PRB coal, 50% petcoke
SCPC Unit
100% PRB coal
Financing Assumptions:
Interest Rate
3.0%
Permanent Financing Term
30 years
Capital Structure
Debt 100%, Equity 0%
Construction Financing Fees
0.50%
Permanent Financing Fees
1.00%
Minimum Debt Service Coverage Ratio
1.00
Debt Service Reserve Fund
50% of annual debt service funded at

financial closing
Economic Assumptions:
O&M Inflation
Excluded (real basis)
Construction Cost Inflation
Excluded (overnight cost)
Discount Rate
3.0% (real discount rate)
O&M Cost Assumptions:

Fixed O&M Costs
12-2
Economic Analysis
Variable O&M Costs
Emissions Allowances
Included in Variable O&M
Insurance
0.05% of capital cost
Property Taxes
Exempt
Economic Analysis
The economic pro forma analyses were used to determine the levelized busbar cost of power in
real dollars for each alternative. Figure 12-1 presents a graph of the resulting levelized busbar
power costs in real dollars for the solid fuel-fired alternatives over a 20 year planning period
covering 2006 through 2025. Figure 12-1 was developed by preparing a project pro forma model
for each of the alternatives under consideration. The levelized busbar cost in real dollars
represents the fixed energy cost in 2006 US dollars that would be equivalent to the busbar cost
over 20 years. The economic analysis does not include escalation for fuel and O&M costs.
Levelized Busbar Cost

(2006$/MWh, Real$)
$50.00
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
Alternative
Supercritical PC
$39.28
IGCC - 50% PRB / 50% Pet Coke
$40.89
IGCC - 100% PRB
$45.03
Figure 12-1
20-Year Levelized Busbar Cost (2006 US Dollars)
12-3
Economic Analysis
Figure 12-2 presents a breakout of the components for the 20-year levelized busbar cost in real
dollars for the alternatives in 2006 US dollars.
Levelized Busbar Cost (2006$/MWh, Real $)
$50.00
$45.00
$45.03
$40.89
$39.28
$40.00
$15.21
$12.02
$35.00
$15.10
$30.00
$5.71
$25.00
$4.66
$20.00
$3.54
$6.01
$3.54
Fuel Costs
Variable O&M
Fixed O&M
$2.91
Debt Service
$15.00
$19.62
$10.00
$20.27
$16.62
$5.00
$0.00
Supercritical PC
IGCC - 50% PRB / 50% Pet

Coke
IGCC - 100% PRB
Alternatives
Figure 12-2
Breakout of 20-Year Levelized Busbar Cost (2006 US Dollars)
The SCPC unit is the lowest cost alternative. Since the SCPC unit is less capital intensive than
the two IGCC alternatives, the debt service component for the PC unit is considerably lower, as
shown in Figure 12-2. Additionally, the SCPC unit has lower operational and maintenance costs,
both variable and fixed, compared to the IGCC alternatives, providing a lower overall project
cost.
The IGCC alternative utilizing a fuel blend of PRB coal and petcoke has a lower cost than the
IGCC alternative utilizing only PRB coal, and is only slightly higher than the SCPC alternative.
The IGCC alternative using coal and petcoke has a slightly lower capital cost than the IGCC
alternative utilizing 100% coal, therefore the debt service requirements for both IGCC
alternatives is nearly equivalent. However, the blended fuel option has a significantly lower heat
rate and delivered fuel cost, therefore lowering the project busbar cost relative to the IGCC
alternative utilizing 100% coal. The ability to use an opportunity fuel, such as petcoke, allows
the overall levelized busbar cost of the IGCC technology to be lower compared to strictly using
PRB coal.
12-4
Economic Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was preformed for all three alternatives under the following cases:
Capital Cost
10%
Interest Rate
0.5 percentage point
Capacity Factor
5%
Coal Fuel Cost
10%
O&M Cost
10%
The ranges shown above not intended to imply the accuracy of the estimates, but the resulting
change in busbar cost for the range shown. It is possible that the capital cost, interest rate, fuel
cost, capacity factor, and O&M cost may vary by a larger amount than shown above.
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in the tornado diagram in Figures 12-3
through 12-5. The sensitivity analysis results are presented in 2006 US dollars. A tornado
diagram illustrates the range of results for each sensitivity case and its impact on the levelized
busbar cost in real dollars, and ranks the results from greatest impact to least impact.
$40.94
Fuel Cost
-/+ 10%
$37.77
$40.80
Interest Rate
-/+ 0.5%
$38.03
$40.60
Capacity Factor
+/- 5%
$38.35
$40.31
O&M Cost
-/+ 10%
$38.53
$40.03
8
$3
8
$3
7
$3
Levelized Power Cost ($/MWh)
$39.28
3
.7
7
.1
2
.6
$4
0.9
4
$37.62
$4
0.
39
-/+ 10%
$3
9.8
4
Capital Cost
Figure 12-3
Sensitivity Analysis SCPC Unit 100% PRB Coal
12-5
Economic Analysis
$42.86
Interest Rate
-/+ 0.5%
$39.42
$42.45
Fuel Cost
-/+ 10%
$39.69
$42.10
Capacity Factor
+/- 5%
$39.79
$42.11
O&M Cost
-/+ 10%
$39.97
$41.82
0
$4
9
$3
8
$3
$40.89
4
.2
9
.5
3
.9
$4
2.8
6
$38.93
$4
2.
20
-/+ 10%
$4
1.5
5
Capital Cost
Figure 12-4
Sensitivity Analysis IGCC 50% PRB Coal / 50% Petcoke
$47.06
Interest Rate
-/+ 0.5%
$43.51
$46.64
Fuel Cost
-/+ 10%
$43.51
$46.56
Capacity Factor
+/- 5%
$43.90
$46.29
O&M Cost
-/+ 10%
$44.08
$45.99
36
68
01
12-6
4.
3.
3.
Figure 12-5
Sensitivity Analysis IGCC 100% PRB Coal
$4
$4
$4
$45.03
$4
7.0
6
$43.01
$4
6.
39
-/+ 10%
$4
5.
71
Capital Cost
Economic Analysis
The sensitivity analysis indicates that capital cost is the most significant factor affecting the
economics of the IGCC alternatives and the SCPC unit. Additionally, the interest rate and fuel
cost have the next most significant affects. Since the pro forma analyses assume the project
alternatives are financed with 100% debt, changes in the capital cost and interest rate have a
significant affect on the economics of the project, due to the large portion of debt service. The
cost of fuel is the largest ongoing cost to the project; therefore significant changes in the cost of
fuel will affect the economics of the project.
Solid fuel generation resources are capital intensive, and have a construction period that is
approximately four years in duration. This results in more capital risk due to interest costs, labor
availability and costs, and general inflation. The primary tradeoff for these higher capital risks
with a solid fuel generation resource is the long-term stability of solid fuel prices which has few
competing uses relative to natural gas that is used by almost all economic sectors including
residential heating.
12-7
13
CO2 CAPTURE
General
As a part of this study, Burns & McDonnell was tasked with determining the approximate
impacts to performance, cost, O&M, emissions, and levelized busbar cost for the 100% PRB
IGCC and 100% PRB SCPC units from adding CO2 capture systems. For this assessment, it was
assumed that the plants are existing units with cost and operating characteristics as defined in
previous chapters. The CO2 capture systems are added as a plant retrofit at a later date.
A CO2 capture rate of 90% was targeted for both the IGCC and SCPC technologies. For this
assessment, it was assumed the CO2 would be compressed into a common carrier CO2 pipeline.
The pipeline may serve many purposes including:
Storage in depleted/disused oil and gas fields.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) combined with CO2 storage.
Enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBM) combined with CO2 storage.
Storage in deep saline aquifers/formations (DSF) both open and closed structures.
The assumed common carrier pipeline pressure is 2,000 psig. The cost of the CO2 pipeline
and/or storage is not included in the estimates.
Table 13-1 provides the assumed CO2 purity required for the common carrier pipeline.
13-1
CO2 Capture
Table 13-1
CO2 Purity Specification
SUBSTANCE
LIMIT
CO2
N2
Hydrocarbons
H2O b
O2
H2S
CO
Glycol
95%
4%
5%
-40 C (-40 F)
100 ppm
25 ppm
0.1%
174 lit/106 m3
(0.3 gal/MMcf)
50 C (120 F) d
13,800 kPa
(2,000 psig)
Temperature
Pressure
MAX OR
MIN
Min
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
REASON
MMP concern a
MMP concern
MMP concern
Corrosion
Corrosion
Safety C
Safety
Operations
Max
Normal
Materials
Materials
a Minimum
miscible pressure concern because the application of the CO2 is potentially for EOR.
point: < -40 F
c Based on limiting H2S partial pressure to 0.3 kPa, above which the pipeline will be classified for sour
service.
d There will also be a lower limit associated with potential failure of the pipeline but this is not relevant
to most of the North American pipelines because of their location.
b Dew
The potential for CO2 sales exists, which could help offset the costs associated with CO2 capture.
In 2005 EPRI evaluated the potential CO2 sales costs for the CO2 storage options listed above
(Building the Cost Curve for CO2 Storage: North American Sector, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.
Report No. 1010167). As a part of this 2005 study, cost curves for each storage option were
developed by compiling data on geological reservoirs for CO2 storage and determining the
technical storage capacity of these reservoirs. These data, along with baseline study data on CO2
sources, were then analyzed within a purpose-built techno-economic model based upon
geographic information system (GIS) technology. The mapping capability of the GIS allowed the
presentation of the data base information at both regional and continental scales. The
computational portion of the model calculated the distance between each source and accessible
candidate storage reservoir and compared characteristics such as CO2 flow rate, remaining
storage capacity, depth, and other injection parameters, to estimate the cost for CO2 transmission
and storage for each source and reservoir pair. The overall costs for CO2 storage in the USA were
modeled to be effectively capped at about $12-15/Mt CO2, with important yet limited resource
available below $0/Mt CO2.
The results of the previous EPRI study are summarized in Figure 13-1.
13-2
CO2 Capture
Figure 13-1
CO2 Storage Supply Curve for North America
For purposes of this study, any revenue or cost associated with CO2 disposal were not
considered. It is assumed that the captured CO2 is disposed at zero cost.
If a dedicated pipeline for EOR or other designated purpose were to be used rather than the
common carrier pipeline assumed for this report, the design of the CO2 capture systems could be
significantly different which may produce different results.
There are many legal and regulatory aspects with regard to CO2 storage that have not been
evaluated for this study.
The capital cost, O&M, and performance assumptions provided in previous sections are
applicable for the CO2 capture cases.
IGCC CO2 Capture

CO2 capture in an IGCC facility is accomplished by removing the CO2 and water from the syngas
prior to combustion. This is achieved by first shifting the syngas to convert CO to CO2 and H2 by
the addition of water-gas shift reactors. The CO2 is then absorbed in the AGR unit, resulting in a
hydrogen rich fuel. For the purposes of this analysis, SELEXOL was used as the solvent for CO2
removal (SELEXOL is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4).
CO2 capture for an IGCC facility has not been proven commercially, however CO2 capture has
been proven commercially at the Dakota Gasification Companys Great Plains Synfuels Plant,
which sends compressed CO2 through a pipeline for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
13-3
CO2 Capture
IGCC Modifications for CO2 Capture

For this study, all major modifications for CO2 capture are downstream of the gasification block.
These modifications include:
Replacement of the COS/HCN hydrolysis reactor with two stages of sour shift reaction to
convert carbon monoxide to CO2.
Additions to the syngas cooling train to incorporate the shift reactors.
Additions to the SELEXOL AGR to recover CO2 as a separate byproduct.
Addition of a single CO2 compressor, consisting of four multi-stage centrifugal compressor

cases with intercoolers and CO2 product cooler, is included to deliver CO2 at 2,000 psig to the
pipeline. Heat recovery from CO2 compression is not included at this stage, but should be
evaluated in the future.
The acid gas composition from the SELEXOL unit to the Sulfur Recovery Units was set at 25%
H2S as in the non-capture case. The SRU/TGTU design is therefore identical to the non-capture
case.
Process flow diagrams for the modified syngas flow train are included in Appendix A. Original
equipment that is reused is highlighted in yellow.
Sour Shift
The COS/HCN reactor included in the non-capture case is replaced with two stages of sour shift
reaction. The shift reaction converts approximately 95% of the carbon monoxide to CO2,
generating hydrogen fuel as a byproduct. The shift reaction is
CO + H2O H2 + CO2
The reactors operate with 1.3 moles of steam feed per mole of dry gas (or 2.1 mole of H2O per
mole of CO). IP steam is added upstream of the reactors to replace steam consumed in the
reaction. The balance is generated by heating and vaporizing process water.
Cobalt-molybdenum sour shift catalyst is a good COS/HCN hydrolysis catalyst. Both COS and
HCN are almost entirely hydrolyzed in the reactors, eliminating the need for a separate reactor.
Since each mole of CO is replaced with a mole of H2, the available syngas chemical energy
(MMBtu/hr) on an HHV basis actually increases slightly from the un-shifted syngas due to H2
having a higher HHV heating value than CO. However, since CO does not form water as a
byproduct of combustion, the LHV and HHV heating value of CO are identical. Therefore, the
LHV energy of the shifted syngas (MMBtu/hr) decreases by approximately 9.7%.
13-4
CO2 Capture
Syngas Cooling and Condensation

The exothermic shift reaction and the addition of steam to facilitate the reaction significantly
increase the heat load on the syngas cooling train. Several new heat exchangers are required to
remove this heat. The additional heat is used to preheat the shift feed and to generate part of the
steam feed to the reactors.
Due to the number of heat exchangers and additional pressure drop through the AGR, some
increase in the gasifier pressure is required to maintain the needed pressure at the inlet of the gas
turbines. This increase can be minimized by appropriate design of the exchangers and is
believed to be within the design allowance of the gasifier.
Acid Gas Removal (AGR)
The number of moles, and therefore the volumetric flow rate, of syngas feeding the AGR is
about 60% higher than in the non-capture case. Although most of the original non-capture
equipment (towers, large heat exchangers and refrigeration equipment) can be reused, significant
additions are required to handle the additional volumetric flow and to separate CO2 as a separate
byproduct.
The following new equipment is required:
H2S absorber (in parallel to original absorber).
H2S stripper with reboiler, condenser, reflux drum, and pumps (in parallel to original
stripper).
H2S concentrator (common to both H2S absorber/stripper trains).
Rich solvent pumps to feed H2S absorber bottoms to the H2S concentrator.
New rich flash compressor and coolers to replace original units.
CO2 absorber.
Loaded solvent pumps to feed H2S absorbers.
Solvent regeneration flash drum system (4 drums with CO2 recycle compressor and CO2
vacuum compressor.
Semi-lean solvent pumps and chiller to feed cold regenerated solvent to CO2 absorber.
Refrigeration package.
IGCC Impacts from CO2 Capture

IGCC Performance CO2 Capture
The shift reaction results in a high hydrogen content fuel with a higher heating value (Btu/lb)
than for the standard syngas cases. This results in less mass flow through the gas turbines and
13-5
CO2 Capture
less gas turbine power as a result. Additionally, more steam is required for the AGR and a large
quantity of IP steam (450,000 lb/hr) is required for the water-gas shift reaction resulting in
substantially less steam turbine output.
The auxiliary load of the facility also increases substantially due to the CO2 compression
(approximately 37.1 MW) and the increased auxiliary loads of the AGR. The net result is
approximately a 25% reduction in net plant output and a 39% increase in net plant heat rate.
The cooling load of the facility decreases since a large portion of the steam is extracted for the
AGR and water-gas shift reaction. However due to the large amount of steam leaving the cycle,
the plant makeup requirement has increased by approximately 23%.
Table 13-2 illustrates the impact of CO2 capture on the IGCC facility.
Table 13-2
IGCC Performance Impacts from CO2 Capture
13-6

Elevation, ft.
Evaporative Cooling, On/Off
Base Case
(100% PRB)
73
69
100
Off
CO2 Capture
(100% PRB)
73
69
100
Off

4,705
5,099
4,883
5,291
Gas Turbine Gross Output, MW (each)

Gas Turbine Gross Output, MW (total)
Steam Turbine Gross Output, MW
224.9
449.7
260.1
709.9
213.8
427.5
202.6
630.1
Auxiliary Load
Power Block, MW
Material Handling, MW
Air Separation Unit, MW
Gasifier, MW
CO2 Compression
22.0
5.9
122.1
2.1
0.0
22.0
6.2
123.4
2.2
37.1
Syngas Treatment, MW
4.7
156.8
26.0
216.8

553.0
8,510
9,220
413.3
11,810
12,800

2,141
1,480
661
2,101
1,120
981

GPM
4,980
6,830
6,147
8,430
CO2 Capture
IGCC Capital Cost CO2 Capture

In addition to the revised AGR costs, syngas treatment costs, and CO2 compression costs, the
demineralized water treatment and storage system must be upgraded due to the 450,000 lb/hr of
IP steam being used for the water-gas shift reaction.
For the CO2 capture case, much more heat load (approximately 300 MMBtu) is transferred to the
condensate (See heat exchanger SGT-HTX-110 in Appendix A). This results in significantly
more LP steam production than in the Base Case. The LP superheater provided in the Base Case
HRSG is undersized to superheat this amount of steam. Therefore, $2,000,000 in HRSG
modifications are required to increase the size of the HRSG LP superheaters.
The additional capital cost estimated for CO2 capture retrofit is shown in Table 13-3. The capital
cost is provided in overnight mid-2006 US dollars.
Table 13-3
IGCC Capital Cost Additions for CO2 Capture Retrofit
Installed Costs
AGR and Syngas Treatment Modifications
CO2 Compressors
$
$
156,620,000
16,600,000
Additional Demineralized Water Treatment & Storage

HRSG LP Superheater Modifications
Total EPC Retrofit Cost (2006 US $)
Owner's Costs
Total Retrofit Cost (2006 US $)
$
$
$
$
$
4,000,000
2,000,000
179,220,000
17,960,000
197,180,000
Total EPC Plant Costs (Including Base Case)

Total Project Costs (Including Base Case)
$
$
1,498,200,000
1,671,400,000

$
$
3,630
4,040
The cost of the CO2 pipeline and/or storage is not included in the estimates.
IGCC Operations and Maintenance CO2 Capture
Due to the increased size and role of the AGR for the CO2 capture case, it is assumed that an
additional control room operator is required for each shift, resulting in a plant staff of 130.
Other impacts to O&M are minimal from a $/year perspective, however due to the reduced
output of the facility, the O&M increases greatly on a $/kW-yr and $/MWh basis.
The CO2 that is captured is assumed to be sold to the common carrier pipeline at zero cost.
13-7
CO2 Capture
The O&M for the IGCC facility with and without CO2 capture is provided in Table 13-4.
Table 13-4
IGCC O&M Impacts from CO2 Capture
13-8
Base Case
(100% PRB)
CO2 Capture
(100% PRB)
Fixed O&M
Labor, $/yr
Fixed O&M, $/yr
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,209,200
122,100
400,000
98,600
1,526,200
14,356,100

3,588,300 $
3,604,800
360,700 $
78,800
590,000 $
612,000
11,835,700
118,400
400,000
98,600
1,479,500
13,932,200

Gasifier Replacements
Air Separation Unit Major Replacements
HCN/COS Hydrolysis Catalyst Replacements
Shift Catalyst Replacements
Fly Ash & Slag Disposal
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
260,400
200,000
885,800
300,000
8,148,700
375,000
275,000
530,300
640,000
3,600
1,479,100
1,560,200
5,297,400
24,494,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
260,400
200,000
885,800
300,000
8,148,700
587,500
275,000
530,300
1,020,000
20,100
2,066,800
1,560,200
6,154,900
26,305,300
Fixed O&M, $/kW-yr

Variable O&M, $/MWh
$
$
$
25.19 $
5.95 $
38,426,700 $
34.74
8.55
40,661,400
CO2 Capture
IGCC Emissions CO2 Capture

CO2 emissions are reduced by 90% in the SELEXOL unit. In order to meet the CO2 purity spec
provided in Table 13-1, 25 ppm H2S is required at the outlet of the H2S absorber. From the H2S
absorber, the low H2S content syngas is then passed through a CO2 absorber where the CO2 is
stripped off. Because the low H2S content syngas is again exposed to the SELEXOL solvent in
the CO2 stripper, the sulfur content of the syngas is reduced significantly (approximately 1 ppm
COS and 1 ppm H2S), resulting in a reduction of SO2 emissions (ton/yr) by approximately 80%.
The resulting emission rates are shown in Table 13-5.
Table 13-5
IGCC Emissions Impacts from CO2 Capture
Base Case
(100% PRB)
CO2 Capture
(100% PRB)
0.063
15
0.061
15
lb/MWh (net)
SO2
0.581
0.781
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
PM10
0.019
0.173
0.004
0.051
0.007
0.007
0.065
0.090
0.037
25
0.337
0.035 (Note 2)
25 (Note 2)
0.448 (Note 2)
215
1,985
22
276
90%
0.778
7.17E-06
90%
0.778
9.96E-06
NOx
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd @ 15% O2
lb/MMBtu (HHV)1
1
lb/MWh (net)
CO
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd
lb/MWh (net)
CO2
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
Hg
% Removal
lb/TBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
1)
Particulate matter emissions rate is for front half only excluding back half condensables, for the concentration of particulate matter
less than 10 microns in diameter
2)
GE is currently in the process of developing tools to accurately predict CO emissions for high hydrogen fuels. It is estimated that CO
emissions will be less than shown for IGCC technology, however to what extent is unknown at this time.
13-9
CO2 Capture
IGCC Pre-Investment Options for CO2 Capture

This study was performed with minimal pre-investment for CO2 capture equipment other than
allowing space for future expansion and including SELEXOL in the base case (which may be the
AGR of choice without consideration for CO2 capture as discussed in Chapter 4). Other options
for pre-investment include:
Design syngas cooler with a hotter exit temperature, resulting in more water being
vaporized in the syngas scrubber and decreasing steam demand upstream of the water-gas
shift. This results in lower cost of the syngas cooler and better CO2 capture performance,
however it also results in higher heat rate during non-capture operation.
Supplemental duct firing can be added to the HRSG to make up for loss of steam turbine
output.
Increase size of initial gasification block to allow for additional syngas production to
increase output for CO2 capture cases (in particular the cold ambient conditions which are
limited on syngas).
SCPC CO2 Capture

Unlike IGCC technology, SCPC technology utilizes post-combustion capture of CO2 using
chemical absorption, also capable of achieving 90% removal efficiencies. Different technologies
are available that use various solvents. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) utilizes a tertiary
amine solvent called KS-1; additionally ammonia-based technology is being developed that
utilizes aqueous ammonium carbonate to capture CO2 as ammonium bicarbonate.
SM
The technology evaluated for this study is based on Fluors Econamine FG Plus (EFG+) CO2
capture technology, which is based on a formulation of monoethanolamine (MEA) and
proprietary additives for operation in high O2 content gas and for corrosion resistance. A block
flow diagram provided by Fluor is provided in Figure 13-2.
13-10
CO2 Capture
Figure 13-2
Fluor EFG+ Block Flow Diagram
The purpose of the EFG+ plant is to recover 90% of the carbon dioxide from the flue gas of the
existing the FGD. The plant consists of an Absorption section and a Stripper section. This
results in a plant with a total capacity of 11,697 ton/day (100% CO2 basis).
The EFG+ plant battery limit for the flue gas feed is at the exit of the FGD. All of the flue gas
from the FGD is routed to the EFG+ plant thus resulting in a zero flow of gas through the
existing stacks to the atmosphere. The flue gas enters the Flue Gas Conditioning Unit (FGCU)
where the gas is cooled by a circulating water stream, and the sulfur content of the gas is lowered
from 7 ppmv to 1 ppmv. By lowering the gas temperature, much of the water vapor contained in
the flue gas is condensed and separated from the feed gas before entering the Absorber.
The cooled, overhead gas from the FGCU is routed by a Blower to the Absorber. The flue gas
enters the bottom of the Absorber and flows upwards counter current to the circulating solvent.
The solvent reacts chemically to remove the carbon dioxide in the feed gas. Residue gas,
consisting mainly of nitrogen and oxygen, is vented through the top of the Absorber.
13-11
CO2 Capture
The rich solvent, containing absorbed carbon dioxide from the Absorber, is routed to the
Stripper. The rich solvent enters the Stripper and flows down counter current to stripping
stream, which removes carbon dioxide from the rich solvent. Heat for stripping is supplied by
low pressure steam via the Reboiler. Lean solvent from the Stripper is routed back to the
Absorber. The overhead vapor from the Stripper is routed to the Product CO2 Compressor.
To maintain the highest possible absorption capacity of the solvent, contaminants, such as heat
stable salts, are continuously removed in the Reclaimer.
EFG+ technology has not been proven commercially for a full scale PC unit, however
commercial experience exists for capturing CO2 from natural gas and fuel oil fired units,
primarily for use in the food industry, EOR, and urea plants. Two demo plants have been
constructed in Japan firing LPG and an oil/coal mixture. Additionally, Fluor is currently
developing two demonstration plants that will fire coal and natural gas.
SCPC Modifications for CO2 Capture
The Econamine FG Plus (EFG+) process for CO2 capture requires that the level of SO2 in the flue
gas be minimized. Any SO2 entering the EFG+ CO2 absorber will react with the MEA solvent
resulting in formation of waste salts that must be purged from the system. Therefore,
approximately 7 ppm (approximately 98% removal with PRB fuel) SO2 is required at the inlet to
Fluors flue gas conditioning system. To the extent that the SO2 entering the EFG+ process is
greater than about 1 ppm, it must be reduced to that level within the EFG+ process upstream of
the CO2 absorber. The EFG+ process accomplishes this reduction by scrubbing the flue gas with
sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
In order to provide 7 ppm inlet SO2 to the EFG+ process as described above, additional FGD SO2
removal capacity must be installed in the wet FGD. Since the FGD system was initially
designed with a space allocation for future SO2/CO2 control, new internal spray headers and the
recycle pumps can be installed at this time to reduce the overall inlet SO2 to the 7 ppm required.
The installed cost for the FGD internals and recycle pumps is approximately $2.5 million.
Because this analysis is performed from a retrofit standpoint, the following modifications to the
existing SCPC unit are required. All major modifications for CO2 capture are downstream of the
existing wet FGD. These include:
Addition of wet FGD upgrades described above.
Addition of Fluor EFG+ System.
Addition of a single CO2 compressor, consisting of four multi-stage centrifugal compressor

cases with intercoolers and product cooler, is included to deliver CO2 at 2,000 psig to the
pipeline. Heat recovery from CO2 compression is not included at this stage, but should be
evaluated in the future.
Although the steam turbine condenser duty is less than before, the EFG+ system requires
approximately 1,730 MMBtu/hr of auxiliary cooling, resulting in the need for additional
cooling capacity. This is accomplished by the addition of a new cooling tower and
circulating water system.
13-12
CO2 Capture
SCPC Impacts from CO2 Capture

SCPC Performance CO2 Capture
The SCPC performance adjustments for CO2 capture are as follows:
Approximately 1.4 million lb/hr of saturated LP steam (45 psig) is required by the EFG+
Reboiler. Steam is taken from the IP steam turbine exhaust to supply this steam. This
extraction is approximately 40% of the flow from the IP turbine exhaust, which reduces
the steam turbine output by approximately 93 MW. The remaining steam through the
steam turbine is sufficient for providing adequate blade cooling.
Additionally, the EFG+ system has an auxiliary load of approximately 19 MW.
The additional cooling capacity auxiliary load discussed above is estimated at 3.5 MW.
Approximately 42.6 MW of CO2 compression is required to compress the CO2 to 2,000

psig.
Approximately 2 MW for addition of new FGD recycle pumps.
The net result is approximately a 29% reduction in net plant output and a 41% increase in net
plant heat rate.
Due to the large auxiliary cooling requirement of the EFG+ system, the plant makeup water
requirement increased by approximately 34%.
The resulting performance is show in Table 13-6, both pre and post-CO2 capture.
13-13
CO2 Capture
Table 13-6
SCPC Performance Impacts from CO2 Capture

Elevation, ft.
Base Case
(100% PRB)
73
69
100
CO2 Capture
(100% PRB)
73
69
100

4,644
5,033
4,644
5,033

614.5
64.5
521.4
131.6

550.0
8,440
9,150
389.8
11,910
12,910

2,490
2,300
190
3,330
1,354
1,976

GPM
5,800
7,950
7,757
10,640
SCPC Capital Cost CO2 Capture

The additional capital cost encountered once CO2 capture equipment is installed is shown in
Table 13-7. The capital cost is provided in overnight mid-2006 US dollars.
13-14
CO2 Capture
Table 13-7
SCPC Capital Cost Additions for CO2 Capture Retrofit
Installed Costs
Fluor Econamine FG+ System
CO2 Compressors
$
$
243,000,000
17,530,000
2,500,000
Additional Cooling Capacity

Total EPC Retrofit Cost (2006 US $)
Owner's Costs
Total Retrofit Cost (2006 US $)
$
$
$
$
6,400,000
269,430,000
26,570,000
296,000,000
Total EPC Plant Costs (Including Base Case)

Total Project Costs (Including Base Case)
$
$
1,342,010,000
1,498,340,000

$
$
3,440
3,840
FGD Modifications to Obtain 98% SO2 Removal
The cost of the CO2 pipeline is not included in the estimates.

SCPC Operations and Maintenance CO2 Capture
Based on input from Fluor, an additional control room operator and field operator are required
(per shift), resulting in a plant staff of 111.
Other impacts to O&M are minimal from a $/year perspective, however due to the reduced
output of the facility, the O&M increases greatly on a $/kW-yr and $/MWh basis.
The CO2 that is captured is assumed to be sold to the common carrier pipeline at zero cost.
The O&M for the SCPC facility with and without CO2 capture is provided in Table 13-8.
13-15
CO2 Capture
Table 13-8
SCPC O&M Impacts from CO2 Capture
Base Case
(100% PRB)
Fixed O&M
Labor, $/yr
Fixed O&M, $/yr
$
$
$
$
$
$

9,687,800
96,900
280,000
98,600
1,211,000
11,374,300
CO2 Capture
(100% PRB)
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,434,900
104,300
280,000
98,600
1,304,400
12,222,200
2,810,100 $
2,529,400
1,127,900 $
4,800
1,734,700 $
1,734,900

Consumables/Disposal, $/yr
Scrubber Sludge Disposal
Fly Ash Disposal
Other Chemical Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
339,200
893,900
253,400
312,000
4,300
1,759,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
339,200
893,900
253,400
312,000
4,300
2,372,900
$
$
$
$
$
$
524,700
1,041,800
634,700
1,412,600
351,900
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
551,200
1,042,000
666,800
1,412,800
351,900
2,236,500

$
$
5,634,800 $
18,835,500 $
5,634,800
20,340,800
Fixed O&M, $/kW-yr

Variable O&M, $/MWh
$
$
$
20.68 $
4.60 $
30,209,800 $
31.19
6.97
32,563,000
13-16
CO2 Capture
SCPC Emissions CO2 Capture

In addition to removing 90% of CO2 emissions, the outlet SO2 from the EFG+ Absorber is
reduced to approximately 0.1 ppm (99.9+% removal) and NOx emissions are reduced by
approximately 10%. The resulting emission rates are shown in Table 13-9. Additionally, these
reduced emissions are reflected in the O&M costs provided in Table 13-8.
Table 13-9
SCPC Emissions Impacts from CO2 Capture
Base Case
(100% PRB)
CO2 Capture
(100% PRB)
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
SO2
0.050
0.458
0.045
0.581
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
PM10
0.060
0.549
0.0003
0.003
0.015
0.015
lb/MWh (net)
CO
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
CO2
0.137
0.194
0.150
1.373
0.150
1.937
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
Hg
% Removal
lb/TBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
215
1,967
22
278
70%
2.315
2.12E-05
70%
2.315
2.99E-05
NOx
lb/MMBtu (HHV)1
1
1) Particulate matter emissions rate is for front half only excluding back half condensables, for the concentration of particulate matter less than
10 microns in diameter
SCPC Pre-Investment Options for CO2 Capture

This study was performed with minimal pre-investment in CO2 capture equipment. The only
pre-investments made were the increase in FGD absorber size, allowing expansion of the FGD to
achieve 7 ppm SO2 in the future for the CO2 capture case and the plot space allocation for future
CO2 capture equipment. Other options for pre-investment that should be further evaluated in the
future are as follows:
13-17
CO2 Capture
The use of a deaerating condenser in lieu of a standard deaerator arrangement (open

feedwater heater) allows for boiler feedwater to be routed to the CO2 compressor
interstages, providing reduced compressor auxiliary load and less steam extraction from
the steam cycle.
Increasing the size of the wet FGD to reduce SO2 emissions to 1 ppm (instead of 7 ppm
assumed for this evaluation). This would eliminate the need for the sodium hydroxide
scrubber currently included in Fluors scope. Although achieving this low of an SO2
emission with a wet FGD is typically cost prohibitive, it is likely more cost effective that
the use of the sodium hydroxide scrubber. It should be noted that obtaining SO2
guarantees of 1 ppm from FGD vendors is not likely at this stage.
Other multi-pollutant flue gas clean-up systems such as J-Powers ReACTTM system
(utilizing regenerated activated carbon) and Powerspans ECO system (utilizing electrocatalytic oxidation) may provide emissions requirements more acceptable for SCPC CO2
capture technology without the need for major modifications.
CO2 Capture Economics

A 20-year levelized busbar cost analysis was performed using the same assumptions as provided
in Chapter 12. The resulting busbar costs are provided in Table 13-10.
Table 13-10
CO2 Capture Busbar Costs
Base Case CO2 Capture % Increase

(100% PRB) (100% PRB)
IGCC 20-year levelized busbar cost (2006 Real $)
$45.03
$65.41
45%
SCPC 20-year levelized busbar cost (2006 Real $)
$39.28
$62.00
58%
The avoided CO2 cost can be determined by dividing the differential busbar cost between the
capture and non-capture cases by the differential metric tons/MWh between the capture and noncapture cases.
The resulting avoided CO2 costs are as follows:
IGCC
$26.28 / Mt CO2 avoided
SCPC
$29.64 / Mt CO2 avoided
The results indicate that adding CO2 capture to an existing IGCC is a more efficient means of
reducing CO2 emissions than adding CO2 capture equipment to an existing SCPC facility;
however the initial busbar cost difference (pre-CO2 capture) between the two technologies still
results in PC technology having the lowest post-capture busbar cost.
13-18
CO2 Capture
A brief analysis was performed to determine what CO2 emissions allowance cost ($/Mt) would
be required to justify the expense of the addition of CO2 capture to both technologies (assuming
CO2 is sold at zero cost). Approximately $30/Mt for SCPC technology and $26/Mt for IGCC
technology were determined to be the break-even points. An allowance cost above these figures
may justify the additional expense of installing CO2 capture equipment. Additionally, any CO2
sales above zero cost ($/Mt) would reduce the breakeven point accordingly.
13-19
14
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Byproduct Sales
The two major byproducts from the IGCC process are slag and sulfur. The slag coming off of
the bottom of the gasifier is vitrified, has low bulk density, high shear strength, and good
leachability characteristics. As such, IGCC slag has the ability to be utilized as a feedstock to a
number of different industries.
Identified markets for IGCC slag include:
Construction structural backfill
Asphalt paving aggregate
Portland cement aggregate
Asphalt shingle roofing granules
Pipe bedding material
Blasting grit
Mineral filler
Road drainage media
Water filtering medium
Water-jet cutting
The sulfur in the syngas is removed in the AGR and then generally either sent to a Claus unit to
convert it to elemental sulfur or to a sulfuric acid plant for to make sulfuric acid. The sulfur or
sulfuric acid is also utilized in a number of industries, including asphalt, and agriculture.
A smaller potential by-product is the flyash. The flyash produced by the Shell gasifier has very
low carbon content and therefore has attractive qualities for use in cement manufacturing.
Co-Production
One advantage of the IGCC technology is the capability of producing a variety of chemicals in
addition to the production of electricity, especially during the times of the year when it may not
be economically attractive to produce power.
The properties of the syngas produced by the coal gasification process can be adjusted to allow a
range of hydrogen to carbon monoxide molar rations, and stand alone gasification plants have
been operating for years with refinery waste streams to produce syngas for chemical production.
Various options for downstream integration correspond to a range of value added products.
Figure 14-1 identifies some of the possible products resulting from coal gasification.
14-1
Other Considerations
Power
Generation
Hydrogen
Coal
Gasification
Synthesis Gas
-Ammonia
-Fertilizers
- Urea
Synthetic
Natural Gas
CO2
Methanol
- Acetate products
- Acetic Acid
- Ethylene / Propylene
Fisher-Tropes
Liquids
- Enhanced oil recovery
- Gasoline
- Diesel
- Jet Fuel
Figure 14-1
Products from Syngas
Plant Degradation
Plant degradation has not been included in the performance estimates or economic analysis. It
should be noted that gas turbine degradation (and consequently steam turbine performance
reduction) can be significant over time. This may result in 4-5% average degradation over the
life of the plant depending on frequency of water wash and gas turbine maintenance (compared
to ~2% for a PC Unit).
Lignite Gasification
Another potential lower cost feedstock for an IGCC in Texas would be lignite. While lignite is
an abundant resource in Texas, the combination of its high ash content and high moisture
content, makes it unattractive to be transported to power plants. Instead, lignite-based power
plants are typically located at the mine mouth. In the present study, the site location is not near
a lignite resource and therefore lignite was not evaluated as a fuel.
However, if a mine-mouth site was used, it might be an economic option. Mine-mouth lignites
lower fuel cost must be balanced against some undesirable impacts on the IGCC design.
Compared to PRB coal, Texas lignite has more ash, more sulfur, and more moisture. Each of
these has a negative impact on thermal efficiency while increasing the capital cost of the design.
Since the Shell gasification technology, a dry coal-feed gasifier, is used here, lignite may be used
and still produce plant efficiency in the upper 30s. The off-set is the increase in coal drying
energy required. The use of coal drying processes that utilize low level energy, such as the RWE
Vapour Compression cycle, may make use of the abundant low-level energy in the IGCC cycle
that is currently going unused. The use of lignite in slurry-feed gasifiers will likely result in
energy penalties too severe to produce economic benefits, even at low fuel costs.
14-2
15
SUMMARY
A summary of the information provided in previous chapters is provided in Table 15-1 and Table
15-2.
15-1
Summary
Table 15-1
Summary Table (1 of 2)
Case
Fuel
PRB (% wt.)
Petcoke (% wt.)
PRB (% heat input)
HHV (Btu/lb)
Capital Cost (2006 USD)
EPC Capital Cost
Owner's Costs
Total Project Cost
EPC Capital Cost, $/kW (73F Ambient)
Total Project Cost, $/kW (73F Ambient)
Performance
Auxiliary Load, MW
Auxiliary Load, MW
Auxiliary Load, MW
O&M Cost (2006 USD)
Fixed O&M, $/kW-yr
Variable O&M, $/MWh
Availability Factor
Economic Analysis
Capacity Factor
20-year levelized busbar cost, $/MWh (2006 Real $)
Avoided CO2 Cost, $/Mt CO2 avoided
100% PRB
Base Cases
IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB
CO2 Capture Cases

IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB IGCC
100% PRB
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
50%
50%
36%
64%
11,194
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
100%
0%
100%
0%
8,156
$1,318,980,000
$155,240,000
$1,474,220,000
$2,390
$2,670
$1,287,540,000
$139,500,000
$1,427,040,000
$2,330
$2,580
$1,072,580,000
$129,760,000
$1,202,340,000
$1,950
$2,190
$179,220,000 (Note 1)
$17,960,000 (Note 1)
$197,180,000 (Note 1)
$3,630 (Note 1)
$4,040 (Note 1)
$269,430,000 (Note 1)
$26,570,000 (Note 1)
$296,000,000 (Note 1)
$3,440 (Note 1)
$3,840 (Note 1)
736.6
137.4
599.2
9,090
734.2
137.2
597.0
8,950
623.3
65.4
557.8
9,030
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
709.9
156.8
553.0
9,220
711.1
158.0
553.0
9,070
614.5
64.5
550.0
9,150
630.1
216.8
413.3
12,800
521.4
131.6
389.8
12,910
681.5
153.2
528.4
9,350
682.6
154.5
528.2
9,210
613.2
64.4
548.8
9,170
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
$25.19
$5.95
$38,426,700
$25.19
$5.66
$37,245,400
$20.68
$4.60
$30,209,800
$34.74
$8.55
$40,661,400
$31.19
$6.97
$32,563,000
85%
85%
90%
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
85%
$45.03
N/A
85%
$40.89
N/A
85%
$39.28
N/A
N/A
$65.41
$26.28
N/A
$62.00
$29.64
Notes:
1) CO2 Capture capital costs are based on retrofit of the existing IGCC or PC facilities as provided in the base case alternatives. $/kW values reflect total installed cost to date (including original costs provided
in the base case) divided by net plant output with CO2 capture.
15-2
Summary
Table 15-2
Summary Table (2 of 2)
Case
NOx Emissions
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd @ 15% O2
lb/MWh (net)
SO2 Emissions
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
PM10 Emissions (front half)
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
CO
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
ppmvd
lb/MWh (net)
CO2
lb/MMBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
Hg
% Removal
lb/TBtu (HHV)
lb/MWh (net)
100% PRB
Base Cases
IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB
CO2 Capture Cases

IGCC
SCPC
100% PRB IGCC
100% PRB
0.063
15
0.581
0.062
15
0.562
0.050
N/A
0.458
0.061
15
0.781
0.045
N/A
0.581
0.019
0.173
0.023
0.210
0.060
0.549
0.004
0.051
0.0003
0.003
0.007
0.065
0.007
0.065
0.015
0.137
0.007
0.090
0.015
0.194
0.037
25
0.337
0.036
25
0.337
0.150
N/A
1.373
0.035 (Note 1)
25 (Note 1)
0.448 (Note 1)
0.150
N/A
1.937
215
1,985
213
1,934
215
1,967
22
276
22
278
90%
0.778
7.17E-06
90%
0.496
4.50E-06
70%
2.315
2.12E-05
90%
0.778
9.96E-06
70%
2.315
2.99E-05
Plant Cooling Requirements, MMBtu/hr (@ 73F)

2,141
2,179
2,490
2,101
3,330
1,480
1,480
2,300
1,120
1,354
661
699
190
981
1,976
Total Plant Makeup Water Requirement
GPM (@ 73F)
4,980
5,231
5,800
6,147
7,757
6,830
7,170
7,950
8,430
10,640
Notes:
1) GE is currently in the process of developing tools to accurately predict CO emissions for high hydrogen fuels. It is estimated that CO emissions will be less than shown for IGCC CO2 capture technology,
however to what extent is unknown at this time.
15-3
Summary
Of the three alternatives evaluated, SCPC technology provides the lowest busbar cost based on
this analysis. SCPC technology provides a $5.75/MWh (approximately 13%) lower busbar cost
than a comparable IGCC unit when operating on 100% PRB fuel. The 100% PRB SCPC also
provides a $1.61/MWh (approximately 4%) lower busbar cost than the IGCC operating on 50%
PRB / 50% petcoke. Of the two IGCC alternatives, the fuel blend case provides the lowest
busbar cost, provided that a long-term petcoke supply that meets plant specifications can be
found for the project at a reasonable cost.
The SCPC Unit provides a lower capital cost, lower O&M, better performance, and higher
availability factor than the IGCC. Although the heat rate for the 50% PRB / 50% petcoke IGCC
option is better than the 100% PRB SCPC option (except at 93F ambient), this difference could
likely be overcome by specifying a fuel blend for the SCPC option.
IGCC has an advantage in terms of SO2, PM10, and mercury emissions, however using the
emissions allowance costs provided in Chapter 8, these lower emissions are not enough to
overcome the disadvantages discussed above.
In an effort to reduce greenhouse gases, some form of CO2 legislation may be passed in the
future. At this point in time, it is uncertain what form this legislation will take, but it is logical to
assume that CO2 regulations would provide an incentive for CO2 reduction from power plants.
The installation of CO2 capture equipment as a retrofit for both of these technologies results in a
very significant decrease in net plant output, a significant increase in net plant heat rate, and a
significant increase in water consumption. All of these factors result in an increase of the 20year levelized busbar cost by approximately 45% for the IGCC and 58% for the SCPC post CO2
capture.
SCPC technology still provides the lowest busbar cost after CO2 capture retrofit, although by less
of a gap than pre-CO2 capture. The avoided cost of CO2 capture is less for an IGCC implying
that IGCC technology is the more economical choice for retrofit of CO2 capture technology,
however the lower initial capital cost (pre-capture) of SCPC technology still results in an overall
lower busbar cost for SCPC technology.
It is recommended that additional studies be performed if IGCC, SCPC, or CO2 capture
technology is of interest to the Owner:
SCR for IGCC technology.
Two-pressure vs. three-pressure HRSG for IGCC technology.
Other multi-pollutant flue gas clean-up systems such as J-Powers ReACT system and
Powerspans ECO system for SCPC technology.
More efficient steam cycle for SCPC technology.
15-4
Summary
Inlet air cooling methods (chilling vs. evaporative cooling) in conjunction with evaluation
of air-side integration for IGCC technology.
IGCC and SCPC CO2 capture pre-investment options.
Other SCPC CO2 capture technologies such as MHIs KS-1 process.
Evaluation of gasifiers from other manufacturers that that may be better suited for CO2
capture.
Heat recovery from CO2 compression.
Raw water availability study, which may result in different water treatment requirements.
More detailed studies incorporating gasifier and gas turbine vendor involvement.
Changes in market conditions, improvements in IGCC technology, different fuel specifications,

or CO2 purity specifications could be enough to swing the economics in favor of IGCC.
Therefore it is recommended that utilities consider IGCC technology for future generation needs.
15-5
A
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
A-1
NO. DATE
A
DEMINERALIZED
WATER
SATURATOR PURGE
102
100
605
504
611
GCT-PFD-2
GCT-PFD-2
SOUR WATER
STRIPPER PURGE
GCT-PFD-2
BY
REVISION
6/7/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
B 6/16/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
C 7/24/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
D 7/31/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
E 8/11/06
JAJ
FINAL
204
SYNGAS SATURATOR
MAKEUP
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-004
COS/HCN HYDROLYSIS
REACTORS
HP BFW
HP BFW
103
SYNGAS FROM
GASIFIER
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-003
HYDROLYSIS
PREHEATERS
SYNGAS
COOLER
201
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-001
SYNGAS WASH
TOWERS
101
205
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-002
HYDROLYSIS
107 INTERCHANGERS
105
TO RECOVERED WATER
FLASH DRUM
GCT-PFD-2
104
206
OXYGEN
TO SRU
FROM SOUR
WATER STRIPPER
GCT-PFD-2
SYNGAS TO
SATURATOR
301
403
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-004
SYNGAS
INTERCHANGERS
400
302
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-005
FIRST STAGE
SYNGAS CONDENSORS
CONDENSATE
310
402
401
CONDENSATE
GCT-PFD-2
SYNGAS TO
COAL/COKE DRYING
IP STEAM
313
502
HP STEAM
SELEXOL
AGR
309
HP BFW
SRU / TGTU
303
IP BFW
LP STEAM
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-006
SECOND STAGE
SYNGAS CONDENSORS
CIRC. WATER
CONDENSATE
IP STEAM
CONDENSATE
316
CIRC. WATER
CIRC. WATER
IP BFW
304
314
305
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-005
WATER KNOCKOUT
DRUMS
NOTES:
1.
2.
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-015
MERCURY REMOVAL
AFTERCOOLERS
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-002
MERCURY ABSORBENT
BEDS
306
40-1&2-SGT-PMP-001A/B
SOUR WATER PUMPS
308
311
SULFUR
CIRC. WATER
IP BFW
307
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-001
MERCURY REMOVAL
PREHEATERS
GCT-PFD-2
SW TO SOUR
WATER STRIPPER
312
GCT-PFD-2
date
detailed
07-JUN-06
designed
CPS / EPRI IGCC FEASIBILITY

STUDY
315
SOUR WATER
TO EFFLUENT
HEAT EXCHANGER
checked
T_McCALL
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

GAS COOLING AND TREATMENT
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev
GCT-PFD-1
NO.
SYNGAS FROM
INTERCHANGERS
GCT-PFD-1
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-007
SWEET SYNGAS
HEATER
403
DEMINERALIZED
WATER
GCT-PFD-1
HP BFW
SYNGAS TO
GAS TURBINES
602
BY
REVISION
6/7/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
B 6/16/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
C 7/24/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
D 7/31/06
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
E 8/11/06
JAJ
FINAL
611
601
HP BFW
40-0-SGT-TNK-008
RECOVERED WATER
FLASH DRUM
701
608
FROM SYNGAS
WASH TOWERS
GCT-PFD-1
DATE
104
40-0-SGT-FLT-001
RECOVERED WASH
WATER FILTER
40-0-SGT-HTX-012
RECOVERED WASH
WATER EXCHANGER
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-006
SYNGAS SATURATOR
TO COOLING TOWER
704
HP BFW
HP BFW
712
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-008
SATURATOR
HEATER
703
702
603
711
SOLIDS TO
LANDFILL
40-0-SGT-PMP-005A/B
RECOVERED WASH
WATER PUMPS
40-0-SGT-HTX-013
FLASHED WATER
CONDENSER
604
606
607
40-1&2-SGT-PMP-002A/B
SATURATOR CIRCULATION
PUMPS
610
705
SATURATOR PURGE
TO SYNGAS WASH
TOWER
40-0-SGT-JET-1
FLASHED WATER
STEAM EJECTOR
IP STEAM
605
GCT-PFD-1
707
706
708
SW FROM
TGTU
GCT-PFD-1
311
TO SULFUR
RECOVERY UNIT
502
40-0-SGT-TNK-009
FLASH WATER
CONDENSATE DRUM
710
GCT-PFD-1
506
709
505
40-0-SGT-PMP-006A/B
FLASHED WATER
CONDENSATE PUMP
TO SYNGAS
WASH TOWER
GCT-PFD-1
40-0-SGT-HTX-009
SOUR WATER
FEED / EFFLUENT
EXCHANGER
501
40-0-SGT-TNK-007
SOUR WATER
STRIPPER
504
40-0-SGT-PMP-003A/B
SOUR WATER PUMP
AROUND PUMPS
40-0-SGT-HTX-010
SOUR WATER PUMP
AROUND COOLER
LP STEAM
GCT-PFD-1
detailed
07-JUN-06
designed

STUDY
CONDENSATE
308
40-0-SGT-PMP-004A/B
SOUR WATER STRIPPER
BOTTOM PUMPS
40-0-SGT-HTX-011
SOUR WATER
REBOILER
JAJ
checked
T_McCALL
503
FROM SOUR
WATER PUMPS
date

project
contract
42127
drawing
rev
GCT-PFD-2
NO. DATE
TAIL GAS
FROM TGTU
611
201
IP STEAM
DEMINERALIZED
WATER
SATURATOR
PURGE
106
102
605
GCT-PFD-4
202
209
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-103
2ND STAGE SOUR GAS
SHIFT OUTLET
INTERCHANGERS
504
203
105
204
207
SYNGAS
COOLER
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-104
SATURATOR HEATERS
HP BFW
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-001
SYNGAS WASH
TOWERS
302
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-102
2ND STAGE SOUR GAS
SHIFT REACTORS
606
403
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-106
2ND SOUR GAS
CONDENSERS
303
320
304
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-102
1ST STAGE SOUR GAS
SHIFT OUTLET
INTERCHANGERS
40-0-SGT-HTX-012
WASTEWATER
INTERCHANGER
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-107
3RD SOUR GAS
CONDENSERS
GCT-PFD-4
GCT-PFD-4
GCT-PFD-4
DEMIN. WATER
FROM HTX-012
609
HP BFW
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-114
RECYCLE STEAM
GENERATORS
GCT-PFD-4
615
318
319
FINAL
HP NITROGEN TO
SATURATOR.
205
104
322
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
SYNGAS TO
SATURATOR
616
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-103
WATER FLASH
DRUMS
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
C 8/28/06
RECIRC WATER
FROM SATURATOR
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-105
1ST SOUR GAS
CONDENSERS
HP BFW
GCT-PFD-4
JAJ INTERNAL REVIEW
301
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-101
1ST STAGE SOUR GAS
SHIFT REACTORS
TO RECOVERED WATER
FLASH DRUM
608
607
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-120
1ST STAGE SOUR GAS
SHIFT PREHEATERS
206
101
6/7/06
B 8/11/06
RECIRC WATER
TO SATURATOR
HP BFW
103
SYNGAS FROM
GASIFIER
REVISION
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-101
1ST STAGE SOUR GAS
SHIFT INLET
INTERCHANGERS
208
SOUR WATER
STRIPPER PURGE
BY
D 9/14/06 TMA
321
100
GCT-PFD-4
DEMIN. WATER
TO HTX-012
405
GCT-PFD-3
GCT-PFD-4
305
401
610
GCT-PFD-4
613
HP NITROGEN
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-108
4TH SOUR GAS
CONDENSERS
317
CONDENSATE
312
311
CIRC. WATER
323
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-110
6TH SOUR GAS
307
CONDENSERS
308
40-1&2-SGT-PMP-101A/B
KNOCKOUT WATER PUMPS
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-005
WATER KNOCKOUT
DRUMS
309
315
402
CO2 TO PIPELINE
400
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-111
7TH SOUR GAS
CONDENSERS
413
614
313
314
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-015
MERCURY REMOVAL
AFERCOOLERS
CIRC. WATER
406 407
40-0-SGT-CMP-101A/B/C/D
CO2 COMPRESSOR
W / INTERCOOLERS
CIRC. WATER
CIRC. WATER
SW TO SOUR
WATER STRIPPER
SYNGAS TO
COAL/COKE DRYING
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-002
MERCURY ADSORBENT
BEDS
CONDENSATE
316
GCT-PFD-4
306
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-109
5TH SOUR GAS
CONDENSERS
- DENOTES ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT

REUSED FOR CO2 CAPTURE.
TAIL GAS TO
SHIFT REACTORS
405
SELEXOL
AGR
detailed
07-JUN-06
designed
GCT-PFD-3
checked
T_McCALL
SRU / TGTU
404
OXYGEN
TO SRU
OXYGEN
date
SW TO SOUR
WATER STRIPPER
414
416
SULFUR
417

STUDY
GCT-PFD-4
GAS COOLING AND TREATMENT - CO2 CAPTURE
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev
HP NITROGEN
FROM HTX-106
GCT-PFD-3
NO.
602
403
611
HP BFW
40-0-SGT-TNK-008
RECOVERED WATER
FLASH DRUM
40-1&2-SGT-TNK-006
SYNGAS SATURATORS
FROM SYNGAS
WASH TOWERS
104
40-0-SGT-HTX-012
RECOVERED WASH
WATER EXCHANGER
DEMIN. WATER
TO HTX-108
GCT-PFD-3
40-1&2-SGT-HTX-006
SWEET SYNGAS
HEATERS
601
701
GCT-PFD-3
FINAL
SYNGAS TO
GAS TURBINES
608
DEMIN. WATER
GCT-PFD-3
REVISION
HP BFW
SYNGAS FROM
INTERCHANGERS
GCT-PFD-3
BY
A 9/14/06 TMA
616
RECIRC WATER
FROM HTX-104
GCT-PFD-3
DATE
40-1&2-SGT-FLT-101A/B
WASH WATER FILTERS
704
TO COOLING TOWER
712
610
703
702
RECIRC WATER
TO HTX-104
603
604
711
40-0-SGT-HTX-013
FLASHED WATER
CONDENSER
40-1&2-SGT-PMP-002A/B
SATURATOR CIRCULATION
PUMPS
SOLIDS TO
COAL PILE
40-1&2-SGT-PMP-005A/B
RECOVERED WASH
WATER PUMPS
GCT-PFD-3
606
SAT. PURGE TO
WASH TOWER
605
GCT-PFD-3
40-0-SGT-JET-1
FLASHED WATER
STEAM EJECTOR
705
IP STEAM
707
706
708
SW FROM
TGTU
GCT-PFD-3
416
TO SULFUR
RECOVERY UNIT
502
40-0-SGT-TNK-009
FLASH WATER
CONDENSATE DRUM
710
GCT-PFD-3
506
709
505
40-0-SGT-PMP-006A/B
FLASHED WATER
CONDENSATE PUMP
TO SYNGAS
WASH TOWER
GCT-PFD-3
40-0-SGT-HTX-009
SOUR WATER
FEED / EFFLUENT
EXCHANGER
501
40-0-SGT-TNK-007
SOUR WATER
STRIPPER
504
40-0-SGT-PMP-003A/B
SOUR WATER PUMP
AROUND PUMPS
40-0-SGT-HTX-010
SOUR WATER PUMP
AROUND COOLER
LP STEAM
GCT-PFD-3
detailed
07-JUN-06
designed

STUDY
CONDENSATE
310
40-0-SGT-PMP-004A/B
SOUR WATER STRIPPER
BOTTOM PUMPS
40-0-SGT-HTX-011
SOUR WATER
REBOILER
JAJ
checked
T_McCALL
503
SOUR WATER
FROM TNK-005
date

project
contract
42127
drawing
rev
SYNGAS TREATING AREA

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
Mole Flow, lbmole/hr
Component lb-moles/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
100
Total Makeup
Demineralized
Water
101
Raw Syngas
102
Demin Water to
Wash Tower
103
Water to Wash
Tower
60
100
254,865
14,147
540
450
901,724
42,556
500
100
117,000
6,495
480
135
203,773
11,311
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14,147.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
25,497.0
1,133.3
5.5
11,397.9
1,758.4
71.5
2.0
1.9
2,268.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6,494.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
104
105
Wash Tower
Wash Tower
Bottoms Stream Overhead Vapor
520
280
172,170
9,555
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11,310.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.1
9,549.5
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
519
260
933,327
44,313
8.3
25,495.0
1,132.2
5.5
11,396.8
3,519.9
71.2
1.9
1.6
2,267.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
107
Hydrolysis
Reactor Feed
(prior to preheat)
201
Hydrolysis
Reactor Feed
(after preheat)
204
Hydrolysis
Reactor Feed
519
260
943,246
44,588
518
350
943,246
44,588
517
425
943,246
44,588
8.3
25,506.6
1,341.0
5.5
11,440.3
3,522.5
74.6
1.9
1.6
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
8.3
25,506.6
1,341.0
5.5
11,440.3
3,522.5
74.6
1.9
1.6
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
8.3
25,506.6
1,341.0
5.5
11,440.3
3,522.5
74.6
1.9
1.6
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
Vapor Phase Properties

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Actual Volumetric Flow, ACFM
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Heat Capacity, Btu/lb-F
Thermal Conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-F
Molecular Weight
-----------------
42,556
901,724
12,945
1.16
0.023
0.347
0.039
21.19
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
44,313
933,327
10,955
1.42
0.020
0.352
0.033
21.06
44,588
943,246
11,026
1.43
0.020
0.351
0.032
21.15
44,588
943,246
12,499
1.26
0.021
0.350
0.035
21.15
44,588
943,246
13,721
1.15
0.023
0.351
0.038
21.15
Liquid Phase Properties

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Actual Volumetric Flow, USGPM
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
14,147
254,865
510
62.30
0.684
1.031
0.363
18.0
-----------------
6,495
117,000
234
62.35
0.680
1.030
0.363
18.0
11,311
203,773
414
61.42
0.485
1.032
0.376
18.0
9,555
172,170
375
57.22
0.199
1.076
0.397
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Material Balance SGT PRB 25% H2S 16 Sep.xls Mat Bal
Page 1 of 7

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
205
Hyfdrolysis
Reactor Effluent
206
Hydrolysis
Reactor Effluent
(after heat
exchange)
507
425
943,246
44,588
506
335
943,246
44,588
8.3
25,506.6
1,348.0
0.3
11,442.1
3,513.6
79.9
0.0
3.4
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
8.3
25,506.6
1,348.0
0.3
11,442.1
3,513.6
79.9
0.0
3.4
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
301
302
303
Sour Syngas to
Sour Syngas Syngas from First
Interchanger from Interchanger
Stage
Condensation
506
273
963,246
45,698
8.3
25,506.6
1,348.4
0.3
11,442.1
4,621.9
79.9
0.0
4.1
2,273.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
505
248
963,246
45,698
8.3
25,506.6
1,348.4
0.3
11,442.1
4,621.9
79.9
0.0
4.1
2,273.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
502
110
963,246
45,698
8.3
25,506.6
1,348.4
0.3
11,442.1
4,621.9
79.9
0.0
4.1
2,273.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
304
Syngas from
Second Stage
Condensation
501
100
963,246
45,698
8.3
25,506.6
1,348.4
0.3
11,442.1
4,621.9
79.9
0.0
4.1
2,273.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
305
306
Sour Water from
Syngas to
Mercury Removal Sour Syngas
Condensation
Preheat
501
100
881,735
41,176
8.3
25,506.4
1,346.8
0.3
11,442.1
104.9
79.6
0.0
1.4
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
501
100
81,511
4,522
307
Sour Water
Recycle to
Syngas
Condensation
521
100
20,000
1,110
0.0
0.2
1.6
0.0
0.1
4,517.0
0.3
0.0
2.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
1,108.3
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
44,588
943,246
13,995
1.12
0.023
0.351
0.038
21.15
44,588
943,246
12,551
1.25
0.021
0.350
0.035
21.15
45,634
962,092
11,754
1.36
0.020
0.354
0.033
21.08
44,031
933,209
11,017
1.41
0.019
0.349
0.032
21.19
41,210
882,362
8,353
1.76
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
41,176
881,735
8,209
1.79
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
41,176
881,735
8,209
1.79
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
0
0
0
1.79
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
64
1,153
3
57.44
0.205
1.072
0.397
18.0
1,667
30,036
64
58.19
0.230
1.061
0.397
18.0
4,487
80,884
162
62.07
0.652
1.030
0.367
18.0
4,522
81,511
163
62.33
0.718
1.029
0.363
18.0
-----------------
4,522
81,511
163
62.33
0.718
1.029
0.363
18.0
1,110
20,000
40
62.33
0.718
1.029
0.363
18.0
Page 2 of 7

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
308
Sour Water to
Elluent Heat
Exchange
309
Sour Gas to
Sulrur Recovery
Unit (SRU)
310
Recycle Gas
from SRU
311
Sour Water from
Tail Gas Treating
(TGTU) to Sour
Water Stripper
312
Sulfur Product
313
Oxygen to SRU
519
100
61,511
3,412
40
100
10,316
315
556
303
9,919
275
66
104
1,155
64
100
100
2,293
72
100
100
1,568
49
0.0
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.1
3,408.7
0.2
0.0
2.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
127.5
80.8
0.1
12.1
0.0
78.6
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
11.6
208.8
0.0
43.5
2.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
0
0
0
1.79
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
315
10,316
784
0.22
0.016
0.242
0.014
32.70
275
9,919
65
2.54
0.023
0.278
0.024
36.02
0
0
0
0.06
0.009
1.354
0.086
5.17

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
3,412
61,511
123
62.33
0.718
1.029
0.363
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
64
1,155
2
62.18
0.651
1.031
0.365
18.0
Page 3 of 7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71.5
314
315
316
Syngas to
Syngas from
Syngas to AGR
Mercury Removal Mercury Removal
500
105
881,735
41,176
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.2
46.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
25,506.4
1,346.8
0.3
11,442.1
104.9
79.6
0.0
1.4
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
498
105
881,735
41,176
8.3
25,506.4
1,346.8
0.3
11,442.1
104.9
79.6
0.0
1.4
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
497
100
881,735
41,176
8.3
25,506.4
1,346.8
0.3
11,442.1
104.9
79.6
0.0
1.4
2,273.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.5
0.0
-----------------
49
1,568
49
0.53
0.022
0.223
0.016
31.80
41,176
881,735
8,303
1.77
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
41,176
881,735
8,336
1.76
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
41,176
881,735
8,275
1.78
0.017
0.340
0.028
21.41
32.1
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
400
Sweet Syngas
from Selexol
490
100
871,419
40,860
8.3
25,378.9
1,266.0
0.2
11,430.0
104.9
1.0
0.0
1.4
2,259.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
410.6
0.0
401
402
403
Sweet Syngas to Sweet Syngas to Sweet Syngas to
Coal Drying
Saturator
Syngas
Interchanger
490
100
813,369
38,138
490
100
58,050
2,722
7.7
23,688.3
1,181.7
0.1
10,668.5
97.9
0.9
0.0
1.3
2,108.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
383.3
0.0
0.6
1,690.6
84.3
0.0
761.4
7.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
150.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.4
0.0
489
227
813,369
38,138
501
Primary Sour
Water Stripper
Feed
500
200
61,511
3,412
7.7
23,688.3
1,181.7
0.1
10,668.5
97.9
0.9
0.0
1.3
2,108.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
383.3
0.0
502
503
504
505
Sopur Water
Recovered Water Recovered Water Pump Around
from Sour Water from Sour Water from SWS to Air
Stripper
Cooler
Overhead Vapor Stripper to heat Stripper to Wash
Tower
to SRU
exchange
30
184
292
12
0.0
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.1
3,408.7
0.2
0.0
2.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
481
253
81,367
4,517
0.0
2.2
2.4
0.0
1.2
3.2
0.5
0.1
2.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
480
178
81,367
4,517
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,516.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
480
203
81,367
4,517
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,516.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,516.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
40,860
871,419
8,331
1.74
0.017
0.341
0.028
21.33
38,138
813,369
7,776
1.74
0.017
0.341
0.028
21.33
2,722
58,050
555
1.74
0.017
0.341
0.028
21.33
38,138
813,369
9,639
1.41
0.020
0.338
0.033
21.33
-----------------
12
292
46
0.11
0.013
0.341
0.019
24.29
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
3,412
61,511
129
59.59
0.301
1.044
0.392
18.0
-----------------
4,517
81,367
175
58.05
0.224
1.064
0.397
18.0
4,517
81,367
168
60.22
0.345
1.040
0.388
18.0
4,517
81,367
168
60.22
0.345
1.040
0.388
18.0
Page 4 of 7

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
506
601
Saturator
Pump Around
from Air Cooler to Overhead Vapor
SWS
480
178
81,367
4,517
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,516.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
480
303
947,014
45,557
7.7
23,688.2
1,181.6
0.1
10,668.5
7,517.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
2,108.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
383.3
0.0
602
Syngas to Gas
Turbines
603
Saturator
Bottoms Liquid
604
Saturator
Bottoms Pump
Discharge
479
405
947,014
45,557
481
223
1,125,907
62,483
516
223
1,125,907
62,483
7.7
23,688.2
1,181.6
0.1
10,668.5
7,517.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
2,108.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
383.3
0.0
0.0
8.2
9.4
0.0
4.1
62,459.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
605
606
607
608
Saturator
Saturator
Saturator Liquid Saturetor Bottms
Purge to Wash Circulation after Circulation Liquid Circulation Liquid
after Satiratpr
after Make-up
Purge
Tower
Heater
516
223
5,406
300
0.0
8.2
9.4
0.0
4.1
62,459.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
516
223
1,120,501
62,183
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
299.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
9.3
0.0
4.1
62,159.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
217
1,258,366
69,836
0.0
8.1
9.3
0.0
4.1
69,812.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
490
335
1,258,366
69,836
0.0
8.1
9.3
0.0
4.1
69,812.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
45,557
947,014
12,805
1.23
0.020
0.365
0.033
20.79
45,557
947,014
14,659
1.08
0.021
0.365
0.036
20.79
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
4,517
81,367
168
60.22
0.345
1.040
0.388
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
62,483
1,125,907
2,382
58.93
0.262
1.052
0.395
18.0
62,483
1,125,907
2,382
58.93
0.262
1.052
0.395
18.0
300
5,406
11
58.93
0.262
1.052
0.395
18.0
62,183
1,120,501
2,371
58.93
0.262
1.052
0.395
18.0
69,836
1,258,366
2,654
59.11
0.271
1.050
0.394
18.0
69,836
1,258,366
2,830
55.43
0.160
1.111
0.394
18.0
Page 5 of 7

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
610
611
Demin Water
Demin Water
Make-up to
Make-up to
Saturator (after Saturator (before
heat exchange) heat exchange)
500
165
137,865
7,653
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
500
100
137,865
7,653
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,652.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
701
Flashed Vapor
from Wash
Tower Bottoms
Flash
7
177
19,082
1,057
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,652.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.1
1,051.8
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
702
703
704
705
Recovered Wash
Flashed Liquid Recovered Wash
Cooled
Water from Flash Recovered Water Water from Flash
from Wash
after Air Cooler
Tower Bottoms
from Flash
Flash
7
177
153,088
8,498
62
177
153,088
8,498
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,497.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
62
118
153,088
8,498
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,497.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,497.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
150
19,082
1,057
706
Vapors to Jet
Ejector
707
Steam to Jet
Ejector
7
150
227
10
615
491
500
28
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.1
1,051.8
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.1
0.0
1.1
5.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
1,057
19,082
17,105
0.02
0.009
0.451
0.013
18.05
0
0
0
0.02
0.009
0.451
0.013
18.05
-----------------
-----------------
10
227
165
0.02
0.011
0.363
0.018
21.75
10
227
165
0.02
0.011
0.363
0.018
21.75
28
500
6
1.29
0.018
0.580
0.029
18.02

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
7,653
137,865
284
60.58
0.379
1.037
0.385
18.0
7,653
137,865
276
62.35
0.680
1.030
0.363
18.0
-----------------
8,498
153,088
317
60.19
0.349
1.041
0.387
18.0
8,498
153,088
317
60.19
0.349
1.041
0.387
18.0
8,498
153,088
309
61.81
0.565
1.032
0.370
18.0
1,047
18,855
39
60.92
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
Page 6 of 7

43F PRB
Stream Number
Stream Description
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
708
709
Condensate
Jet Ejector
Effluent Vapor to Recovered from
Vacuum Flash
SWS
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
7
326
727
38
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
7
150
18,855
1,047
0.0
2.1
1.1
0.0
1.1
33.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
710
Recovered
Condensate to
SWS
47
150
18,855
1,047
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,046.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
712
Recovered Wash
Water to
Disposal
62
118
153,088
8,498
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,046.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
38
727
776
0.02
0.012
0.433
0.019
19.04
0
0
0
0.02
0.011
0.363
0.018
21.75
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
1,047
18,855
39
60.92
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
1,047
18,855
39
60.93
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
711
Solids from
Candle Filers
Recovered in
Wash Tower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,497.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Approximately
110 lb/day of
solids will be
removed by the
filters and sent to
the coal pile.
Page 7 of 7
-----------------
8,498
153,088
309
61.81
0.565
1.032
0.370
18.0

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
100
Total Makeup
Demineralized
Water
101
Raw Syngas
102
Demin Water to
Wash Tower
103
Water to Wash
Tower
60
100
251,395
13,955
540
450
850,323
39,203
500
100
117,000
6,495
480
130
182,132
10,110
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13,954.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
25,424.2
430.6
43.0
9,891.7
646.0
476.1
4.6
1.5
1,880.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6,494.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
104
105
Wash Tower
Wash Tower
Bottoms Stream Overhead Vapor
510
266
146,731
8,142
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10,109.7
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.8
8,137.2
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
509
245
885,724
41,171
7.2
25,422.6
430.2
43.0
9,890.9
2,618.5
474.6
4.3
1.3
1,880.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
107
Hydrolysis
Reactor Feed
(prior to preheat)
201
Hydrolysis
Reactor Feed
(after preheat)
204
Hydrolysis
Reactor Feed
509
246
909,315
41,858
508
350
909,315
41,858
507
425
909,315
41,858
7.2
25,436.1
923.5
43.0
10,030.0
2,624.8
492.5
4.3
1.3
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
7.2
25,436.1
923.5
43.0
10,030.0
2,624.8
492.5
4.3
1.3
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
7.2
25,436.1
923.5
43.0
10,030.0
2,624.8
492.5
4.3
1.3
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
39,203
850,323
11,948
1.19
0.024
0.335
0.038
21.69
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
41,171
885,724
10,183
1.45
0.020
0.342
0.031
21.51
41,858
909,315
10,365
1.46
0.020
0.340
0.031
21.72
41,858
909,315
11,982
1.26
0.022
0.339
0.034
21.72
41,858
909,315
13,149
1.15
0.023
0.340
0.037
21.72

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
13,955
251,395
503
62.30
0.684
1.031
0.363
18.0
-----------------
6,495
117,000
234
62.35
0.680
1.030
0.363
18.0
10,110
182,132
369
61.56
0.508
1.032
0.374
18.0
8,142
146,731
317
57.64
0.211
1.069
0.397
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Material Balance SGT PRB + PETOCKE 50% H2S 16 Sep.xls Mat Bal
Page 1 of 7

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
205
Hyfdrolysis
Reactor Effluent
206
Hydrolysis
Reactor Effluent
(after heat
exchange)
505
427
909,315
41,858
504
324
909,315
41,858
7.2
25,436.1
968.5
2.1
10,034.3
2,575.6
533.3
0.1
5.5
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
7.2
25,436.1
968.5
2.1
10,034.3
2,575.6
533.3
0.1
5.5
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
301
302
303
Sour Syngas to
Sour Syngas Syngas from First
Interchanger from Interchanger
Stage
Condensation
504
261
929,315
42,968
7.2
25,436.1
968.8
2.1
10,034.3
3,682.7
533.8
0.1
6.7
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
503
243
929,315
42,968
7.2
25,436.1
968.8
2.1
10,034.3
3,682.7
533.8
0.1
6.7
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
500
110
929,315
42,968
7.2
25,436.1
968.8
2.1
10,034.3
3,682.7
533.8
0.1
6.7
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
304
Syngas from
Second Stage
Condensation
499
100
929,315
42,968
7.2
25,436.1
968.8
2.1
10,034.3
3,682.7
533.8
0.1
6.7
1,897.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
305
306
Sour Water from
Syngas to
Mercury Removal Sour Syngas
Condensation
Preheat
499
100
864,614
39,379
7.2
25,436.0
967.9
2.1
10,034.2
101.1
532.1
0.1
2.7
1,897.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
499
100
64,701
3,589
307
Sour Water
Recycle to
Syngas
Condensation
519
100
20,000
1,109
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
3,581.6
1.7
0.0
4.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
1,107.1
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
41,858
909,315
13,238
1.14
0.023
0.340
0.037
21.72
41,858
909,315
11,671
1.30
0.021
0.339
0.033
21.72
42,838
926,984
10,908
1.42
0.020
0.343
0.031
21.64
41,875
909,616
10,442
1.45
0.020
0.340
0.031
21.72
39,413
865,222
8,014
1.80
0.018
0.332
0.027
21.95
39,379
864,614
7,875
1.83
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
39,379
864,614
7,875
1.83
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
0
0
0
1.83
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
129
2,331
5
57.80
0.216
1.066
0.397
18.0
1,093
19,699
42
58.33
0.236
1.059
0.396
18.0
3,555
64,093
129
62.04
0.650
1.029
0.367
18.0
3,589
64,701
129
62.30
0.716
1.029
0.363
18.0
-----------------
3,589
64,701
129
62.30
0.716
1.029
0.363
18.0
1,109
20,000
40
62.31
0.716
1.029
0.363
18.0
Page 2 of 7

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
308
Sour Water to
Elluent Heat
Exchange
309
Sour Gas to
Sulrur Recovery
Unit (SRU)
310
Recycle Gas
from SRU
311
Sour Water from
Tail Gas Treating
(TGTU) to Sour
Water Stripper
312
Sulfur Product
313
Oxygen to SRU
519
100
44,701
2,479
40
100
39,244
1,072
556
303
23,591
688
66
104
1,155
64
100
100
15,263
476
100
100
7,387
232
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
2,474.5
1.2
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
127.2
387.1
1.7
10.6
0.0
531.5
0.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
13.5
493.3
0.0
139.1
6.3
17.9
0.0
0.0
17.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
0
0
0
1.83
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
1,072
39,244
2,648
0.25
0.014
0.233
0.011
36.61
688
23,591
163
2.41
0.023
0.287
0.027
34.29
0
0
0
0.06
0.009
1.354
0.086
5.17

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
2,479
44,701
89
62.30
0.716
1.029
0.363
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
64
1,155
2
62.18
0.651
1.031
0.365
18.0
Page 3 of 7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
476.0
314
315
316
Syngas to
Syngas from
Syngas to AGR
Mercury Removal Mercury Removal
498
105
864,568
39,376
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.2
220.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
25,436.0
967.9
2.1
10,034.2
101.1
532.1
0.1
0.0
1,897.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
497
105
864,568
39,376
7.2
25,436.0
967.9
2.1
10,034.2
101.1
532.1
0.1
0.0
1,897.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
496
100
864,568
39,376
7.2
25,436.0
967.9
2.1
10,034.2
101.1
532.1
0.1
0.0
1,897.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.0
0.0
-----------------
232
7,387
231
0.53
0.022
0.223
0.016
31.80
39,376
864,568
7,965
1.81
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
39,376
864,568
7,981
1.81
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
39,376
864,568
7,922
1.82
0.017
0.332
0.027
21.96
32.1
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
400
Sweet Syngas
from Selexol
490
100
825,324
38,304
7.2
25,308.8
580.7
0.4
10,023.6
101.1
0.5
0.1
0.0
1,885.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
396.2
0.0
401
402
403
Sweet Syngas to Sweet Syngas to Sweet Syngas to
Coal Drying
Saturator
Syngas
Interchanger
490
100
800,717
37,162
490
100
24,607
1,142
7.0
24,554.2
563.4
0.4
9,724.7
98.1
0.5
0.1
0.0
1,829.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
384.4
0.0
0.2
754.6
17.3
0.0
298.9
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
0.0
489
181
800,717
37,162
501
Primary Sour
Water Stripper
Feed
498
200
44,701
2,479
7.0
24,554.2
563.4
0.4
9,724.7
98.1
0.5
0.1
0.0
1,829.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
384.4
0.0
502
503
504
505
Sopur Water
Recovered Water Recovered Water Pump Around
from Sour Water from Sour Water from SWS to Air
Stripper
Cooler
Overhead Vapor Stripper to heat Stripper to Wash
Tower
to SRU
exchange
30
169
296
12
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
2,474.5
1.2
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
481
253
59,727
3,315
0.0
1.8
1.1
0.0
0.8
2.3
2.7
0.3
2.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
480
179
59,727
3,315
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,315.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
480
203
59,727
3,315
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,315.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,315.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
38,302
825,287
7,816
1.76
0.017
0.336
0.027
21.55
37,160
800,681
7,583
1.76
0.017
0.336
0.027
21.55
1,142
24,606
233
1.76
0.017
0.336
0.027
21.55
37,162
800,717
8,750
1.53
0.019
0.333
0.030
21.55
-----------------
12
296
45
0.11
0.013
0.336
0.017
24.70
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
2
36
0
62.35
0.680
1.029
0.363
18.0
2
35
0
62.35
0.680
1.029
0.363
18.0
0
1
0
62.35
0.680
1.029
0.363
18.0
-----------------
2,479
44,701
94
59.56
0.301
1.044
0.392
18.0
-----------------
3,315
59,727
128
58.05
0.224
1.064
0.397
18.0
3,315
59,727
124
60.20
0.343
1.040
0.388
18.0
3,315
59,727
124
60.20
0.343
1.040
0.388
18.0
Page 4 of 7

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
506
601
Saturator
Pump Around
from Air Cooler to Overhead Vapor
SWS
480
179
59,727
3,315
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,315.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
480
303
930,842
44,386
7.0
24,554.2
563.4
0.4
9,724.7
7,321.3
0.5
0.1
0.0
1,829.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
384.4
0.0
602
Syngas to Gas
Turbines
603
Saturator
Bottoms Liquid
604
Saturator
Bottoms Pump
Discharge
479
405
930,842
44,386
481
215
1,117,687
62,033
516
215
1,117,687
62,033
7.0
24,554.2
563.4
0.4
9,724.7
7,321.3
0.5
0.1
0.0
1,829.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
384.4
0.0
0.0
8.0
4.7
0.0
3.5
62,016.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
605
606
607
608
Saturator
Saturator
Saturator Liquid Saturetor Bottms
Purge to Wash Circulation after Circulation Liquid Circulation Liquid
after Saturator
after Make-up
Purge
Tower
Heater
516
215
5,405
300
0.0
8.0
4.7
0.0
3.5
62,016.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
516
215
1,112,282
61,733
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
299.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
4.7
0.0
3.5
61,716.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
209
1,246,677
69,193
0.0
8.0
4.7
0.0
3.5
69,176.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
490
335
1,246,677
69,193
0.0
8.0
4.7
0.0
3.5
69,176.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
44,386
930,842
12,479
1.24
0.020
0.360
0.032
20.97
44,386
930,842
14,286
1.09
0.022
0.359
0.035
20.97
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
3,315
59,727
124
60.20
0.343
1.040
0.388
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
62,033
1,117,687
2,355
59.16
0.274
1.049
0.394
18.0
62,033
1,117,687
2,355
59.17
0.274
1.049
0.394
18.0
300
5,405
11
59.17
0.274
1.049
0.394
18.0
61,733
1,112,282
2,344
59.17
0.274
1.049
0.394
18.0
69,193
1,246,677
2,619
59.34
0.284
1.047
0.393
18.0
69,193
1,246,677
2,804
55.43
0.160
1.111
0.394
18.0
Page 5 of 7

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
610
611
Demin Water
Demin Water
Make-up to
Make-up to
Saturator (after Saturator (before
heat exchange) heat exchange)
500
158
134,395
7,460
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
500
100
134,395
7,460
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,460.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
701
Flashed Vapor
from Wash
Tower Bottoms
Flash
7
177
14,128
782
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,460.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.8
776.7
1.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
702
703
704
705
Recovered Wash
Flashed Liquid Recovered Wash
Cooled
Water from Flash Recovered Water Water from Flash
from Wash
after Air Cooler
Tower Bottoms
from Flash
Flash
7
177
132,603
7,361
62
177
132,603
7,361
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,360.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
62
118
132,603
7,361
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,360.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
150
14,128
782
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,360.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
706
Vapors to Jet
Ejector
707
Steam to Jet
Ejector
7
150
224
10
615
491
500
28
0.0
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.8
776.7
1.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.8
5.4
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
782
14,128
12,649
0.02
0.009
0.450
0.013
18.07
0
0
0
0.02
0.009
0.450
0.013
18.07
-----------------
-----------------
10
224
158
0.02
0.011
0.355
0.016
22.29
10
224
158
0.02
0.011
0.355
0.016
22.29
28
500
6
1.29
0.018
0.580
0.029
18.02

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
7,460
134,395
276
60.79
0.400
1.036
0.383
18.0
7,460
134,395
269
62.35
0.680
1.030
0.363
18.0
-----------------
7,361
132,603
275
60.19
0.350
1.041
0.387
18.0
7,361
132,603
275
60.20
0.349
1.041
0.387
18.0
7,361
132,603
267
61.81
0.565
1.032
0.370
18.0
772
13,904
28
60.91
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
Page 6 of 7

43F PRB + PETCOKE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/14/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
708
709
Condensate
Jet Ejector
Effluent Vapor to Recovered from
Vacuum Flash
SWS
7
327
724
38
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
7
150
13,904
772
0.0
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.8
33.2
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
710
Recovered
Condensate to
SWS
47
150
13,904
772
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
771.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
712
Recovered Wash
Water to
Disposal
62
118
132,603
7,361
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
771.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
38
724
770
0.02
0.012
0.431
0.018
19.15
0
0
0
0.02
0.011
0.355
0.016
22.29
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
772
13,904
28
60.91
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
772
13,904
28
60.92
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
711
Solids from
Candle Filers
Recovered in
Wash Tower
Page 7 of 7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,360.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Approximately
110 lb/day of
solids will be
removed by the
filters and sent to
the coal pile.
-----------------
7,361
132,603
267
61.81
0.565
1.032
0.370
18.0

43F PRB CO2 CAPTURE CASE
Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
100
Total Makeup
Demineralized
Water
101
Raw Syngas
102
Demin Water to
Wash Tower
103
Water to Wash
Tower
60
100
246,266
13,670
540
450
901,381
42,540
530
100
104,848
5,820
31
139
204,243
11,337
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13,670.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
25,486.7
1,133.3
5.5
11,393.3
1,757.7
71.5
2.0
1.9
2,267.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5,820.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
104
105
106
201
Wash Tower
Wash Tower
Preheated Wash IP Steam to Sour
Bottoms Stream Overhead Vapor Tower Overhead
Gas Shift
Vapor
531
281
172,687
9,583
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
11,337.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.2
9,577.9
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
530
261
932,937
44,293
8.3
25,484.5
1,132.2
5.5
11,392.2
3,516.9
71.2
1.9
1.6
2,266.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
529
359
932,937
44,293
8.3
25,484.5
1,132.2
5.5
11,392.2
3,516.9
71.2
1.9
1.6
2,266.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
599
488
450,378
25,000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25,000.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
202
203
Sour Gas Shift
Sour Gas Shift
Feed to
Feed to
Interchangers Preheater HTX120
HTX-101
529
417
1,849,109
94,586
8.3
25,496.2
1,540.8
5.5
11,437.0
53,316.8
76.5
1.9
17.7
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
528
496
1,849,109
94,586
8.3
25,496.2
1,540.8
5.5
11,437.0
53,316.8
76.5
1.9
17.7
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
42,540
901,381
12,940
1.16
0.023
0.347
0.039
21.19
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
44,293
932,937
10,740
1.45
0.020
0.352
0.033
21.06
44,293
932,937
12,298
1.26
0.021
0.351
0.036
21.06
25,000
450,378
5,999
1.25
0.018
0.577
0.029
18.02
94,586
1,849,109
26,333
1.17
0.018
0.442
0.030
19.55
94,586
1,849,109
29,278
1.05
0.019
0.438
0.032
19.55

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
13,670
246,266
493
62.30
0.684
1.031
0.363
18.0
-----------------
5,820
104,848
210
62.35
0.680
1.030
0.363
18.0
11,337
204,243
416
61.25
0.468
1.034
0.377
18.0
9,583
172,687
376
57.19
0.198
1.076
0.397
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Material Balance SGT PRB CO2 Capture 15 Sep TMA Mat Bal
Page 1 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
204
1st Stage Sour
Gas Shift Inlet
205
1st Stage Sour
Gas Shift Outlet
206
2nd Stage Sour
Gas Shift Inlet
207
2nd Stage Sour
Gas Shift Outlet
to
HTX-103
527
572
1,849,109
94,586
517
962
1,849,110
94,589
516
550
1,849,110
94,589
506
629
1,849,110
94,589
8.3
25,496.2
1,540.8
5.5
11,437.0
53,316.8
76.5
1.9
17.7
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
5,403.7
21,639.7
0.9
31,534.3
33,216.0
81.0
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
5,403.7
21,639.7
0.9
31,534.3
33,216.0
81.0
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
208
209
301
Shifted Syngas Shifted Syngas to Sour Syngas
to Interchanger
Condensing
from Saturator
HTX-101
Train
Heater
505
591
1,849,110
94,589
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
504
514
1,849,110
94,589
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
503
368
1,849,110
94,589
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
302
Sour Syngas
from 1st Stage
Condenser
303
Sour Syngas
from 2nd Stage
Condenser
304
Sour Syngas
from 3rd Stage
Condenser
502
342
1,849,110
94,589
501
335
1,849,110
94,589
500
334
1,849,110
94,589
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
94,586
1,849,109
32,056
0.96
0.021
0.438
0.034
19.55
94,589
1,849,110
46,535
0.66
0.027
0.469
0.065
19.55
94,589
1,849,110
32,572
0.95
0.021
0.449
0.048
19.55
94,589
1,849,110
36,115
0.85
0.023
0.455
0.055
19.55
94,589
1,849,110
34,840
0.88
0.022
0.453
0.054
19.55
94,589
1,849,110
32,154
0.96
0.021
0.449
0.050
19.55
94,589
1,849,110
26,939
1.14
0.018
0.446
0.044
19.55
89,275
1,753,210
24,709
1.18
0.018
0.441
0.044
19.64
86,611
1,705,117
23,863
1.19
0.018
0.439
0.044
19.69
86,381
1,700,966
23,830
1.19
0.018
0.438
0.044
19.69

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
5,314
95,900
217
55.18
0.090
1.115
0.394
18.0
7,979
143,993
324
55.42
0.090
1.110
0.395
18.0
8,209
148,144
333
55.44
0.090
1.109
0.395
18.0
Page 2 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
305
Sour Syngas
from 4th Stage
Condenser
306
Sour Syngas
from 5th Stage
Condenser
307
Sour Syngas
from 6th Stage
Condenser
499
330
1,849,110
94,589
498
330
1,849,110
94,589
497
200
1,849,110
94,589
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
308
309
Sour Syngas
Water from
from 7th Stage Syngas Knockout
Condenser
Drum
496
100
1,849,110
94,589
496
100
704,916
38,885
8.3
1,383.2
25,660.8
0.3
35,555.5
29,194.9
81.7
0.0
19.6
2,272.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
310
Sour Water
Stripper Feed
311
Syngas to
Interchanger
HTX-109
496
100
74,886
4,131
496
114
1,319,923
65,459
0.0
0.1
169.5
0.0
1.2
38,691.7
1.7
0.0
20.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
0.0
0.1
4,110.4
0.2
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
1,383.2
25,491.8
0.3
35,554.3
255.4
79.9
0.0
0.7
2,272.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
312
313
314
Syngas to
Syngas from
Syngas To Acid
Mercury Removal Mercury Removal Gas Removal
495
120
1,319,923
65,459
8.3
1,383.2
25,491.8
0.3
35,554.3
255.4
79.9
0.0
0.7
2,272.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
493
120
1,319,923
65,459
8.3
1,383.2
25,491.8
0.3
35,554.3
255.4
79.9
0.0
0.7
2,272.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0
492
100
1,319,923
65,459
8.3
1,383.2
25,491.8
0.3
35,554.3
255.4
79.9
0.0
0.7
2,272.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
412.3
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
85,128
1,678,342
23,446
1.19
0.018
0.437
0.045
19.72
84,970
1,675,505
23,436
1.19
0.018
0.437
0.045
19.72
67,226
1,354,669
15,731
1.44
0.017
0.411
0.045
20.15
65,418
1,320,283
12,876
1.71
0.015
0.407
0.040
20.18
-----------------
-----------------
65,459
1,319,923
13,251
1.66
0.016
0.407
0.041
20.16
65,459
1,319,923
13,420
1.64
0.016
0.407
0.041
20.16
65,459
1,319,923
13,474
1.63
0.016
0.407
0.041
20.16
65,374
1,318,393
12,975
1.69
0.015
0.407
0.040
20.17

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
9,462
170,768
383
55.57
0.090
1.106
0.395
18.0
9,619
173,605
389
55.59
0.089
1.106
0.395
18.0
27,363
494,440
1,034
59.62
0.300
1.042
0.391
18.1
29,171
528,827
1,056
62.43
0.710
1.023
0.360
18.1
38,885
704,916
1,408
62.43
0.710
1.023
0.360
18.1
4,131
74,886
150
62.43
0.710
1.023
0.360
18.1
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
84
1,531
3
62.44
0.711
1.023
0.360
18.1
Page 3 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
315
Recycle Water
Pump Suction
496
100
630,030
34,754
316
317
318
319
320
321
Recycle Water to Recycle Water to Recycle Water to Recycle Water to Recycle Water to Flash Steam to
Steam Generator
Interchanger
Flash Drum
Sour Shift
1st Stage
Shift Outlet
HTX-114
HTX-012
Reactors
Condenser
Interchanger
HTX-102
536
100
630,010
34,754
0.0
0.1
151.5
0.0
1.1
34,581.3
1.6
0.0
18.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
150.6
0.0
1.1
34,584.8
1.6
0.0
15.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
535
198
630,010
34,754
0.0
0.1
150.6
0.0
1.1
34,584.8
1.6
0.0
15.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
534
351
630,010
34,754
533
474
630,010
34,754
0.0
0.1
150.6
0.0
1.1
34,584.8
1.6
0.0
15.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
150.6
0.0
1.1
34,584.8
1.6
0.0
15.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
532
474
630,010
34,754
0.0
0.1
150.6
0.0
1.1
34,584.8
1.6
0.0
15.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
532
474
454,280
25,000
0.0
0.1
150.2
0.0
1.1
24,832.6
1.5
0.0
14.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
322
Water Flash
Drum Purge
323
Recycle TGTU
Tail Gas
400
Sweet Syngas
from AGR
532
474
175,730
9,754
531
151
175,730
9,754
482
131
272,797
41,973
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
9,752.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
9,752.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
1,376.2
1,019.7
0.1
35,461.8
229.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,442.6
24.0
0.0
0.0
410.5
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
39
1,372
10
2.37
0.019
0.300
0.019
35.58
19,008
346,319
5,134
1.12
0.014
0.557
0.025
18.22
25,000
454,280
6,765
1.12
0.014
0.558
0.025
18.17
25,000
454,280
6,765
1.12
0.014
0.558
0.025
18.17
0
0
0
1.12
0.014
0.558
0.025
18.17
-----------------
41,973
272,797
9,283
0.49
0.011
1.071
0.080
6.50

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
34,754
630,030
1,258
62.43
0.710
1.023
0.360
18.1
34,754
630,010
1,258
62.43
0.710
1.023
0.360
18.1
34,754
630,010
1,315
59.74
0.305
1.038
0.389
18.1
34,715
628,638
1,428
54.89
0.090
1.120
0.391
18.1
15,746
283,691
708
49.97
0.109
1.295
0.359
18.0
9,754
175,730
438
49.97
0.109
1.295
0.359
18.0
-----------------
9,754
175,730
438
49.97
0.109
1.295
0.359
18.0
9,754
175,730
359
60.98
0.423
1.034
0.381
18.0
-----------------
Page 4 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
401
402
Syngas to 2nd
Syngas to
Stage Condenser Coal/Coke Drying
482
131
254,794
39,203
482
131
18,003
2,770
7.7
1,285.4
952.4
0.1
33,121.5
214.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,215.4
22.4
0.0
0.0
383.4
0.0
0.5
90.8
67.3
0.0
2,340.3
15.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
227.2
1.6
0.0
0.0
27.1
0.0
403
Syngas to
Saturator
404
AGR Acid Gas to
Sulfur Recovery
405
Recycle TGTU
Tail Gas
406
LP CO2 to
Compressor
407
MP CO2 to
Compressor
413
Compressed
CO2 to Pipeline
414
Oxygen to SRU
416
TGTU Sour
Water Purge
481
305
254,794
39,203
75
50
12,891
327
556
303
10,667
292
17.7
41
352,422
8,038
75
50
715,524
16,321
2000
294
1,067,947
24,359
100
100
1,602
49
66
104
576
32
7.7
1,285.4
952.4
0.1
33,121.5
214.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,215.4
22.4
0.0
0.0
383.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
220.2
0.0
0.0
25.5
79.5
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
225.8
0.0
43.5
2.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
8,003.1
0.1
30.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
4.6
16,248.7
0.1
61.9
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.1
6.9
24,251.8
0.2
92.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.6
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
39,203
254,794
8,670
0.49
0.011
1.071
0.080
6.50
2,770
18,003
613
0.49
0.011
1.071
0.080
6.50
39,203
254,794
11,259
0.38
0.013
1.078
0.097
6.50
301
12,434
353
0.59
0.013
0.221
0.009
41.26
292
10,667
69
2.57
0.023
0.276
0.024
36.48
8,038
352,422
40,368
0.15
0.014
0.207
0.009
43.84
16,321
715,524
19,174
0.62
0.014
0.213
0.009
43.84
24,359
1,067,947
1,329
13.39
0.028
0.340
0.022
43.84
49
1,602
49
0.55
0.021
0.220
0.015
32.70
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
25
457
0.9
63.21
1.183
1.026
0.337
18.1
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
32
576
1.2
62.19
0.651
1.030
0.365
18.0
Page 5 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
417
Molten Sulfur
501
Heated Sour
Water Stripper
Feed
100
260
2,405
75
496
200
74,886
4,131
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
502
503
504
Sour Water
Stripper Bottoms Cooled Stripper
Stripper Gas to to Feed/Effluent
Bottoms to
SRU
Exchanger
Syngas Wash
Tower
30
185
1,152
36
0.0
0.0
18.0
0.0
0.1
4,110.4
0.2
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
252
94,151
5,226
0.0
2.1
19.2
0.0
1.3
10.0
0.4
0.1
2.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
174
94,151
5,226
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5,226.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
505
Stripper
Pumparound to
Cooler
506
Stripper
Pumparound
Return
30
233
81,284
4,515
25
182
81,284
4,515
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5,226.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
4,454.0
0.0
0.4
60.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
4,454.0
0.0
0.4
60.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
601
602
603
Syngas Saturator Diluted Syngas to
Saturator
Overhead Vapor
Combustion
Bottoms Stream
Turbines
480
306
390,691
46,747
7.7
1,284.8
952.4
0.1
33,122.1
7,759.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,215.4
22.4
0.0
0.0
383.4
0.0
479
405
627,987
55,194
7.7
1,284.8
952.4
0.1
33,122.1
7,759.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11,493.4
191.4
0.0
0.0
383.4
0.0
481
242
1,199,289
66,573
0.0
0.5
7.5
0.0
15.9
66,548.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
0
0
0
2.74
0.020
0.276
0.020
36.45
36
1,152
136
0.14
0.014
0.277
0.015
32.25
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
46,747
390,691
13,284
0.49
0.013
0.877
0.078
8.36
55,194
627,987
17,847
0.59
0.016
0.646
0.070
11.38
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
4,131
74,886
156
59.66
0.299
1.039
0.389
18.1
-----------------
5,226
94,151
202
57.98
0.225
1.065
0.397
18.0
5,226
94,151
195
60.27
0.356
1.040
0.387
18.0
4,515
81,284
175
58.06
0.227
1.061
0.393
18.0
4,515
81,284
170
59.57
0.343
1.045
0.386
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
66,573
1,199,289
2,562
58.35
0.237
1.059
0.396
18.0
Page 6 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
604
605
Saturator Btms Saturator Purge
Pump Discharge to Syngas Wash
Tower
540
242
1,199,289
66,573
540
242
5,404
300
0.0
0.5
7.5
0.0
15.9
66,548.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
606
Saturator
Recirculation
Water
540
242
1,193,885
66,273
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
299.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
7.5
0.0
15.8
66,248.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
607
608
609
610
611
613
614
Saturator
Saturator
Nitrogen to AGR Nitrogen to AGR
Hot Recirculation Heated Saturator
Saturator
Recirc/Makeup to Water to Top of Makeup Water Makeup Water to Makeup Water to
and Syngas
HTX-012
Heater HTX-104
Dilution
Saturator
4th Stage
Condenser
529
250
1,335,304
74,123
528
334
1,335,304
74,123
0.0
0.5
7.5
0.0
15.8
74,098.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
7.5
0.0
15.8
74,098.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
528
334
1,335,304
74,123
0.0
0.5
7.5
0.0
15.8
74,098.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
530
162
141,419
7,850
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,850.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
530
100
141,419
7,850
500
237
271,008
9,647
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7,850.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
237
33,711
1,200
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9,454.0
192.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,176.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
9,647
271,008
2,416
1.87
0.023
0.260
0.019
28.09
1,200
33,711
301
1.87
0.023
0.260
0.019
28.09

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
66,573
1,199,289
2,562
58.36
0.237
1.059
0.396
18.0
300
5,404
12
58.36
0.237
1.059
0.396
18.0
66,273
1,193,885
2,550
58.36
0.237
1.059
0.396
18.0
74,123
1,335,304
2,864
58.13
0.228
1.062
0.397
18.0
74,123
1,335,304
3,001
55.48
0.161
1.110
0.394
18.0
74,123
1,335,304
3,001
55.48
0.161
1.110
0.394
18.0
7,850
141,419
291
60.69
0.389
1.036
0.384
18.0
7,850
141,419
283
62.35
0.680
1.030
0.363
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
Page 7 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
Table 1
Component Balance
615
Dilution Nitrogen
to 3rd Stage
Condenser
616
Hot Dilution
Nitrogen
500
237
237,297
8,447
499
306
237,297
8,447
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,278.0
168.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
701
702
703
704
Flash Vapor from Flash Liquid from Recovered Wash
Cooled
Wash Tower
Wash Tower Water from Flash Recovered Water
Bottoms Flash
Bottoms Flash
from Flash
7
177
19,341
1,071
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,278.0
168.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.2
1,066.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
177
153,346
8,512
62
177
153,346
8,512
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,511.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57
120
153,346
8,512
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,511.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,511.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
705
Cooled Flash
Vapor
706
Vapors to Jet
Ejector
707
Steam to Jet
Ejector
708
Jet Ejector
Effluent Vapor to
Sour Water
Stripper
7
150
19,341
1,071
7
150
231
11
615
491
500
28
7
325
731
38
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.2
1,066.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.2
5.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.2
0.0
1.2
33.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
8,447
237,297
2,115
1.87
0.023
0.260
0.019
28.09
8,447
237,297
2,337
1.69
0.024
0.260
0.020
28.09
1,071
19,341
17,337
0.02
0.009
0.451
0.013
18.05
0
0
0
0.02
0.009
0.451
0.013
18.05
-----------------
-----------------
11
231
164
0.02
0.012
0.362
0.018
21.78
11
231
164
0.02
0.012
0.362
0.018
21.78
28
500
6
1.29
0.018
0.580
0.029
18.02
38
731
767
0.02
0.012
0.433
0.019
19.06

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
8,512
153,346
318
60.19
0.349
1.041
0.387
18.0
8,512
153,346
318
60.19
0.349
1.041
0.387
18.0
8,512
153,346
310
61.75
0.555
1.032
0.371
18.0
1,061
19,110
39
60.92
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Page 8 of 9

Stream Number
Stream Description
Overall Properties
Pressure, psia
Temperature, F
Mass Flow, lb/hr
CH4
CO
CO2
COS
H2
H2O
H2S
HCN
NH3
N2
O2
NO2
SO2
AR
Sulfur
Table 1
Component Balance
709
Vacuum Flash
Condensate
7
150
19,110
1,061
710
711
712
Vacuum Flash Particulate Solids Recovered Wash
Water
Removed from
Condensate to
Wash Tower
Sour Water
Bottoms
Stripper
47
150
19,110
1,061
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,060.4
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47
150
19,110
1,061
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,060.4
0.0 Approximately
0.1 110 lb/day is
0.3 removed from
0.0 the Wash Tower
0.0 Bottoms stream.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,060.4
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
0
0
0
0.02
0.012
0.362
0.018
21.78
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------

Mass Flow, lb/hr
Density, lb/ft3
Viscosity, cP
Molecular Weight
1,061
19,110
39
60.92
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
1,061
19,110
39
60.93
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
1,061
19,110
39
60.93
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
1,061
19,110
39
60.93
0.426
1.036
0.381
18.0
Page 9 of 9
9/15/2006
Project No: 42127
B
SITE LAYOUT DRAWINGS
B-1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
date
by
ckd
description
C
CURRENT
FUTURE
KEY NOTES:
1
2
26
CONTROL ROOM/ADMIN. BLDG.
GAS TURBINE
E
HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR
STEAM TURBINE
PROPERTY LINE
29
Scale For Microfilming
Millimeters
26
5
COOLING TOWER
GASIFICATION
AIR SEPARATION PLANT
34
F
8
ACID GAS SEPARATION
GAS CLEANUP
10
SULFUR PRODUCTION
11
SLAG HANDLING
12
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
13
G
13
WATER TREATMENT
14
WAREHOUSE
15
SULFUR LOAD-OUT SIDING
16
ROTARY DUMPER
17
COAL STOCKOUT
H
12
18
COAL CONVEYOR
19
COAL PILE (60 DAYS)

15
20
COAL GRINDING AND DRYING
21
YARD MAINTENANCE BLDG.
22
PLANT PARKING
23
SWITCHYARD
24
CONSTRUCTION OFFICES
25
CONSTRUCTION PARKING
31
I
35
11
20
32
33
26
30
SLAG & FINES LANDFILL

10
27
WASTE WATER POND
28
GAS METERING STATION
29
ACCESS SPUR
30
LOOP TRACK
31
FLARE
32
AUXILIARY BOILER
33
TAIL GAS TREATMENT UNIT
6
18
21
17
19
19
37
18
15
40
40
14
5
date
16
17
detailed
28
R. SEDLACEK
47
47
29
12
29
12
10
28
JUNE 12, 2006
designed
44
46
43
41
42
32
31
48
31
32
32
31
checked
R. SEDLACEK
49
41
42
46
45
44
43
1
42
41
45
24
47
45
46
43
1
49
48
31
32
32
31
48
32
31
44
45
41
42
43
1
42
41
44
46
24
45
46
43
1
42
49
41
44
45
44
46
18
17
37
16
28
47
47
29
12
10
12
29
12
29
47
24
43
14
19
15
40
18
17
16
28
16
28
10
14
19
15
17
37
18
15
37
18
17
16
28
SULFUR LOADOUT
40
40
15
17
37
18
15
37
16
35
12
WATER STORAGE POND (30 DAYS)

29
34
14
19
14
19
40
14
19
Inches
27
2
L
14
23
22
24
294.75
550MW (NET) 2X1 IGCC UNIT 1 OF 3
OPTION 1 - 100% PRB
16
300
300
25
600
project
42127
28
SCALE IN FEET
contract
drawing
rev.
SK-CS1
sheet
file
of
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
date
by
ckd
description
C
CURRENT
FUTURE
KEY NOTES:
1
2
26
CONTROL ROOM/ADMIN. BLDG.
GAS TURBINE
E
HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR
STEAM TURBINE
PROPERTY LINE
29
Millimeters
34
5
COOLING TOWER
GASIFICATION
AIR SEPARATION PLANT
26
F
8
ACID GAS SEPARATION
GAS CLEANUP
10
SULFUR PRODUCTION
11
SLAG HANDLING
12
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
13
WATER TREATMENT
13
14
WAREHOUSE
15
SULFUR LOAD-OUT SIDING
16
ROTARY DUMPER
17
COAL STOCKOUT
H
12
18
COAL CONVEYORS
19
COAL PILE (60 DAYS)

15
20
COAL GRINDING AND DRYING
21
YARD MAINTENANCE BLDG.
22
PLANT PARKING
23
SWITCHYARD
24
CONSTRUCTION OFFICES
25
CONSTRUCTION PARKING
31
I
35
11
20
30
32
33
26
SLAG & FINES LANDFILL

10
27
WASTE WATER POND
28
GAS METERING STATION
29
ACCESS SPUR
30
LOOP TRACK
31
FLARE
32
AUXILIARY BOILER
33
TAIL GAS TREATMENT UNIT
6
18
21
36
9
17
14
19
40
40
18
15
37
18
JUNE 12, 2006
16
28
R. SEDLACEK
12
29
47
47
29
12
10
detailed
17
17
date
designed
46
46
41
42
43
44
R. SEDLACEK
32
31
31
32
48
49
41
42
43
1
42
32
31
31
32
48
49
41
44
36
45
checked
45
24
47
46
45
44
43
41
42
43
1
42
44
36
45
46
24
46
45
44
43
41
32
31
28
16
28
47
47
29
12
10
12
29
12
29
1
48
32
31
5
4
50
15
37
17
16
28
16
28
14
19
14
40
18
15
37
18
17
17
16
10
47
46
45
44
43
41
42
PET COKE PILE (30 DAYS)
49
36
SULFUR LOADOUT
19
40
50
37
18
15
15
37
18
17
28
16
2
12
24
35
14
19
40
40
14
19
19
14
50
15
37
WATER STORAGE POND (30 DAYS)

29
34
19
36
Inches
27
2
L
14
23
22
24
294.75
550MW (NET) 2X1 IGCC UNIT 1 OF 3

OPTION 2 - 50% PRB/50% PET COKE
16
project
300
300
25
600
42127
28
SCALE IN FEET
contract
drawing
rev.
SK-CS2
sheet
file
of
sheets
C
WATER MASS BALANCE DIAGRAMS
C-1
no. |
date
| by | chd | description
A | 6/23/06 | mab | |
Initial Issue
B | 6/29/06 | mab | bdh | Revise Raw H2O
4,391
(2,194,622)
Raw Water
Influent
4,379
(2,188,624)
Cartridge
Filtration
AJ
4,289
(2,143,642)
K
3,796
(1,897,241)
S
AD
Non-recoverable
Losses
3
(1,499)
Sour Water
Condensate Recycle
90
(44,982)
692
(345,862)
199
(99,460)
8
(3,998)
AE
Potable
Water
Treatment
AK
3,597
(1,797,781)
74
(36,985)
Service
Water
Storage
3
(1,499)
AF
Slag Quench
(Non-recoverable)
44
(21,991)
16
(7,997)
1. FLOWS ARE SHOWN IN GALLONS PER MIN

ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST GALLON.
2. FLOWS ARE BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
CONDITIONS.
3. FLOWS IN PARENTHESIS SHOWN IN POUNDS
PER HOUR ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST
POUND.
Gasifier Units
AI
O
493
(246,401)
234
(116,953)
On-site Septic
System
NOTES:
Demineralizer
System
(RO/EDI)
54
(26,989)
12
(5,998)
Syngas
Treatment
20
(9,996)
38
(18,992)
Demineralized
Water
Storage
AA
20
(9,996)
3,808
(1,903,238)
Condenser
188
(93,962)
Coal
Storage
Area
B
Oil/Water
Separator
Syngas Saturation
(Non-Recoverable)
Syngas Burner
(Non-Recoverable)
J
16
(7,997)
18
(8,996)
7
(3,499)
33
(16,493)
9
(4,498)
AC
Non-recoverable
Losses
AG
278
(138,944)
20
(9,996)
HRSG Units
11
(5,498)
T
AB
AH
Process
Wastewater
Storage
Cooling
Tower
36
(17,993)
4,097
(2,047,681)
Evaporation &
Drift
3,135
(1,566,873)
date
962
(480,808)
X
detailed
M. Boyd
6/29/2006
designed
M. Boyd
checked
B. Hansen
998
(498,800)
1,007
(503,299)
Z
Wastewater
Discharge to
Outfall
550 MW (net) IGCC

Gulf Coast, Texas
Water Balance Diagram
100% PRB @ 43 F Ambient Dry
Bulb Temp. & 40 F Ambient Wet Bulb Temp.
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
--B
WMB-1.1
PRELIMINARY
sheet
file
of
sheets
42127 CPS IGCC WMB Rev B.xls
no. |
date
A | 6/23/06 | mab | |
Initial Issue
4,983
(2,490,503)
Raw Water
Influent
4,969
(2,483,506)
Cartridge
Filtration
AJ
4,879
(2,438,524)
K
4,401
(2,199,620)
S
AD
Non-recoverable
Losses
3
(1,499)
Sour Water
Condensate Recycle
90
(44,982)
671
(335,366)
193
(96,461)
7
(3,499)
AE
Potable
Water
Treatment
AK
4,208
(2,103,158)
74
(36,985)
Service
Water
Storage
3
(1,499)
AF
Slag Quench
(Non-recoverable)
44
(21,991)
16
(7,997)

CONDITIONS.
POUND.
Gasifier Units
AI
O
478
(238,904)
234
(116,953)
On-site Septic
System
NOTES:
Demineralizer
System
(RO/EDI)
54
(26,989)
11
(5,498)
Syngas
Treatment
18
(8,996)
36
(17,993)
Demineralized
Water
Storage
AA
20
(9,996)
4,412
(2,205,118)
Condenser
177
(88,465)
Coal
Storage
Area
B
Oil/Water
Separator
Syngas Saturation
(Non-Recoverable)
Syngas Burner
(Non-Recoverable)
J
16
(7,997)
18
(8,996)
7
(3,499)
31
(15,494)
11
(5,498)
AC
Non-recoverable
Losses
AG
278
(138,944)
20
(9,996)
HRSG Units
11
(5,498)
T
AB
AH
Process
Wastewater
Storage
Cooling
Tower
36
(17,993)
4,701
(2,349,560)
Evaporation &
Drift
3,595
(1,796,781)
date
1,106
(552,779)
X
detailed
M. Boyd
6/29/2006
designed
M. Boyd
checked
B. Hansen
1,142
(570,772)
1,153
(576,269)
Z
Wastewater
Discharge to
Outfall
550 MW (net) IGCC

Gulf Coast, Texas
100 % PRB @ 73 F Ambient Dry
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
--B
WMB-1.2
PRELIMINARY
sheet
file
of
sheets
no. |
date
A | 6/23/06 | mab | |
Initial Issue
5,580
(2,788,884)
Raw Water
Influent
5,565
(2,781,387)
Cartridge
Filtration
AJ
5,475
(2,736,405)
K
5,004
(2,500,999)
S
AD
Non-recoverable
Losses
3
(1,499)
Sour Water
Condensate Recycle
90
(44,982)
661
(330,368)
190
(94,962)
7
(3,499)
AE
Potable
Water
Treatment
AK
4,814
(2,406,037)
74
(36,985)
Service
Water
Storage
3
(1,499)
AF
Slag Quench
(Non-recoverable)
44
(21,991)
16
(7,997)

CONDITIONS.
POUND.
Gasifier Units
AI
O
471
(235,406)
234
(116,953)
On-site Septic
System
NOTES:
Demineralizer
System
(RO/EDI)
54
(26,989)
11
(5,498)
Syngas
Treatment
18
(8,996)
36
(17,993)
Demineralized
Water
Storage
AA
20
(9,996)
5,015
(2,506,497)
Condenser
171
(85,466)
Coal
Storage
Area
B
Oil/Water
Separator
Syngas Saturation
(Non-Recoverable)
Syngas Burner
(Non-Recoverable)
J
16
(7,997)
18
(8,996)
7
(3,499)
30
(14,994)
12
(5,998)
AC
Non-recoverable
Losses
AG
278
(138,944)
20
(9,996)
HRSG Units
11
(5,498)
T
AB
AH
Process
Wastewater
Storage
Cooling
Tower
36
(17,993)
5,304
(2,650,939)
Evaporation &
Drift
4,055
(2,026,689)
date
1,249
(624,250)
X
detailed
M. Boyd
6/29/2006
designed
M. Boyd
checked
B. Hansen
1,285
(642,243)
1,297
(648,241)
Z
Wastewater
Discharge to
Outfall
550 MW (net) IGCC

Gulf Coast, Texas
100% PRB @ 93 Ambient Dry
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
--B
WMB-1.3
PRELIMINARY
sheet
file
of
sheets
no. |
date
A | 6/23/06 | mab | |
Initial Issue
4,619
(2,308,576)
Raw Water
Influent
4,606
(2,302,079)
Cartridge
Filtration
AJ
4,516
(2,257,097)
K
3,927
(1,962,715)
S
AD
Non-recoverable
Losses
3
(1,499)
Sour Water
Condensate Recycle
90
(44,982)
827
(413,335)
238
(118,952)
8
(3,998)
AE
Potable
Water
Treatment
AK
3,689
(1,843,762)
74
(36,985)
Service
Water
Storage
3
(1,499)
AF
Slag Quench
(Non-recoverable)
44
(21,991)
16
(7,997)

CONDITIONS.
POUND.
Gasifier Units
AI
O
589
(294,382)
234
(116,953)
On-site Septic
System
NOTES:
Demineralizer
System
(RO/EDI)
54
(26,989)
12
(5,998)
Syngas
Treatment
20
(9,996)
38
(18,992)
Demineralized
Water
Storage
AA
20
(9,996)
3,939
(1,968,712)
Condenser
231
(115,454)
Coal
Storage
Area
B
Oil/Water
Separator
Syngas Saturation
(Non-Recoverable)
Syngas Burner
(Non-Recoverable)
J
16
(7,997)
18
(8,996)
7
(3,499)
86
(42,983)
10
(4,998)
AC
Non-recoverable
Losses
AG
278
(138,944)
20
(9,996)
HRSG Units
11
(5,498)
T
AB
AH
Process
Wastewater
Storage
Cooling
Tower
36
(17,993)
4,228
(2,113,154)
Evaporation &
Drift
3,235
(1,616,853)
date
993
(496,301)
X
detailed
M. Boyd
6/29/2006
designed
M. Boyd
checked
B. Hansen
1,029
(514,294)
1,039
(519,292)
Z
Wastewater
Discharge to
Outfall
550 MW (net) IGCC

Gulf Coast, Texas
50% PRB / 50% Pet Coke @ 43 F Ambient Dry
Bulb Temp. & 40F Ambient Wet Bulb Temp.
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
--B
WMB-2.1
PRELIMINARY
sheet
file
of
sheets
no. |
date
A | 6/23/06 | mab | |
Initial Issue
5,231
(2,614,454)
Raw Water
Influent
5,217
(2,607,457)
Cartridge
Filtration
AJ
5,127
(2,562,475)
K
4,558
(2,278,088)
S
AD
Non-recoverable
Losses
3
(1,499)
Sour Water
Condensate Recycle
90
(44,982)
799
(399,340)
230
(114,954)
8
(3,998)
AE
Potable
Water
Treatment
AK
4,328
(2,163,134)
74
(36,985)
Service
Water
Storage
3
(1,499)
AF
Slag Quench
(Non-recoverable)
44
(21,991)
16
(7,997)

CONDITIONS.
POUND.
Gasifier Units
AI
O
569
(284,386)
234
(116,953)
On-site Septic
System
NOTES:
Demineralizer
System
(RO/EDI)
54
(26,989)
11
(5,498)
Syngas
Treatment
19
(9,496)
37
(18,493)
Demineralized
Water
Storage
AA
20
(9,996)
4,569
(2,283,586)
Condenser
217
(108,457)
Coal
Storage
Area
B
Oil/Water
Separator
Syngas Saturation
(Non-Recoverable)
Syngas Burner
(Non-Recoverable)
J
16
(7,997)
18
(8,996)
7
(3,499)
81
(40,484)
11
(5,498)
AC
Non-recoverable
Losses
AG
278
(138,944)
20
(9,996)
HRSG Units
11
(5,498)
T
AB
AH
Process
Wastewater
Storage
Cooling
Tower
36
(17,993)
4,858
(2,428,028)
Evaporation &
Drift
3,715
(1,856,757)
date
1,143
(571,271)
X
detailed
M. Boyd
6/29/2006
designed
M. Boyd
checked
B. Hansen
1,179
(589,264)
1,190
(594,762)
Z
Wastewater
Discharge to
Outfall
550 MW (net) IGCC

Gulf Coast, Texas
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
--B
WMB-2.2
PRELIMINARY
sheet
file
of
sheets
no. |
date
A | 6/23/06 | mab | |
Initial Issue
5,800
(2,898,840)
Raw Water
Influent
5,785
(2,891,343)
Cartridge
Filtration
AJ
5,695
(2,846,361)
K
5,136
(2,566,973)
S
AD
Non-recoverable
Losses
3
(1,499)
Sour Water
Condensate Recycle
90
(44,982)
785
(392,343)
226
(112,955)
7
(3,499)
AE
Potable
Water
Treatment
AK
4,910
(2,454,018)
74
(36,985)
Service
Water
Storage
3
(1,499)
AF
Slag Quench
(Non-recoverable)
44
(21,991)
16
(7,997)

CONDITIONS.
POUND.
Gasifier Units
AI
O
559
(279,388)
234
(116,953)
On-site Septic
System
NOTES:
Demineralizer
System
(RO/EDI)
54
(26,989)
11
(5,498)
Syngas
Treatment
18
(8,996)
36
(17,993)
Demineralized
Water
Storage
AA
20
(9,996)
5,147
(2,572,471)
Condenser
211
(105,458)
Coal
Storage
Area
B
Oil/Water
Separator
Syngas Saturation
(Non-Recoverable)
Syngas Burner
(Non-Recoverable)
J
16
(7,997)
18
(8,996)
7
(3,499)
78
(38,984)
12
(5,998)
AC
Non-recoverable
Losses
AG
278
(138,944)
20
(9,996)
HRSG Units
11
(5,498)
T
AB
AH
Process
Wastewater
Storage
Cooling
Tower
36
(17,993)
5,436
(2,716,913)
Evaporation &
Drift
4,155
(2,076,669)
date
1,281
(640,244)
X
detailed
M. Boyd
6/29/2006
designed
M. Boyd
checked
B. Hansen
1,317
(658,237)
1,329
(664,234)
Z
Wastewater
Discharge to
Outfall
550 MW (net) IGCC

Gulf Coast, Texas
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
--B
WMB-2.3
PRELIMINARY
sheet
file
of
sheets
PRB
Flow Path
Flow Description
50-50 PRB-Petcoke
43F
73F
93F
43F
73F
93F
Flowrate
(GPM)
Flowrate
(GPM)
Flowrate
(GPM)
Flowrate
(GPM)
Flowrate
(GPM)
Flowrate
(GPM)
4391
4983
5580
4619
5231
5800
Water Supply
Filter Reject to Outfall
11
12
10
11
12
Service Water
90
90
90
90
90
90
Service Water for Coal Storage
16
16
16
16
16
16
Service Water to Slag Quench
54
54
54
54
54
54
Demin. Reject
199
193
190
238
230
226
Demin Storage Influent
493
478
471
589
569
559
Condenser Influent
38
36
36
38
37
36
HRSG Blowdown
11
11
11
11
11
11
CT Evaporation & Drift
3135
3595
4055
3235
3715
4155
Wastewater w/ Filter Reject to Outfall
1007
1153
1297
1039
1190
1329
AA
Demin Water to Syngas Scrubber
234
234
234
234
234
234
AB
Syngas Scrubber Effluent
278
278
278
278
278
278
AC
Demin Water for Syngas Saturation
188
177
171
231
217
211
AD
Gasifier Blowdown
12
11
11
12
11
11
AG
Water for Syngas Burner
33
31
30
86
81
78
AH
Combined CT Make-up
4097
4701
5304
4228
4858
5436
AJ
Raw Water Influent to Potable Water Treatment
AK
Effluent to on-site Septic System
D
ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAMS
D-1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
date
by
08/04/06 RDM
ckd
-
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
A
LINE #2
LINE #1
192/256/320MVA
345-22kV
153/204/255MVA
345-22kV
153/204/255MVA
345-22kV
Millimeters
45/60/75
22-13.8KV
45/60/75
22-13.8KV
F
320MVA
22KV
255MVA
22KV
STG
120MVA
345-13.8kV
255MVA
22KV
CTG 2
CTG 1
120MVA
345-13.8kV
Inches
60MVA
345-13.8kV
60MVA
345-13.8kV
I
2000/2666KVA
13,800-480V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
2000/2666KVA
13,800-480V
40,000
12,000
40,000
40,000
12,000
40,000
MAC
COMPR. 1
BAC
COMPR. 1
NITROGEN
AIR
COMPR. 1
MAC
COMPR. 2
BAC
COMPR. 2
NITROGEN
AIR
COMPR. 2
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
15/20MVA
13,800-4160V
2000/2666KVA
13,800-480V
EE004
EE013
EE002
EE003
TO GASIFICATION
SWGR
TO COAL
HANDLING SWGR
TO SULFUR &
SLAG SWGR
COPYRIGHT ' 2006 BURNS AND McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
2000/2666KVA
13,800-480V
TO BOP
SWGR
EE006
EE005
EE005
EE006
EE003
EE002
EE013
EE004
TO POWER
BLOCK SWGR B
TO POWER
BLOCK SWGR A
TO POWER
BLOCK SWGR A
TO POWER
BLOCK SWGR B
TO COAL
HANDLING SWGR
TO GASIFICATION
SWGR
TO BOP
SWGR
TO SULFUR &
SLAG SWGR
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VERMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
EPRI / CPS IGCC STUDY
OVERALL
ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE001
sheet
of
file 42127EE001.DGN
M:\EPRI-CPS\42127\CAD\ELEC\ONE-LINES\42127EE001.DGN 8-03-2006 15:23 V_VERMIL
A
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
EE001
EE001
date
by
ckd
08/04/06 RDM
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
13,800 GASIFICATION SWGR
1250
1250
13.8KV
GASIFICATION
LOADS A
13.8KV
GASIFICATION
LOADS B
2000/2666KVA
13,800-480V
Millimeters
2000/2666KVA
13,800-480V
480V
GASIFICATION MCCs
480V
GASIFICATION MCCs
Inches
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VERMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
GASIFICATION
13.8KV SWGR
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE002
sheet
of
file 42127EE002.DGN
A
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
EE001
EE001
date
by
08/04/06 RDM
ckd
-
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
4160V COAL HANDLING SWGR
D
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
2000
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
GRINDING
MILL 1
2000
GRINDING
MILL 2
Millimeters
480V COAL HANDLING SWGR
Inches
P
250
RECLAIM
CONV.
250
STOCKOUT
CONV.
EE009
COAL HANDLING
& GRINDING
MCC A
Q
150
RECLAIM DUST
COLLECTION
200
UNLDG.
CONV.
150
TRANSFER
CONVEYOR
OTHER COAL
HANDLING & GRINDING
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VERMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
COAL HANDLING
4160V SWGR
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE003
sheet
of
file 42127EE003.DGN
A
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
EE001
EE001
date
by
08/04/06 RDM
ckd
-
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
4160V SULFUR & SLAG SWGR
D
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
4160V
SULFUR & SLAG
LOADS 1A
4160V
SULFUR & SLAG
LOADS 1B
TO SLAG & SULFUR

480V MCCs
Millimeters
TO SLAG & SULFUR

480V MCCs
Inches
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VEMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
SULFUR & SLAG

4160V SWGR
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE004
sheet
of
file 42127EE004.DGN
A
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
EE001
EE001
date
by
08/04/06 RDM
ckd
-
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
4160V POWER BLOCK SWGR. A
Millimeters
E
2500
350
750
2500
2500
1000
2500
2500
750
350
500
1000
CIRC.
WATER
PUMP
WELL
PP1A
CTG 1
ATOMIZING
AIR
HP/IP
FEEDWATER
PUMP 2A
HP/IP
FEEDWATER
PUMP 1A
AUX. COOLING
WATER PUMP 1A
HP/IP
FEEDWATER
PUMP 1B
HP/IP
FEEDWATER
PUMP 2B
CTG 2
ATOMIZING
AIR
WELL
PP1B
CONDENSATE
PUMP
AUX. COOLING
WATER PUMP 1B
CTG 2
STATION SERVICE
TRANSF. 2A
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
CTG 1
STATION SERVICE
TRANSF. 1A
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
Inches
480V POWER BLOCK SWGR. A
BB
GG
DD
FF
II
200
PWR BLK
MCC
CTG 2
MCC
CTG 1
MCC
200
CTG 1
MCC
CTG 1
WATER
INJ PP
CTG 2
MCC
J
CTG 2
WATER
INJ PP
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VERMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
EE
CC
HH
JJ
CTG 1
MCC
EMERGENCY
MCCs
CTG 2
MCC
STG
MCC
POWER BLOCK
SWITCHGEAR A
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE005
sheet
of
file 42127EE005.DGN
A
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
EE001
EE001
date
by
08/04/06 RDM
ckd
-
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
4160V POWER BLOCK SWGR B
PP
Millimeters
COOLING
TOWER
MCC 18
QQ
1000
750
2500
500
500
CLOSED
COOLING
WATER
PUMP 1A
CTG 1
ATOMIZING
AIR
CIRCULATING
WATER
PUMP 1C
CONDENSATE
PUMP 1A
CONDENSATE
PUMP 1B
2500
CIRCULATING
WATER
PUMP 1B
1000
350
CLOSED
COOLING WATER
PUMP 1B
WELL
PP1C
COOLING
TOWER
MCC 28
CTG 2
STATION SERVICE
TRANSF. 2B
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
CTG 1
STATION SERVICE
TRANSF. 1B
2000/2666KVA
4160-480V
Inches
480V SWGR. B
MM
KK
NN
LL
HRSG 1
MCC
STG 1A
MCC
HRSG 2
MCC
STG 1B
MCC
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VERMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
POWER BLOCK
SWITCHGEAR B
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE006
sheet
of
file 42127EE006.DGN
A
sheets
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
no.
A
EE001
EE001
date
by
08/04/06 RDM
ckd
-
description
ISSUED FOR
APPROVAL
RR
WATER TREATMENT
MCC
CONTROL RM/
ADMIN BLDG
PNL
WAREHOUSE
PNL
FIRE PUMP
SKID
D
E
BOP MCC B
Millimeters
BOP MCC A
40A
3A
40A
3
1
Inches
30
FLARE KO DRUM PUMP
CONDENSATE TRANSFER
PUMP 1
480-208/120V
30KVA 3 PH,
DRY TYPE
30
25
CONDENSATE TRANSFER
PUMP 2
WELL PUMP 4
POTABLE WATER
10WWW-PMP4
WELL PUMP
HOUSE #1 PANEL
480-208/120V
30KVA 3 PH,
DRY TYPE
WELL PUMP
HOUSE #2 PANEL
J
NOTES:
K
1.
FOR GENERAL SYMBOLS AND LEGENDS, REFER TO DWG. E001.
2.
NEMA 1 ENCLOSURE.
3.
INCOMING MAIN POWER CABLES ARE TOP ENTRY.
date
detailed
JUNE 28, 2006
V. VERMILLION
designed
checked
R. MAHALEY
--
BALANCE OF PLANT
480V SWITCHGEAR & MCC
project
contract
42127
drawing
rev.
EE007
sheet
of
file 42127EE007.DGN
A
sheets
E
CAPITAL COST DETAIL
E-1
EPRI/CPS - 2x1 7FB IGCC Cost Estimate Summary - 100% PRB
Project Desc:
550 MW (Net) 2x1 7FB IGCC - 100% PRB
Client:
EPRI / CPS Energy
Date:
Project #:
42127
Estimate By:
J. Schwarz
Revision:
Account /
Contract
Labor
Material
07/20/06
0
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Dollars
Indirect $
Dollars
Description
Dollars
Manhours
Dollars
PROCUREMENT
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
FLA
Major Equipment
Gas Turbine - Generator
Steam Turbine - Generator
Steam Generator / Heat Recovery Steam Generator
Flue Gas Desulfurization System
Particulate Removal (Baghouse or Precip)
SCR / CO Catalyst
Bypass Stack
Stack
Surface Condenser & Air Removal Equipment
Cooling Tower
Flare
110
111
112
112A
113
114
115
116
117
118
Mechanical Procurement
Boiler Feed Pumps
Condensate Pumps
Circulating Water Pumps
Aux Cooling Water Pumps
Miscellaneous Pumps
Compressed Air Equipment
Deaerator
Closed Feedwater Heaters
Auxiliary Boiler
Heat Exchangers
1201
1202
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
Electrical & Control Procurement

GSU Transformers
Auxiliary Transformers
Generator Breakers
Iso Phase Bus Duct
Small (480 V & 5 kV) Power Transformers
Emergency Diesel Generator
Medium Voltage Metal-Clad Switchgear
480 V Switchgear & Transformers
480 V Motor Control Center
Electrical Control Boards
Battery & UPS System
Freeze Protection System
Relay & Metering Panels
86,000,000
22,950,840
28,080,000
4,138,000
3,169,814
367,500
819,052
649,251
250,000
330,000
1,896,000
18,000,000
4,160,000
1,200,000
5,390,000
7,915,000
6,905,000
620,000
1,075,000
1 of 5
10,133,333
6,102,434
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
86,000,000
22,950,840
28,080,000
4,138,000
10,133,333
6,102,434
3,169,814
367,500
819,052
649,251
250,000
330,000
1,896,000
18,000,000
4,160,000
1,200,000
5,390,000
7,915,000
6,905,000
620,000
1,075,000
CPS 2x1 7FB IGCC - 100% PRB (working) R0.xls
Account /
Contract
135
136
137
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Dollars
Distributed Control System
Continuous Emission Monitors
Instrumentation
140
141
142
143
144
Natural Gas Equipment Procurement

Gas Compressors
Fuel Gas Filter/Separator
Fuel Gas Dewpoint Heater
Fuel Gas Efficiency Heater
Fuel Flow Measurement / Monitoring Equipment
145
146
147
Material Handling
Coal Handling Equipment
Ash Handling Equipment
Limestone / Lime Handling Equipment
156
157
158
Water Treatment & Chemical Storage

Raw Water Treatment
RO/EDI or Demineralizer
Condensate Polisher
Chemical Feed Equipment (Boiler Cycle)
Ammonia Supply & Storage
CO2 Supply & Storage
Chemical Feed Equipment
Sample Analysis Panel
Wastewater Treatment Equipment
160
161
162
163
170
171
172
173
174
180
181
182
183
Misc Mechanical
Critical Pipe
Balance of Plant Pipe
Pipe Supports
Circulating Water Pipe
High Pressure Valves
Low Pressure Valves
Large Butterfly Valves (>24")
Control Valves
Steam Turbine Bypass Valves
Shop Fabricated Tanks
Oil/Water Separator
Closed Cooling Water Heat Exchanger
Piping Specials
190
191
192
Fire Protection
Fire Protection System
Fire Pumps
Flammable/Combustible Storage Enclosure
195
196
197
Structural Procurement
Bridge Crane
Structural Steel
Fixators
150
151
152
153
154
155
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Dollars
Indirect $
Total
Description
Manhours
1,366,075
572,900
611,725
214,864
59,000
982,500
754,000
146,462
20,000
270,000
200,000
12,000
7,425,524
532,000
3,591,000
165,000
1,151,500
300,000
626,360
630,000
205,000
58,000
2,228,100
165,500
1,357,960
216,300
1,485,138
117,000
2 of 5
Dollars
-
31,600,000
5,000,000
-
Dollars
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,366,075
572,900
611,725
214,864
31,659,000
5,000,000
982,500
754,000
146,462
20,000
270,000
200,000
12,000
7,425,524
532,000
3,591,000
165,000
1,151,500
300,000
626,360
630,000
205,000
58,000
2,228,100
165,500
1,357,960
216,300
1,485,138
117,000
Account /
Contract
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Description
Dollars
Manhours
Dollars
Dollars
CONSTRUCTION
ASU
GAS
SGT
Sub-EPC Packages
Gasification
Syngas Treatment
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Major Equipment Erection

Combustion Turbine Generator Erection
Steam Turbine - Generator Erection
Steam Generator / HRSG Erection
FGD System Erection
Particulate Removal (Baghouse or Precip) Erection
SCR / CO Catalyst Erection
Chimney
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
220
221
222
223

Site Preparation
Piling
Substructures
Underground Utilities
Yard Structures
Foundations
Railroad
Structural Steel
Power Plant Structures
Pre-engineered Buildings
Sanitary Drains / Treatment
290
291
299
Final Painting
Final Paving, Landscaping & Cleanup
Demolition
2301
2310
231
232
260
Misc Mechanical Equipment Erection
Below Grade Piping
Above Grade Piping
Insulation and Lagging
Field Erected Tanks
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
Electrical Equipment Erection
Wire / Cable
Grounding
Raceway
Lighting
Heat Tracing
Instrumentation
Switchyard
7,488
3,154,045
4,068,872
338,331
988,000
486,405
373,650
6,475,923
760,000
250,000
2,223,970
230,285
57,124
-
3 of 5
72,651
31,875
165,750
297,345
188,696
24,831
18,896
1,695
63,463
73,953
247,098
36,210
69,459
47,350
14,216
9,410
-
3,324,536
1,458,605
8,825,957
12,717,757
8,601,390
1,097,378
840,172
72,487
2,904,083
3,288,263
10,986,993
1,656,923
3,179,171
2,167,145
650,680
430,586
-
Indirect $
-
102,400,000
354,306,139
149,993,742
17,000
500,000
40,313,746
3,301,520
189,900
10,040,500
6,783,360
1,170,000
389,928
1,071,134
1,373,690
765,000
2,260,000
10,000
10,890,000
-
Dollars
-
1,773,346
778,037
4,045,792
182,817
1,549,071
1,805,122
6,031,409
773,415
1,097,335
1,405,157
281,909
156,067
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
102,400,000
354,306,139
149,993,742
5,122,369
2,236,642
13,371,748
56,185,548
3,301,520
12,860,162
10,040,500
1,435,708
6,783,360
3,180,990
948,819
4,453,154
6,538,169
24,868,015
3,955,338
2,260,000
4,526,506
5,796,271
1,162,874
653,777
10,890,000
-
Account /
Contract
Dollars
EPC CONTRACTOR INDIRECT COSTS

5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5012
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
Field Office Expense
Temporary Facilities
Temporary Utilities
Construction Equipment / Operators
Heavy Haul
Small Tools & Consumables
Labor Per Diem & Benefits
Site Services
Construction Testing
Preoperational Testing, Startup, & Calibration
Safety
Miscellaneous Construction Indirects
5050
5051
5052
5053
5064
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
Project Indirects
Site Surveys/Studies
Performance Testing
Project Management & Engineering
Training
Warranty
Project Insurance
Project Bonds
Escalation
Sales Tax
EPC Contingency
EPC Fee
TOTAL EPC PROJECT COST
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Dollars
Indirect $
Dollars
Description
Manhours
Dollars
146,400
40,000,000
-
1,530
-
70,011
-
24,714,000
2,954,590
1,331,911
500,000
8,016,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
2,961,450
57,099,042
119,907,989
278,939,856
1,364,428
62,272,136
957,896,409
4 of 5
19,879,477
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
24,714,000
2,954,590
1,331,911
500,000
8,232,411
700,000
600,000
40,000,000
500,000
2,961,450
57,099,042
119,907,989
1,318,987,878
Account /
Contract
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
Dollars
Owner Indirects
Project Development
Owner Personnel
Owners OE
Owners Legal Council
Owner Startup Engineering
Permitting & License Fees
Land
Water Rights
Political Concessions / Area Development Fees / Labor Camps
Startup/Testing
Site Security
Transmission Interconnection / Upgrades
Permanent Plant Equipment & Furnishings
Escalation Owner's Indirects
Sales Tax & Duties
Owner Contingency
Financing Fees
Interest During Construction
TOTAL OWNER COST
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Dollars
Indirect $
Total
Description
Manhours
Dollars
10,055,869
4,600,000
-
3,000,000
7,200,000
23,000,000
2,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
5,186,487
10,927,224
1,728,000
5,935,445
70,201,545
-
14,655,869
140,588,702

TOTAL OWNER'S COST
$
$
278,939,856
14,655,869
1,364,428 $ 62,272,136
$
-
$
$
PROJECT TOTAL
293,595,725
1,364,428
5 of 5
$ 62,272,136
Dollars
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
155,244,571
957,896,409 $ 19,879,477
140,588,702 $
1,098,485,111
3,000,000
7,200,000
23,000,000
2,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
5,186,487
10,927,224
1,728,000
10,055,869
4,600,000
5,935,445
70,201,545
-
$ 19,879,477
$
$
1,318,987,878
155,244,571
1,474,232,449
EPRI/CPS - 2x1 7FB IGCC Cost Estimate Summary - 50% PRB / 50% Pet Coke
Project Desc:
550 MW (Net) 2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB/50% Petcoke
Client:
EPRI / CPS Energy
Date:
Project #:
42127
Estimate By:
J. Schwarz
Revision:
Account /
Description
Contract
Labor
Material
Dollars
Manhours
Dollars
07/20/06
0
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Dollars
Indirect $
Dollars
PROCUREMENT
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
FLA
Major Equipment
SCR / CO Catalyst
Bypass Stack
Stack
Cooling Tower
Flare
110
111
112
112A
113
114
115
116
117
118
Boiler Feed Pumps
Condensate Pumps
Aux Cooling Water Pumps
Miscellaneous Pumps
Deaerator
Auxiliary Boiler
Heat Exchangers
1201
1202
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131

GSU Transformers
Generator Breakers
Iso Phase Bus Duct
86,000,000
22,950,840
28,080,000
4,138,000
3,169,814
367,500
819,052
649,251
250,000
330,000
1,896,000
18,000,000
4,160,000
1,200,000
5,820,000
8,465,000
8,355,000
620,000
1,075,000
1 of 5
10,133,333
6,102,434
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
86,000,000
22,950,840
28,080,000
4,138,000
10,133,333
6,102,434
3,169,814
367,500
819,052
649,251
250,000
330,000
1,896,000
18,000,000
4,160,000
1,200,000
5,820,000
8,465,000
8,355,000
620,000
1,075,000
CPS 2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB - 50% Pet Coke (working) R0.xls
Account /
Description
Contract
135
136
137
140
141
142
143
144

Gas Compressors
145
146
147
Material Handling
Limestone / Lime Handling Equipment
156
157
158

Raw Water Treatment
Condensate Polisher
Chemical Feed Equipment
160
161
162
163
170
171
172
173
174
180
181
182
183
Misc Mechanical
Critical Pipe
Pipe Supports
Low Pressure Valves
Control Valves
Oil/Water Separator
Piping Specials
190
191
192
Fire Protection
Fire Pumps
195
196
197
Bridge Crane
Structural Steel
Fixators
150
151
152
153
154
155
Burns McDonnell
Confidential

Instrumentation
Labor
Material
Dollars
1,391,075
572,900
662,725
214,864
118,000
982,500
754,000
146,462
20,000
270,000
200,000
12,000
7,425,524
532,000
3,591,000
165,000
1,151,500
300,000
626,360
630,000
205,000
58,000
2,228,100
165,500
1,857,960
216,300
1,485,138
117,000
2 of 5
Manhours
-
Dollars
-
Subcontract
Subcontract
Dollars
Indirect $
41,100,000
3,077,861
-
Total
Dollars
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,391,075
572,900
662,725
214,864
41,218,000
3,077,861
982,500
754,000
146,462
20,000
270,000
200,000
12,000
7,425,524
532,000
3,591,000
165,000
1,151,500
300,000
626,360
630,000
205,000
58,000
2,228,100
165,500
1,857,960
216,300
1,485,138
117,000
Account /
Description
Contract
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Dollars
Manhours
Subcontract
Dollars
Dollars
CONSTRUCTION
ASU
GAS
SGT
Sub-EPC Packages
Gasification
Syngas Treatment
200
201
202
203
204
205
206

FGD System Erection
Chimney
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
220
221
222
223

Site Preparation
Piling
Substructures
Yard Structures
Foundations
Railroad
Structural Steel
290
291
299
Final Painting
Demolition
2301
2310
231
232
260
Below Grade Piping
Above Grade Piping
Field Erected Tanks
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
Wire / Cable
Grounding
Raceway
Lighting
Heat Tracing
Instrumentation
Switchyard
7,488
3,121,355
4,417,676
338,331
988,000
486,405
373,650
6,475,923
760,000
250,000
2,223,970
230,285
57,124
-
3 of 5
72,651
31,875
165,750
296,428
218,646
24,831
18,896
1,695
63,463
73,953
247,098
36,210
76,018
47,350
14,216
10,152
-
Subcontract
3,324,536
1,458,605
8,825,957
12,678,548
9,966,627
1,097,378
840,172
72,487
2,904,083
3,288,263
10,986,993
1,656,923
3,479,360
2,167,145
650,680
464,542
-
Total
Indirect $
-
102,400,000
306,357,314
158,147,910
17,000
500,000
40,009,951
3,499,160
204,460
10,040,500
6,783,360
1,170,000
389,928
1,071,134
1,373,690
765,000
2,260,000
20,000
10,890,000
-
Dollars
-
1,773,346
778,037
4,045,792
182,817
1,549,071
1,805,122
6,031,409
773,415
1,193,395
1,405,157
281,909
166,933
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
102,400,000
306,357,314
158,147,910
5,122,369
2,236,642
13,371,748
55,809,853
3,499,160
14,588,763
10,040,500
1,435,708
6,783,360
3,180,990
948,819
4,453,154
6,538,169
24,868,015
3,955,338
2,260,000
4,922,755
5,796,271
1,162,874
708,598
10,890,000
-
Account /
Description
Contract

5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5012
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
Temporary Utilities
Heavy Haul
Labor Per Diem & Benefits
Site Services
Safety
5050
5051
5052
5053
5064
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
Project Indirects
Performance Testing
Training
Warranty
Project Insurance
Project Bonds
Escalation
Sales Tax
EPC Contingency
EPC Fee
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Dollars
Manhours
Dollars
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Dollars
Indirect $
Dollars
146,400
40,000,000
-
1,530
-
70,011
-
24,714,000
2,954,590
1,331,911
500,000
8,016,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
2,890,860
55,738,004
117,049,808
282,320,970
1,400,762
63,932,307
921,308,208
4 of 5
19,986,403
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
24,714,000
2,954,590
1,331,911
500,000
8,232,411
700,000
600,000
40,000,000
500,000
2,890,860
55,738,004
117,049,808
1,287,547,889
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
Labor
Material
Account /
Description
Contract
Dollars
Owner Indirects
Project Development
Owner Personnel
Owners OE
Land
Water Rights
Startup/Testing
Site Security
Sales Tax & Duties
Owner Contingency
Financing Fees
TOTAL OWNER COST
Manhours
Dollars
10,123,491
4,600,000
-
14,723,491
282,320,970
14,723,491
1,400,762 $ 63,932,307
$
-
$
$
PROJECT TOTAL
297,044,462
1,400,762
5 of 5
Dollars
Indirect $
124,778,124
$
$
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Subcontract
3,000,000
7,200,000
23,000,000
2,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
(3,499,854)
6,191,274
1,728,000
5,793,965
67,954,738
-

TOTAL OWNER'S COST
$ 63,932,307
Subcontract
Dollars
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
921,308,208 $ 19,986,403
124,778,124 $
1,046,086,333
Total
$ 19,986,403
3,000,000
7,200,000
23,000,000
2,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
(3,499,854)
6,191,274
1,728,000
10,123,491
4,600,000
5,793,965
67,954,738
-
139,501,616
$
$
1,287,547,889
139,501,616
1,427,049,505
EPRI/CPS - 550 MW Supercritical PC Cost Estimate Summary - 100% PRB
Project Desc:
550 MW (Net) Supercritical PC - 100% PRB
Client:
EPRI / CPS Energy
Date:
Project #:
42127
Estimate By:
J. Schwarz
Revision:
Account /
Contract
Labor
Material
07/20/06
0
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Dollars
Indirect $
Dollars
Description
Dollars
Manhours
Dollars
PROCUREMENT
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Major Equipment
SCR / CO Catalyst
Bypass Stack
Stack
Cooling Tower
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Boiler Feed Pumps
Condensate Pumps
Miscellaneous Pumps
Deaerator
Auxiliary Boiler
Heat Exchangers
1201
1202
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131

GSU Transformers
Generator Breakers
Iso Phase Bus Duct
40,043,000
182,631,579
5,800,000
3,275,768
420,000
1,300,000
800,600
990,000
362,887
2,854,904
270,000
9,450,000
3,100,000
2,035,000
6,295,000
3,965,000
1,785,000
115,836
1,105,000
405,000
1 of 5
10,000,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,043,000
182,631,579
5,800,000
10,000,000
3,275,768
420,000
1,300,000
800,600
990,000
362,887
2,854,904
270,000
9,450,000
3,100,000
2,035,000
6,295,000
3,965,000
1,785,000
115,836
1,105,000
405,000
550MW Super PC Cost Estimate - Greenfield.xls
Account /
Contract
135
136
137
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Dollars
Indirect $
Total
Description
Dollars
Instrumentation
140
141
142
143
144

Gas Compressors
145
146
147
Material Handling
Limestone Handling Equipment
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

Raw Water Treatment
Condensate Polisher
Chemical Feed Equipment (Cooling Tower)
160
161
162
163
170
171
172
173
174
180
181
182
183
Misc Mechanical
Critical Pipe
Pipe Supports
Low Pressure Valves
Control Valves
Oil/Water Separator
Piping Specials
190
191
192
Fire Protection
Fire Pumps
195
196
197
Bridge Crane
Structural Steel
Fixators
Manhours
Dollars
Dollars
5,301,000
600,000
1,108,310
792,500
754,000
2,225,309
190,000
301,899
30,200
250,000
12,000
-
32,000,000
10,630,000
3,899,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,301,000
600,000
1,108,310
32,000,000
10,630,000
3,899,000
792,500
754,000
2,225,309
190,000
301,899
30,200
250,000
12,000
-
6,857,723
542,190
3,195,000
1,633,159
3,287,242
792,000
1,266,411
206,000
101,500
1,584,920
325,000
1,967,360
-
2,500,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,857,723
542,190
3,195,000
1,633,159
3,287,242
792,000
1,266,411
206,000
101,500
1,584,920
2,500,000
325,000
1,967,360
-
2 of 5
Account /
Contract
Dollars
CONSTRUCTION
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Description
200
201
202
203
204
205
206

FGD System Erection
Chimney
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
220
221
222
223

Site Preparation
Piling
Substructures
Yard Structures
Foundations
Railroad
Structural Steel
290
291
299
Final Painting
Demolition
2301
2310
231
232
260
Below Grade Piping
Above Grade Piping
Field Erected Tanks
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
Wire / Cable
Grounding
Raceway
Lighting
Heat Tracing
Instrumentation
Switchyard
Manhours
-
3,208,315
10,409,116
1,172,632
12,544,401
520,000
886,405
457,718
19,432,376
781,708
6,627,351
345,613
1,788,353
311,520
700,000
-
3 of 5
83,105
335,390
491,846
47,801
180,063
9,945
2,320
131,127
52,729
504,760
116,243
63,342
354,129
19,187
193,824
16,245
9,563
13,868
-
Dollars
Dollars
-
4,091,681
15,065,704
20,694,597
2,286,786
8,614,204
546,580
104,192
6,883,668
2,854,928
27,741,082
5,410,223
3,117,057
17,426,660
944,212
9,538,073
799,429
470,570
682,463
-
Indirect $
-
720,000
164,368,421
15,000,000
40,392,509
10,000,000
10,040,500
70,000
10,556,140
1,500,000
435,928
600,000
1,499,100
83,100
4,840,000
-
Dollars
-
$
$
2,028,498
1,827,402
3,110,371
345,942
2,115,861
106,658
99,060
3,200,676
1,287,064
12,320,685
2,837,370
997,458
7,697,284
412,744
3,624,456
355,504
374,582
218,388
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,840,179
164,368,421
15,000,000
60,493,929
10,000,000
34,214,084
10,040,500
3,875,360
33,830,606
2,673,238
1,525,585
10,684,344
4,599,709
59,494,143
9,029,301
1,499,100
4,197,616
31,751,294
1,702,569
14,950,883
1,466,452
1,545,152
900,852
4,840,000
-
Account /
Contract
Dollars

5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
Temporary Utilities
Heavy Haul
Site Services
Safety
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
Project Indirects
Performance Testing
Training
Project Insurance
Project Bonds
Escalation
Sales Tax
EPC Contingency
EPC Fee
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Total
Dollars
Indirect $
Dollars
Description
Manhours
-
359,513,804
4 of 5
2,625,486
Dollars
-
127,272,110
24,712,644
2,754,590
1,250,000
500,000
8,786,000
700,000
300,000
38,115,000
225,000
2,408,182
46,431,601
97,506,363
542,824,078
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
42,960,002
24,712,644
2,754,590
1,250,000
500,000
8,786,000
700,000
300,000
38,115,000
225,000
2,408,182
46,431,601
97,506,363
1,072,569,994
Account /
Contract
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
Dollars
Owner Indirects
Project Development
Owner Operations Personnel
Owners OE
Land
Water Rights
Startup/Testing
Site Security
Sales Tax & Duties
Owner Contingency
Financing Fees
TOTAL OWNER COST
Burns McDonnell
Confidential
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Subcontract
Dollars
Indirect $
Total
Description
Manhours
Dollars
5,752,221
5,780,000
-
2,000,000
7,200,000
20,000,000
2,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
1,114,760
10,692,000
1,728,000
4,826,565
57,253,677
-
11,532,221
118,225,002
Dollars
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,000,000
7,200,000
20,000,000
2,000,000
2,910,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
1,114,760
10,692,000
1,728,000
5,752,221
5,780,000
4,826,565
57,253,677
-
129,757,223

TOTAL OWNER'S COST
$
$
359,513,804
11,532,221
2,625,486
-
$
$
127,272,110
-
$
$
542,824,078 $ 42,960,002
118,225,002 $
-
$
$
1,072,569,994
129,757,223
PROJECT TOTAL
371,046,025
2,625,486
127,272,110
661,049,080
1,202,327,217
5 of 5
$ 42,960,002
F
HEAT BALANCE DIAGRAMS
F-1
LEGEND
M- Mass Flow, pph
T- Temperature, F
P- Pressure, psia
H- Enthalpy, Btu/lb
COMPONENTS IN THE HRSG BELOW DO NOT REPRESENT THE

ACTUAL LAYOUT OF THE HRSG. ARRANGEMENT IS SCHEMATIC ONLY.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
G
A
C
D
279 T
Fuel Gas
Heater
PRHTR
LPEVAP
IPECON
HPECON
IPEVAP
LPSHTR
IPSHTR
HPECON
HPEVAP
COMP
HPSHTR
TURB
RHTR
HPSHTR
RHTR
STACK
405 T
SYNGAS
40
WET BULB TEMP, F
43
DRY BULB TEMP, F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
78%
ELEVATION, FT
100
GTG1 OUTPUT, kW
232,009
GTG2 OUTPUT, kW
232,009
STG OUTPUT, kW
272,581
GROSS PLANT OUTPUT, kW
736,599
POWER BLOCK AUX LOAD, kW
22,465
GASIFICATION BLOCK AUX POWER, kW
114,911
TOTAL AUX POWER, kW
137,376
GTG1 HEAT RATE, BTU/kWh (HHV)

358,332
1,038
2,001
1,499
FROM HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
826,495
1,031
588
1,535
FROM HRSG 2
N
DJ
K
J
M
T
P
H
FROM HRSG 2
H
TO HRSG 2
9,369
GTG1 HEAT CONS, MMBTU/h (HHV)
2,174
9,369
2,174
TOTAL COAL HEAT INPUT, MMBtu/h (HHV)
5,444
NET PLANT OUTPUT, kW
599,224
NET PLANT HEAT RATE, BTU/kWh (HHV)
9,085
BFP
38%
NET CYCLE EFFICIENCY
716,664
1,030
1,903
1,497
M
T
P
H
1,652,990
1,026
575
1,533
HPST
672,307
724
634
1,363
M
T
P
H
IPST
M
T
P
H
Aux Cooling Water Return

70,866,496 M
75 T
TO HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
SRU and TGTU LP Steam Production
1,223
Process Duty
(MMBtu/hr)
1.11
Hg Removal Preheater & Diluent N 2 Heater
160,767
14.25
Syngas Cooler and SRU IP Steam Production
494,039
404.1
TGTU HP Steam Requirements
1,272
2.05
Selexol and ASU IP Steam

ASU, Selexol, Sour Water Reboiler Water
Consumption
HCN Hydrolysis Preheater and Saturator Pump
Around Heater
58,872
52.1
26,370
25.4
312,172
97.4
F
G
EPRI / CPS Energy

COOLING TOWER
4,381
630
109
655
L
Stream
Syngas Condensing
& GTG Air Cooling
205 MMBTU/hr
LPST
IGCC Process Requirements
Flow Out (lb/hr)
2267 MMBTU/hr
2x1 7FB IGCC - Shell Gasification Process
BMCD PROJECT 42127
1630276 M
90 T
1.42 in HgA
1559 MMBTU/hr
70,866,496 M
65 T
Aux Cooling Water Supply
ST LEAKS
1,800,033 M
213 T
182 H
HEAT BALANCE DIAGRAM

100% PRB @ 43DB
DESIGNED: J. SCHWARZ
GSC
DATE
E
MODEL REV.
7/21/2006
LEGEND
M- Mass Flow, pph
T- Temperature, F
P- Pressure, psia
H- Enthalpy, Btu/lb

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
G
A
C
D
245 T
Fuel Gas
Heater
PRHTR
LPEVAP
IPECON
HPECON
IPEVAP
LPSHTR
IPSHTR
HPECON
HPEVAP
COMP
HPSHTR
TURB
RHTR
HPSHTR
RHTR
STACK
405 T
SYNGAS
69
WET BULB TEMP, F
73
DRY BULB TEMP, F
82%
ELEVATION, FT
100
GTG1 OUTPUT, kW
224,869
GTG2 OUTPUT, kW
224,869
STG OUTPUT, kW
260,134
709,872
21,952
134,861
TOTAL AUX POWER, kW
156,813

355,475
1,060
2,003
1,513
FROM HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
781,322
1,058
562
1,551
FROM HRSG 2
N
DJ
K
J
M
T
P
H
FROM HRSG 2
H
TO HRSG 2
9,057
2,037
9,057
2,037
5,100
553,059
9,222
BFP
37%
710,964
1,053
1,904
1,511
M
T
P
H
1,562,644
1,053
550
1,548
HPST
667,745
732
607
1,369
M
T
P
H
IPST
M
T
P
H

70,866,496 M
75 T
TO HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
1,118
Process Duty
(MMBtu/hr)
1.04
151,738
13.35
452,803
378.2
1,192
1.91

Consumption
Around Heater
55,337
50.1
26,370
25.4
296,062
91.3
F
G
EPRI / CPS Energy

COOLING TOWER
1,118
653
83
655
L
Stream
Syngas Condensing
& GTG Air Cooling
91 MMBTU/hr
LPST
Flow Out (lb/hr)
2130 MMBTU/hr
BMCD PROJECT 42127
1536088 M
104 T
2.18 in HgA
1471 MMBTU/hr
70,866,496 M
65 T
ST LEAKS
1,698,067 M
165 T
133 H

100% PRB @ 73DB
GSC
DATE
E
MODEL REV.
7/21/2006
LEGEND
M- Mass Flow, pph
T- Temperature, F
P- Pressure, psia
H- Enthalpy, Btu/lb

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
G
A
C
D
247 T
Fuel Gas
Heater
PRHTR
LPEVAP
IPECON
HPECON
IPEVAP
LPSHTR
IPSHTR
HPECON
HPEVAP
COMP
HPSHTR
TURB
RHTR
HPSHTR
RHTR
STACK
405 T
SYNGAS
77
WET BULB TEMP, F
93
DRY BULB TEMP, F
49%
ELEVATION, FT
100
GTG1 OUTPUT, kW
215,584
GTG2 OUTPUT, kW
215,584
STG OUTPUT, kW
250,374
681,542
21,763
131,381
TOTAL AUX POWER, kW
153,144

345,697
1,057
1,948
1,512
FROM HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
765,930
1,056
551
1,550
FROM HRSG 2
N
DJ
K
J
M
T
P
H
FROM HRSG 2
H
TO HRSG 2
9,149
1,972
9,149
1,972
4,940
528,398
9,348
BFP
37%
691,351
1,050
1,853
1,511
M
T
P
H
1,531,861
1,052
539
1,548
HPST
649,198
731
594
1,369
M
T
P
H
IPST
M
T
P
H

70,866,496 M
75 T
TO HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
1,087
Process Duty
(MMBtu/hr)
1.01
146,920
12.93
438,696
366.3
1,154
1.86

Consumption
Around Heater
53,707
48.7
26,370
25.4
291,102
88.4
F
G
EPRI / CPS Energy

COOLING TOWER
1,087
649
82
650
L
Stream
Syngas Condensing
& GTG Air Cooling
88 MMBTU/hr
LPST
Flow Out (lb/hr)
2156 MMBTU/hr
BMCD PROJECT 42127
1505624 M
109 T
2.53 in HgA
1448 MMBTU/hr
70,866,496 M
65 T
ST LEAKS
1,663,191 M
169 T
137 H

100% PRB @ 93DB
GSC
DATE
E
MODEL REV.
7/21/2006
LEGEND
M- Mass Flow, pph
T- Temperature, F
P- Pressure, psia
H- Enthalpy, Btu/lb

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
G
A
C
D
267 T
Fuel Gas
Heater
PRHTR
LPEVAP
IPECON
HPECON
IPEVAP
LPSHTR
IPSHTR
HPECON
HPEVAP
COMP
HPSHTR
TURB
RHTR
HPSHTR
RHTR
STACK
405 T
SYNGAS
40
WET BULB TEMP, F
43
DRY BULB TEMP, F
78%
ELEVATION, FT
100
GTG1 OUTPUT, kW
232,018
GTG2 OUTPUT, kW
232,018
STG OUTPUT, kW
270,141
734,177
22,026
115,159
TOTAL AUX POWER, kW
137,185

350,827
1,038
2,002
1,499
FROM HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
816,431
1,034
582
1,537
FROM HRSG 2
N
DJ
K
J
M
T
P
H
FROM HRSG 2
H
TO HRSG 2
9,319
2,162
9,319
2,162
5,341
596,993
8,946
BFP
38%
701,666
1,031
1,903
1,497
M
T
P
H
1,632,862
1,030
570
1,535
HPST
657,519
721
627
1,362
M
T
P
H
IPST
M
T
P
H

70,866,496 M
75 T
TO HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
6,007
Process Duty
(MMBtu/hr)
5.52
161,899
14.25
501,323
417.9
4,175
6.71

Consumption
Around Heater
95,654
86.0
26,370
25.4
311,661
96.5
F
G
EPRI / CPS Energy

COOLING TOWER
27,822
493
86
652
L
Stream
Syngas Condensing
& GTG Air Cooling
196 MMBTU/hr
LPST
Flow Out (lb/hr)
2186 MMBTU/hr
BMCD PROJECT 42127
1624996 M
89 T
1.37 in HgA
1556 MMBTU/hr
70,866,496 M
65 T
ST LEAKS
1,848,329 M
208 T
177 H

50% PRB 50% PET COKE @ 43DB
GSC
DATE
E
MODEL REV.
7/21/2006
LEGEND
M- Mass Flow, pph
T- Temperature, F
P- Pressure, psia
H- Enthalpy, Btu/lb

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
G
A
C
D
237 T
Fuel Gas
Heater
PRHTR
LPEVAP
IPECON
HPECON
IPEVAP
LPSHTR
IPSHTR
HPECON
HPEVAP
COMP
HPSHTR
TURB
RHTR
HPSHTR
RHTR
STACK
405 T
SYNGAS
69
WET BULB TEMP, F
73
DRY BULB TEMP, F
82%
ELEVATION, FT
100
GTG1 OUTPUT, kW
226,335
GTG2 OUTPUT, kW
226,335
STG OUTPUT, kW
258,397
711,067
21,867
136,178
TOTAL AUX POWER, kW
158,045

349,246
1,061
2,004
1,513
FROM HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
776,328
1,061
561
1,552
FROM HRSG 2
N
DJ
K
J
M
T
P
H
FROM HRSG 2
H
TO HRSG 2
8,971
2,030
8,971
2,030
5,016
553,022
9,070
BFP
38%
698,492
1,053
1,904
1,511
M
T
P
H
1,552,656
1,057
550
1,550
HPST
655,324
731
605
1,369
M
T
P
H
IPST
M
T
P
H

70,866,496 M
75 T
TO HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
5,512
Process Duty
(MMBtu/hr)
5.18
152,890
13.38
462,743
392.5
3,921
6.28

Consumption
Around Heater
90,058
81.4
26,370
25.4
296,225
90.7
F
G
EPRI / CPS Energy

COOLING TOWER
18,499
537
83
652
L
Stream
Syngas Condensing
& GTG Air Cooling
83 MMBTU/hr
LPST
Flow Out (lb/hr)
2164 MMBTU/hr
BMCD PROJECT 42127
1531101 M
104 T
2.18 in HgA
1467 MMBTU/hr
70,866,496 M
65 T
ST LEAKS
1,741,828 M
163 T
131 H

GSC
DATE
E
MODEL REV.
7/21/2006
LEGEND
M- Mass Flow, pph
T- Temperature, F
P- Pressure, psia
H- Enthalpy, Btu/lb

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
G
A
C
D
238 T
Fuel Gas
Heater
PRHTR
LPEVAP
IPECON
HPECON
IPEVAP
LPSHTR
IPSHTR
HPECON
HPEVAP
COMP
HPSHTR
TURB
RHTR
HPSHTR
RHTR
STACK
405 T
SYNGAS
77
WET BULB TEMP, F
93
DRY BULB TEMP, F
49%
ELEVATION, FT
100
GTG1 OUTPUT, kW
216,963
GTG2 OUTPUT, kW
216,963
STG OUTPUT, kW
248,701
682,628
21,649
132,813
TOTAL AUX POWER, kW
154,462

336,158
1,057
1,932
1,513
FROM HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
763,953
1,056
551
1,550
FROM HRSG 2
N
DJ
K
J
M
T
P
H
FROM HRSG 2
H
TO HRSG 2
9,075
1,969
9,075
1,969
4,864
528,165
9,209
BFP
37%
672,327
1,050
1,835
1,511
M
T
P
H
1,527,907
1,052
540
1,548
HPST
630,470
733
593
1,371
M
T
P
H
IPST
M
T
P
H

70,866,496 M
75 T
TO HRSG 2
M
T
P
H
5,355
Process Duty
(MMBtu/hr)
5.03
148,275
12.98
449,026
380.6
3,802
6.12

Consumption
Around Heater
87,441
79.1
26,370
25.4
292,901
87.9
F
G
EPRI / CPS Energy

COOLING TOWER
18,876
527
81
646
L
Stream
Syngas Condensing
& GTG Air Cooling
80 MMBTU/hr
LPST
Flow Out (lb/hr)
2195 MMBTU/hr
BMCD PROJECT 42127
1508008 M
109 T
2.52 in HgA
1450 MMBTU/hr
70,866,496 M
65 T
ST LEAKS
1,713,230 M
166 T
135 H

GSC
DATE
E
MODEL REV.
7/21/2006
G
O&M COST DETAIL
G-1
EPRI / CPS Energy

2x1 7FB IGCC
Operations and Maintenance Estimates
BMcD Project: 42127
2x1 7FB IGCC - 100% PRB
Operating Assumptions
Greenfield \ Brownfield
Basis Year
Plant Capacity Factor
Hours per Year
Greenfield
2006
85.0%
7446
Greenfield
2006
85.0%
7446
2
1
250,000
2
1
250,000
224,869
260,134
22.09%
0.00%
553,072
9,220
5,100
226,335
258,397
22.23%
0.00%
553,022
9,069
5,015
Net Facility Output, kW (Avg Ambient Conditions)

Net Facility Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
553,072
9,220
553,022
9,069
Net Annual Output, MWh (Total Facility)

Annual Fuel Consumption, MMBtu (Total Facility)
4,118,174
37,971,622
4,117,804
37,343,289
EPRI UDBS PRB

IGCC
Subcritical
Motor
N2 Injection
Selexol
N/A
50% PRB / 50% Pet Coke (by wt%)

IGCC
Subcritical
Motor
N2 Injection
Selexol
N/A
Number of Gasifiers
Number of Steam Turbines
Boiler Output, (Net kW Each)
Normal Operation
Gross Gas Turbine Output, kW (Each)
Gross Steam Turbine Output, kW (Each)
Auxiliary Load, %
Margin, %
Net Unit Output, kW
Net Unit Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
Unit Fuel Consumption, MMBtu/hr
Coal Type
Boiler Technology
Type of Boiler
Type of Feedwater Pump Drive
Type of NOx Control
Type of SO2 Control
Type of Particulate Control
Carbon Bed
Fiberglass
None
Landfill
Landfill
Type of Mercury Control

Cooling Tower Materials of Construction
Type of Sidestream Treatment
Fly Ash Disposal
Slag Disposal
IGCC O&M.XLS Rev 3 1/28/05
2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB / 50%

Pet Coke
Page 1 of 6
Carbon Bed
Fiberglass
None
Landfill
Landfill
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

2x1 7FB IGCC
BMcD Project: 42127
2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB / 50%
Pet Coke
Fixed O&M
Labor
# of People
Average Salary
Total Labor
126 People
$93,934/ Person
Office & Admin

Other Fixed O&M
126 People
$93,934/ Person
11,835,700
11,835,700
$
$
118,400
1,479,500
$
$
118,400
1,479,500
$
$
$
100,000
100,000
200,000
$
$
$
100,000
100,000
200,000
Employee Expenses \ Training

Contract Labor
Environmental Expenses
Safety Expenses
Buildings, Grounds, and Painting
Other Supplies & Expenses
Communication
Control Room \ Lab Expenses
Annual Steam Turbine Inspections

Annual Gasifier Inspections
Annual Syngas Cooling and Treatment Inspections
Start-up power demand charge
$/kW-Mo
kW
$
-
$/acre-ft
acre-ft
$/acre-ft
acre-ft
$/kWh
kWh
98,600
0.025
$/Month
Months
12
Property Taxes & Insurance

Total Fixed O&M Annual Cost
Page 2 of 6
By Owner
13,932,200
98,600
0.025
3,942,000
$
-
1,632
3,942,000
Standby Power Service Fee
1,581
Standby Power Energy Costs
7,172
$
-
6,832
Water discharge demand charge
8,000
$
-
8,000
Water supply demand charge
12
By Owner
13,932,200
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

2x1 7FB IGCC
BMcD Project: 42127
2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB / 50%
Pet Coke
Emissions Allowance Costs - Included in Variable O&M
Emissions Rates
NOx , lb/MMBtu
0.063
0.062
SOx , lb/MMBtu
0.019
0.023
CO2, lb/MMBtu
215
213
7.769E-07
4.962E-07
HG, lb/MMBtu
Emissions - TPY
NOx , TPY
1,196
SOx , TPY
361
429
CO2, TPY
4,086,517
3,980,767
29.50
18.53
NOx Allowance, $/ton-yr
$3,000
$3,000
SOx Allowance, $/ton-yr
$1,000
$1,000
CO2 Allowance, $/ton-yr
$0
$0
$20,000
$20,000
HG, lb/year
1,158
Emissions Allowance Costs
HG Allowance, $/lb-yr
Total Emissions Allowance Costs, $/yr
NOx Allowance Cost

SOx Allowance Cost
CO2 Allowance Cost
HG Allowance Cost
$
$
$
$
$
Total Annual Emissions Allowance Costs
Page 3 of 6
3,588,300
360,700
590,000
4,539,000
$
$
$
$
$
3,472,900
429,400
370,600
4,272,900
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

2x1 7FB IGCC
BMcD Project: 42127
2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB / 50%
Pet Coke
Major Maintenance Costs - Included in Variable O&M
Operating Hours
$/Turbine Hour
$/Boiler - Yr
# of Boilers
7446
35 $
200,000
$100,000
2
Gasifier Major Replacements
$/Replacement
Replacement Interval, years
885,800
$/Replacement
300,000
$/Replacement
$/Gas Turbine Hour
8,148,685
$/Replacement
375,000
$/Replacement
275,000
$/Replacement
530,300
$/Catalyst
Catalyst Life, years
320,000
$/Catalyst
320,000
$/Catalyst
275,000
530,300
320,000
$960,000
3
$960,000
3
Shift Catalyst
395,000
$1,060,666
2
$960,000
3
HCN Hydrolysis Catalyst
8,148,685
$275,000
1
$1,060,666
2
COS Hydrolysis Catalyst
300,000
$395,000
1
$275,000
1
765,900
$765,893
547
$375,000
1
Air Separation Unit
200,000
$1,500,000
5
$885,765
547
7446
35
$765,893
1
$1,500,000
5
260,400
$100,000
2
$885,765
1
260,400
320,000
$960,000
3
$
$0
3
$0
3
Demin Water Treatment System Replacements
3,600
3,600
Total Annual Major Maintenance Costs
11,618,785
11,518,885
Page 4 of 6
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

2x1 7FB IGCC
BMcD Project: 42127
2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB / 50%
Pet Coke
Other Variable O&M
Water Consumption, MMGal/yr
Raw Water Makeup, MMGal/yr
Raw Water Makeup Treatment, MMGal/yr
Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment, MMGal/yr
Potable Water, MMGal/yr
Wastewater Discharge, MMGal/yr
Cooling Tower Makeup, MMGal/yr
Demin Water Makeup Treatment, MMGal/yr
Boiler Treatment Makeup Treatment, MMGal/yr
2,226
2,226
0
1
515.11
2,100
38
20
2,337
2,337
0
1
531.64
2,170
38
20
$0.04
$0.01
$0.00
$1.00
$0.05
$0.55
$1.05
$7.4500
$0.04
$0.01
$0.00
$1.00
$0.05
$0.55
$1.05
$7.4500
Water Consumable \ Treatment Costs, $/kGal

Raw Water, $/kGal
Raw Water Makeup Treatment, $/kGal
Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment, $/kGal
Potable Water, $/kGal
Wastewater Discharge, $/kGal
Cooling Tower Makeup, $/kGal
Demin Water Treatment, $/kGal
Boiler Treatment Chemicals, $/kGal
Total Water Related Costs

Raw Water
Raw Water Make-up Treatment
Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment Chemicals
Potable Water
Water Discharge
Cooling Tower Treatment Chemicals
Demin Water Treatment
Boiler Treatment Chemicals
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
92,000
11,100
1,500
25,800
1,159,300
39,700
149,700
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
96,500
11,700
1,500
26,600
1,198,000
39,700
149,700
Maintenance & Consumables (lube oil, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc.)

ZLD System General Maintenance
Membrane Replacements, $/yr
General Maintenance, $/yr
Water Treatment System General Maintenance, $/yr
Cooling Tower System General Maintenance, $/unit-yr
Other Variable O&M (Electronics, Controls, BOP Electrical, Steam Generators, Misc.)
Page 5 of 6
$0
$0
$60,100
$45,100
$5,192,238
$60,100
$44,800
$5,250,717
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

2x1 7FB IGCC
BMcD Project: 42127
2x1 7FB IGCC - 50% PRB / 50%

Pet Coke
Other Variable O&M - (Cont.)

Consumable Consumption \ Disposal Rates
SCR Ammonia (Anhydrous), TPY
Sulfur, TPY
Fly Ash / Slag Sales, TPY
Fly Ash / Slag Disposal, TPY
0
8,390
0
138,213
0
58,728
0
56,884
$657.89
$0.00
$0.00
$11.29
$657.89
$0.00
$0.00
$11.29
Consumable \ Disposal Unit Costs

SCR Ammonia (Anhydrous), $/ton
Sulfur, $/ton
Fly Ash / Slag Sales, $/ton
Fly Ash / Slag Disposal, $/ton
Total Consumable \ Disposal Costs

Sulfur Sales / Disposal
Fly Ash / Slag Sales
Fly Ash / Slag Disposal
Total Other Variable O&M
$
$
$
$
1,560,200
$
$
$
$
642,100
8,336,738
7,521,417
$
$
13,932,200
25.19
$
$
13,932,200
25.19
$
$
24,494,523
5.95
$
$
23,313,202
5.66
Total Fixed O&M Cost

$/year
$/kW-yr
Total Variable O&M Cost

$/year
$/MWh
Page 6 of 6
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

550 MW Supercritical PC - 100% PRB
BMcD Project: 42127
550 PC-Wet Tower / Wet Scrubber - Greenfield
Greenfield \ Brownfield
Basis Year
Plant Capacity Factor
Hours per Year
Greenfield
2006
85.0%
7446
Number of Boilers
Number of Steam Turbines
Boiler Output, (Net kW Each)
Steam Turbine Output, (Net kW Each)
Net Facility Output, kW
1
1
550,000
550,000
550,000
Normal Operation
Gross Steam Turbine Output, kW (Each)
Gross Steam Turbine Heat Rate
Auxiliary Load, %
Margin, %
Net Unit Output, kW
Net Unit Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
Unit Fuel Consumption, MMBtu/hr
614,525
6,986
10.50%
0.00%
550,000
9,149
5,032
Net Facility Output, kW (Avg Ambient Conditions)

Net Facility Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
550,000
9,149
Net Annual Output, MWh (Total Facility)

Annual Fuel Consumption, MMBtu (Total Facility)
4,095,300
37,468,109
Coal Type
Boiler Technology
Type of Boiler
Type of Feedwater Pump Drive
Type of NOx Control
Type of SO2 Control
Type of Particulate Control
EPRI UDBS PRB

Pulverized Coal
Supercritical
Motor
SCR
Wet
Fabric Filter
Fabric Filter / Wet Scrubber
Fiberglass
None
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Type of Mercury Control

Cooling Tower Materials of Construction
Type of Sidestream Treatment
Fly Ash Disposal
Gypsum Disposal
Bottom Ash Disposal
PC Unit O&M_r1 (working).XLS Rev 3 1/28/05
Page 1 of 5
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

BMcD Project: 42127
Fixed O&M
Labor
# of People
Average Salary
Total Labor
103 People
$94,056/ Person
Office & Admin

Other Fixed O&M
9,687,800
$
$
96,900
1,211,000
$
$
$
100,000
80,000
100,000
Employee Expenses \ Training

Contract Labor
Environmental Expenses
Safety Expenses
Buildings, Grounds, and Painting
Other Supplies & Expenses
Communication
Control Room \ Lab Expenses
Annual Steam Turbine Inspections

Annual Boiler Inspections
Annual APC Inspections
Start-up power demand charge
$/kW-Mo
kW
64,200
Water supply demand charge
$/acre-ft
acre-ft
7,541
Water discharge demand charge
$/acre-ft
acre-ft
1,632
Standby Power Energy Costs
$/kWh
kWh
98,600
0.025
3,942,000
Standby Power Service Fee
$/Month
Months
12
Property Taxes & Insurance

Total Fixed O&M Annual Cost
Page 2 of 5
By Owner
11,374,300
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

BMcD Project: 42127
Emissions Allowance Costs - Included in Variable O&M
Emissions Rates
NOx , lb/MMBtu
0.050
SOx , lb/MMBtu
0.060
CO2, lb/MMBtu
213.5
HG, lb/MMBtu
2.315E-06
Emissions - TPY
NOx , TPY
937
SOx , TPY
1,128
CO2, TPY
3,998,878
HG, lb/year
86.73
Emissions Allowance Costs
NOx Allowance, $/ton-yr
$3,000
SOx Allowance, $/ton-yr
$1,000
CO2 Allowance, $/ton-yr
$0
HG Allowance, $/lb-yr
$20,000
Total Emissions Allowance Costs, $/yr
NOx Allowance Cost

SOx Allowance Cost
CO2 Allowance Cost
HG Allowance Cost
Total Annual Emissions Allowance Costs
$
$
$
$
$
2,810,100
1,127,900
1,734,700
5,672,700
339,200
Major Maintenance Costs - Included in Variable O&M

Operating Hours
$/Turbine Hour
$/Boiler - Yr
# of Boilers
893,900
$893,900
1
$/Replacement
253,400
$1,266,900
5
$/Catalyst
7446
46
312,000
$936,100
3
Demin Water Treatment System Replacements
4,300
Total Annual Major Maintenance Costs
1,802,800
Page 3 of 5
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

BMcD Project: 42127
Other Variable O&M
Water Consumption, MMGal/yr
Raw Water Makeup, MMGal/yr
Raw Water Makeup Treatment, MMGal/yr
Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment, MMGal/yr
Potable Water, MMGal/yr
Wastewater Discharge, MMGal/yr
Cooling Tower Makeup, MMGal/yr
Demin Water Makeup Treatment, MMGal/yr
Boiler Treatment Makeup Treatment, MMGal/yr
2,457
2,457
0
1
532
2,170
61
43
Water Consumable \ Treatment Costs, $/kGal

Raw Water, $/kGal
Raw Water Makeup Treatment, $/kGal
Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment, $/kGal
Potable Water, $/kGal
Wastewater Discharge, $/kGal
Cooling Tower Makeup, $/kGal
Demin Water Treatment, $/kGal
Boiler Treatment Chemicals, $/kGal
$0.041
$0.005
$0.000
$1.000
$0.050
$0.642
$1.050
$3.730
Total Water Related Costs

Raw Water
Raw Water Make-up Treatment
Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment Chemicals
Potable Water
Water Discharge
Cooling Tower Treatment Chemicals
Demin Water Treatment
Boiler Treatment Chemicals
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
101,500
12,300
1,500
26,600
1,393,400
63,600
160,600
Maintenance & Consumables (lube oil, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc.)

ZLD System General Maintenance
Membrane Replacements, $/yr
General Maintenance, $/yr
SCR System General Maintenance
General Maintenance, $./unit-yr
Scrubber System General Maintenance
Absorber, Dewatering & Accessories, $/unit-yr
Limestone Preparation, $/yr
Water Treatment System General Maintenance, $/yr
Cooling Tower System General Maintenance, $/unit-yr
Other Variable O&M (Electronics, Controls, BOP Electrical, Steam Generators, Misc.)
Page 4 of 5
$0
$64,200
$120,700
$342,400
$59,800
$47,700
$5,000,000
BURNS MCDONNELL
EPRI / CPS Energy

BMcD Project: 42127
Other Variable O&M - (Cont.)
Consumable Consumption \ Disposal Rates
Lime Consumption, TPY
Limestone Consumption, TPY
SCR Ammonia (Anhydrous), TPY
Halogenated Carbon Injection, TPY
29,150
1,584
0
Scrubber Sludge (Sales) / Disposal, TPY

Fly Ash Sales, TPY
Fly Ash Disposal, TPY
Bottom Ash (Sales) / Disposal, TPY
56,228
0
125,137
31,172
Consumable \ Disposal Unit Costs

Lime Consumption, $/ton
Limestone Consumption, $/ton
SCR Ammonia (Anhydrous), $/ton
Halogenated Carbon Injection, $/ton
$86.00
$18.00
$658
$1,545
Scrubber Sludge (Sales) / Disposal, $/ton

Fly Ash Sales, $/ton
Fly Ash Disposal, $/ton
Bottom Ash (Sales) / Disposal, $/ton
$11.29
$0.00
$11.29
$11.29
Total Consumable \ Disposal Costs

Lime Consumption
Halogenated Carbon Injection
$
$
$
524,700
1,041,800
-
Scrubber Sludge (Sales) / Disposal

Fly Ash Sales
Fly Ash Disposal
$
$
$
$
634,700
1,412,600
351,900
11,360,000
$
$
11,374,300
20.68
$
$
18,835,500
4.60
Total Other Variable O&M

Total Fixed O&M Cost
$/year
$/kW-yr
Total Variable O&M Cost

$/year
$/MWh
Page 5 of 5
BURNS MCDONNELL
H
SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL UNITS CONVERSION
TABLE
The heat and material balances included in this report are shown in British (English) units. The
following table can be used for conversion to SI units.
British Unit
-3
P, absolute pressure, psia, multiply by 6.895 x10
F, temperature, (F minus 32) divided by 1.8
H, enthalpy, Btu/lb, multiply H by 2.3260
W, total mass flow, lb/h, multiply W by 0.4536
Heat rate, Btu/kWh, multiply Btu/kWh by 1.0551
Air emissions, lb/MMBtu, multiply by 429.9
Flow, gal/minute, multiply by 0.06309
Metric Equivalent
= MPa (megapascals)
= C (Centigrade)
= kJ/kg (kilojoules/kilogram)
= kg/h (kilogram/hour)
= kJ/kWh (kilojoules/kilowatt-hour)
= kg/GJ (kilogram/gigajoule)
= l/s (liters/second)
H-1
Export Control Restrictions
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
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), with

major locations in Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte,
North Carolina, was established in 1973 as an
independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy
and environmental research. EPRI brings together
members, participants, the Institutes 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. EPRIs members
represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the
United States. International participation represents
nearly 15% of EPRIs total research, development, and
demonstration program.
TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity
2006 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights

reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
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
1014510

FS of IGCC - 1014510 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

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

FS of IGCC - 1014510 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Feasibility Study for an Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle Facility at a Texas Site

Feasibility Study for an Integrated

Technical Update, October 2006

EPRI Project Manager

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................1-1

Gasifier Performance Estimate by EPRI......................................................................4-5

O&M Results .........................................................................................................................8-2

IGCC Performance CO2 Capture ............................................................................13-5

Error! No table of figures entries found

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

higher heating value

sour water stripper

2 sulfur recovery units (SRU).

1 tail gas treating unit (TGTU).

2 General Electric (GE) 7FB gas turbine generators (GTG).

2 heat recovery steam generators (HRSG).

1 steam turbine generator (STG).

Balance of plant (BOP).

CO2 Capture Cases

CO2 Capture Cases

Plant Cooling Requirements, MMBtu/hr (@ 73F)

Current Market Conditions

Limitations and Qualifications

Status of the Technology

Selection of Gasification Technology

efficiency decreases and oxygen consumption increases, typically resulting in decreased

Technical Approach and Data Sources

2% Dry Bulb: 93F with coincident wet bulb temperature of 77F.

Gas Turbine Selection

Option 1 100% PRB Coal

Option 2 50% PRB Coal / 50% Petcoke (% by weight)

Fuel analyses are provided in Table 3-1.

50% PRB / 50% Petcoke

Proximate Analysis (% wt.)

Ultimate Analysis (% wt.)

Plant Capacity Selection

Capacity Factor and Availability Factor Targets

Gasification System Description

Air Separation Unit (ASU)

<------------------------------------Nitrogen Product Streams----------------------------->

Case 43F PRB Coal

<------------------------------------Nitrogen Product Streams----------------------------->

The following major equipment items are included:

Main air compressor and booster air compressor (2 trains x 50%).

Nitrogen compressor (2 x 50%).

Cryogenic oxygen pumps (2 x 100%).

Cryogenic nitrogen pumps (2 x 100%) for high pressure N2.

Switching valves, driers and regeneration heater.

MV and LV Switchgear and MCC.

Transformers from 13.8 KV.

Liquid N2 storage and associated backup vaporizer.

Electrical / control room.

50% PRB / 50%

Washed syngas flows to the COS/HCN hydrolysis reactors.

Hydrolysis interchanger (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).

Hydrolysis reactor (one reactor for each of two parallel trains).

Syngas interchanger (one exchanger for each of two parallel trains).

H2S stripper with reboiler, condenser, reflux drum and pumps.

Rich flash coolers and drum.