UNECE Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP SO 2, NOx and PM abatement techniques 05 February 2013

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP Results of the Questionnaire - NOx

LNB Feedback Plant 1 Plant 2 2007 2006 Fuel HC BC Cinv 8, 935 3, 726 NOx Boiler outlet 550 438 mg/Nm³ Maintenance Cost 0. 12 n/a % of Cinv Year of Inst. € 2010/MWth 3

SCR Feedback Plant 1 Plant 2 2011 2008 Fuel HC HC Cinv 37, 155 31, 908 € 2010/MWth Ccat, new 3, 924 5, 000 €/m³ Ccat, reg n/a 2, 500 €/m³ Spec. Cat. 0. 59 0. 5 24, 000 36, 000 n/a 1 Abatement Eff. 79% 80% S. R. (NH 3) 1. 05 0. 8 n. NH 3 / n. NOx EGTEI: 0. 92 Δ ptot 8. 5 13 mbar Year of Inst. Cat. Lifetime # Regenerations m³/MWth h 4

SNCR Feedback Plant 1 Year of Inst. 2001 Fuel HC Cinv 44, 120 Abatement Eff. 35. 3% S. R. (NH 3) CONSelectricity € 2010/MWth 3. 5 n. NH 3 / n. NOx 0. 018 k. Wh/MWth 5

Investment function i = installed technique BS = Boiler size in MWth INVC, i = variable investment component of technique i INVV, i = fixed investment component of technique i Retro-%i = Cost factor for retrofit difficulty ϑ = relative flue gas volume (hard coal = 1)

Investment function vs. Questionnaire data 60 Total Investment [Mio. €] 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1, 000 Boiler Size [MWth] 1, 200 1, 400 1, 600

Take-Away Messages Operating Data: SCR operating data in line with previous data from literature review one SNCR dataset, few literature data, very high S. R. two LNB datasets, few reliable literature data for that many cases LNB Summary SCR SNCR 8

What do we need urgently? Operating Data: more SCR catalyst lifetime & regeneration data more LNB emission data covering all cases SNCR data (everything what is available) 9

Take-Away Messages Investment Data: relatively consistent SCR data SNCR more expensive than SCR (? !) broad range in LNB investment data LNB Summary SCR SNCR 10

What do we need urgently? Investment Data: SCR data for statistical validation more LNB data on retrofits, if available (!? ) SNCR data in general 11

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP Suggested MS-Excel Implementation

The Problem: too many variables (fuels, size, techniques, etc. ) emissions are plant-specific (fuel & combustion specific: type, size, etc. ) fuel inputs vary during the year / lifetime cost figures are site specific The Idea: Providing a calculation sheet with manual input of main variables. Assistance is given by providing default data for „reference cases“. 13

Solution: Excel sheet for the calculation of the produced emissions and the costs for reducing these to a specific value depending on the implemented technology Includes boxes for individual input data, gives references to literature data and calculation boxes Divided into 4 sections: General plant capacity data and plant characteristics Fuel specification Details on pollutant abatement goals Economic analysis 14

Visualisation: General Plant Capacity Data and Plant Characteristics Plant information 1000 MWth 40% (LHV) 139 t/h [Control calculation] 5% of total ash 0, 5% of total sulphur Thermal Capacity Gross Electric Efficiency Fuel mass input (full load) Ash-retained-in-Boiler S-retained-in-Boiler NOx Baseload Loss on Ignition 600 mg/Nm³ acc. To combustion technology 0, 1% of total carbon input Reference O 2 concentration 1 st Gen. LNB 2 nd Gen. LNB NOx Boiler outlet emissions according to technology [mg/Nm³] Boilers and Process Heaters Hard Coal / Bituminous Coal Lignite Wall-Fired Tangentially-Fired 600 -800 500 -600 300 -400 500 -600 400 -500 200 -300 3 rd Gen. LNB 400 -500 350 -400 150 -200 S N C O 32, 06 14 12 16 SO 2 NOx (as NO 2) CO 2 NH 3 64, 06 44 44 17 Ca H 40 1 Urea Ca. SO 4 x 2 H 2 O 60 172, 06 y 5 Baseload II coal share 95 Medium Load 2, 000 - 5, 000 h/a Peak Loak Source: Strauß, Kraftwerkstechnik < 2, 000 h/a Fuel Specification Broad data OR Broad Coal Composition 27, 9 MJ/kg LHV 3% Sulphur w/w waf Fuel data Input-Type detailed data Coal Fuel Spec. Used: d 27, 90 MJ/kg LHV 2% Ash 5% Moisture 0, 56% Sulphur w/w 14, 49% Ash 8, 9 Nm³ Flue Gas/kg Coal 6. 702 mg/Nm³ Flue Gas / 6, 91 E+09 annum Dust loading 6. 404 mg/Nm³ 1. 196 mg/Nm³ SO 2 15. 426 mg/Nm³ dust Fuel data Input-Type Biomass Fuel Spec. Used d 9, 15 MJ/kg LHV 2% Ash 5% Moisture 8, 9 Nm³ Flue Gas/kg Coal SO 2 conc. 6. 702 mg/Nm³ Dust loading 2. 124 mg/Nm³ Ca. CO 3 0, 84% Sulphur w/w 1, 00% Ash Mass-%, waf. LHV 6, 69 Nm³ Flue Gas/kg Coal Flue Gas Factor (dry) Detailed Coal Composition Mass percentages, water and ash free (waf) O C 27, 72 H 2, 10 66, 0 N S 5, 70 7, 33 1, 70 2, 19 0, 56 0, 72 Biomass Composition Input for Fuel Specification Mass percentages, water and ash free (waf) O N 10, 92 0, 42 26, 0 1, 0 5, 0 Ash Moisture Origin Cerrejon Middelburg Columbia South Africa Composition of exemplary coals (water and ash free, waf) C H O N 83, 4 4, 95 9, 47 1, 37 82, 44 5, 02 10, 43 1, 38 S 0, 81 0, 73 Ash 8, 41 13, 55 Moisture 11, 83 7, 42 APC Bachatsky Australia Russia 88, 58 87, 03 4, 73 4, 66 4, 22 5, 36 1, 46 2, 58 1 0, 37 11, 12 9, 52 10, 27 10, 22 15. 426, 2 mg/Nm³ Bailey USA 84, 35 5, 58 6, 05 2, 09 1, 74 7, 00 1. 195, 7 mg/Nm³ Blackwater Australia 86, 48 4, 93 5, 71 1, 95 0, 93 14, 16 8, 79 Douglas South Africa 83, 30 5, 11 9, 47 1, 42 0, 70 13, 75 7, 65 Elandsfontein South Africa 88, 16 4, 86 4, 91 1, 43 0, 64 12, 74 Kleinkopje South Africa 85, 02 4, 74 7, 33 2, 19 0, 72 14, 49 Kromdraai South Africa 81, 85 5, 03 10, 81 1, 36 0, 95 13, 36 7, 79 Composition of exemplary biomass, waf H O N 5, 85 43, 69 0, 47 6, 28 42, 17 0, 19 S 0, 01 0, 02 Ash Moisture Hybrid poplar Poplar, DN C 48, 45 50, 02 SO 2 conc. Mass-%, abs Dust loading 8, 9 Nm³/kg Coal 14, 49 7, 71 Wood type S 0, 84 Ash Moisture 1 2, 0 57 9, 2 MJ/kg Dust loading 1. 494, 1 mg/Nm³ eastern cottonwood Hybrid poplar II 50, 29 50, 20 6, 45 6, 06 40, 4 0, 6 0, 02 6, 7 Nm³/kg Coal SO 2 conc. 2. 507, 7 mg/Nm³ Hybrid poplar DN 34 51, 73 4, 47 35, 11 0, 24 0, 03 Nm³ Flue Gas / 1, 58 E+10 annum 2. 508 mg/Nm³ SO 2 mg/Nm³ NOx 1. 494 mg/Nm³ dust 100 3, 69 4, 74 25, 8 MJ/kg Flue Gas Factor (dry) Please fill in either the detailed coal composition or a broad composition. To proceed with the calculation, indicate your choice in cell F 44. For integrating Biomass Co-Firing, proceed analogously. H 66, 15 85, 0 LHV 600 mg/Nm³ NOx Broad Biomass Composition 27, 9 MJ/kg LHV 3% Sulphur w/w waf C Mass-%, abs Mass-%, waf. 8, 92 Nm³ Flue Gas/kg Coal SO 2 conc. Substances Plant Load Classification > 7, 000 h/a 5, 000 - 7, 000 h/a Yes/No Biomass share 68, 5% Molar masses [kg/kmol] Elements 150 -200 Biomass Co-firing 6000 of 8760 h/a Resulting capacity factor 6% Capacity Factor 0% Input (either % or h/a) p. deltoides, Stoneville 66 49, 65 5, 5 41, 88 0, 05 corn stover switchgrass wheatstraw 43, 65 47, 75 43, 20 5, 56 5, 75 5, 00 43, 31 42, 37 39, 40 0, 61 0, 74 0, 61 0, 08 0, 11 ponderosa pine 49, 25 5, 99 44, 36 0, 03 9, 00 7, 71 Depending on storage Co-Firing Fuel Spec. Used 26, 96 MJ/kg LHV 0, 57% Sulphur w/w 13, 82% Ash 8, 81 Nm³ Flue Gas/kg Coal Nm³ Flue Gas / 7, 06 E+09 annum 1. 261 mg/Nm³ SO 2 600 mg/Nm³ NOx 14. 730 mg/Nm³ dust NOx Emissions Total reduction required Primary Measures Upgrade LNB? Is SNCR feasible? New NOx outlet emissions Total reduction achieved Degree of Over-Achievement spec. NOx emissions saved total NOx emissions saved thereof 1° measures thereof 2° measures SO 2 stack emission 200 mg/Nm³ Maximum Achievable SNCR Reduction Rates NOx stack emission 200 mg/Nm³ Plant Size Max. Reduction 450 25, 0% 55, 6% mg/Nm³ Dust stack emission 15 mg/Nm³ < 100 MWth 100 - 300 MWth 300 - 500 MWth 500 - 700 MWth 60% 55% 47, 5% 40% N Yes/No 170 71, 7% 15, 0% mg/Nm³ 430 2. 971 Summary mg/Nm³ t/a 1. 036 t/a 1. 934 t/a > 700 MWth Share 34, 9% Electricity 35% Sources: US EPA: Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 2002 EPRI: SNCR Guidelines Update, 2004 Rentz: Emission Control at Stationary Sources in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1996 EGTEI Questionnaires 2012 Utility costs 450€/t 220€/t 2€/t Ammonia Urea Limestone Gypsum 30€/MWh 65, 1% N 0, 0 Economic Analysis Emission Goals 66, 7% New NOx Baseload Emission Reduction achieved with 1° Reduction required with 2° Secondary Measures Details on Pollutant Abatement Goals Economic Analysis of NOx Equipment used General Data Primary Measures NOx emissions saved 1. 036, 3 t/a Spec. Equipment Investment 20, 0€/MWth Total Investment 20. 000, 0€ Capital Cost p. a. 1. 798, 8€/a Fixed O&M Costs 400, 0€/a Operating Costs Total Costs p. a. spec. NOx reduction costs 500, 0€/a 2. 698, 8€/a 2, 6€/t y Y/N Secondary Measures Capital Costs SNCR 1. 934, 4 t/a NOx emissions saved Spec. Equipment Investment 40. 000, 0 €/MWth Spec. Equipment Investment Total Investment 40. 000, 0 € Total Investment 0, 0 € Capital Cost p. a. 3. 597. 644, 0 €/a Capital Cost p. a. 0, 0 €/a Fixed O&M Costs 800. 000, 0 €/a Fixed O&M Costs Operating Costs NH 3 (Y/N) Urea (Y/N) SR 0, 0 €/a n Y 1, 75 Injection & Mixing Catalyst Layer SCR excl. Inj. , Mix. & Cat. t/a €/a reagent consumption reagent cost 0, 0 t/a €/a No. Of catalyst layers Total SCR P. D. 3 10, 5 mbar MWh/h utility electricity consumption MWh/h Total SNCR P. D. 1, 5 mbar €/a utility electricity cost 0, 0 €/a MWh/Mio. Nm³ Spec. Power requirements SCR (Y/N) NOx emissions saved NH 3 (Y/N) Urea (Y/N) SR y N 0, 90 t/a Capital Recovery Factor €/MWth Fixed O&M Costs 4% 15 p. a. years Reference Box Stoichiometric Ratio Literature Data SCR 0. 8 -1. 05 9, 0% p. a. SNCR 2% of total Investment Reference Box Pressure Drop Literature SCR/SNCR Data 1, 5 2, 5 1. 5 -2. 0 SR used in Calculation SCR 0, 9 SNCR 1, 75 mbar reagent consumption reagent cost utility electricity consumption utility electricity cost pressure drop cons. 0, 435 MWh/Mio. Nm³ pressure drop cons. 0, 062 pressure drop cost 90. 093, 5 €/a pressure drop cost 0, 0 annualised catalyst costs 1. 080. 000, 0 €/a total operating costs incl. cat costs 1. 652. 779, 1 €/a total operating costs 0, 0 €/a Max Unit No. total costs p. a. 6. 050. 423, 1 €/a total costs p. a. 0, 0 €/a Spec. Cat. Requirement 0, 59 m³/MWth 2 3. 127, 8 €/t spec. NOx reduction cost n/a €/t Total Cat. Lifetime 24. 000 36. 000 h 2 No. Of cat. Regenerations Spec. Cat. Cost 0 4. 000 3 5. 000 €/m³ 3 2 €/m³ 1 spec. NOx reduction cost 672, 6 302. 685, 6 100, 0 Interest Rate Equipment Lifetime 0, 010 180. 000, 010 0, 0414 Wh/mbar*Nm³ €/a Reference Box Cat. Cost & Design Data for Hard Coal Fired Units Min Spec. Cat. Regeneration Cost Spec. Cat. Volume Total Cat. Lifetime 2. 500 Catalyst Cost Calculation Box 0, 5 500 25000 No. Of cat. Regenerations Cat. Lifetime acc. To operating regime Annualised catalyst cost 2 4, 17 1. 080. 000 m³/MWth m³ h a €/a 15

General Plant Capacity Data and Plant Characteristics: Characteristical data concerning the combustion plant must be typed in Biomass co-firing yes/no? Literature data given for NOx boiler outlet emissions General Plant Capacity Data and Plant Characteristics Thermal Capacity Gross Electric Efficiency Fuel mass input (full load) Ash-retained-in-Boiler S-retained-in-Boiler NOx Baseload Loss on Ignition Reference O 2 concentration Input (either % or h/a) Resulting capacity factor Plant information 1000 MWth 40% (LHV) 139 t/h [Control calculation] 5% of total ash 0, 5% of total sulphur 600 mg/Nm³ acc. To combustion technology 0, 1% of total carbon input 6% Capacity Factor 0% 6000 of 8760 h/a 68, 5% Biomass Co-firing Yes/No y Biomass share 5 coal share 95 Colour Guide Results Input Data Literature Data Feature coming shortly NOx Boiler outlet emissions according to technology [mg/Nm³] Boilers and Process Heaters Hard Coal / Bituminous Coal Lignite Tangentially. Plant Load Classification Wall-Fired Tangentially-Fired Baseload I > 7, 000 h/a 1 st Gen. LNB 600 -800 500 -600 300 -400 Baseload II 5, 000 - 7, 000 h/a 2 nd Gen. Medium Load LNB 500 -600 400 -500 2, 000 - 5, 000 h/a 200 -300 < 2, 000 h/a 3 rd Gen. Peak Loak LNB 400 -500 350 -400 150 -200 ALL FIGURES ARE EXAMPLES FOR CALCULATORY PURPOSE AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE REALITY! 16

Fuel specification: Decide if broad or detailed data should be used. Give input to the composition or broad data of the fuel depending on the biomass co-firing rate the fuel specs will be calculated Colour Guide Results Fuel Specification Fuel data SO 2 conc. Dust loading Mass-%, abs Mass-%, waf. LHV Flue Gas Factor C 66, 15 85, 0 Input Data Broad Coal Composition 27, 9 MJ/kg LHV 3% Sulphur w/w waf 2% Ash 5% Moisture 8, 9 Nm³ Flue Gas/kg Coal 6. 702 mg/Nm³ 6. 404 mg/Nm³ Detailed Coal Composition Mass percentages, water and ash free (waf) H O N 3, 69 5, 70 1, 70 4, 74 7, 33 2, 19 25, 8 MJ/kg 8, 9 Nm³/kg Coal Dust loading SO 2 conc. Literature Data Feature coming shortly Cerrejon Coal (COL), waf S 0, 56 0, 72 Ash 14, 49 Moisture 7, 71 15. 426, 2 mg/Nm³ 1. 195, 7 mg/Nm³ C 0. 834 H 0. 0495 O 0. 0947 N 0. 0137 S 0. 0081 Ash 0. 0841 Moist. 0. 1183 ALL FIGURES ARE EXAMPLES FOR CALCULATORY PURPOSE AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE REALITY! 17

Details on Pollutant Abaement Goals: Reference boxes for pressure drop, stoichiometric ratios, catalyst specs Input: emission goals, primary/secondary measures, chosen technology Colour Guide NOx Emissions SO 2 stack emission NOx stack emission Dust stack emission Emission Goals 200 mg/Nm³ 15 mg/Nm³ Total reduction required 66, 7% Primary Measures Upgrade LNB? New NOx Baseload Emission 450 mg/Nm³ Reduction achieved with 1° 25, 0% Reduction required with 2° 55, 6% Secondary Measures Is SNCR feasible? N Yes/No New NOx outlet emissions 170 mg/Nm³ Total reduction achieved 71, 7% Degree of Over. Achievement 15, 0% Summary spec. NOx emissions saved 430 mg/Nm³ total NOx emissions saved 2. 971 t/a thereof 1° measures 1. 036 t/a thereof 2° measures 1. 934 t/a Results Input Data ALL FIGURES ARE EXAMPLES FOR CALCULATORY PURPOSE AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE REALITY! Literature Data Feature coming shortly Share 34, 9% 65, 1% 18

Economic Analysis Result: individual cost components as well as specific NOx reduction cost for the chosen technology Primary Measures SCR NOx emissions saved 1, 036. 3 € 1, 934, 4 € Capital Costs p. a. 1, 798. 8 € 3, 597, 664. 0 € Fixed O&M costs p. a. 400 € 800, 000 € Operating Costs p. a. 500 € 1, 652, 779. 1 € 2, 698. 8 € 6, 050, 423. 1 € 2. 6 €/t NOx 3, 127. 8 €/t NOx Total costs p. a. spec. NOx reduction costs Reagent Catalyst Electricity ALL FIGURES ARE EXAMPLES FOR CALCULATORY PURPOSE AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE REALITY! 19

Why? too much site specific cases, especially when refering to cost! every expert might fill in his data and can revert to our default data in case he needs it allows maximising applicability with limited working data we are providing a methodology [SCOPE OF WORK] easy to update / extend 20

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP Further developments to come

To come: Separate spreadsheets for oil and gas boilers as well as gas turbines natural gas compositions some data on NOx emissions at gas turbines Linking investment curves with the spreadsheets as soon as they exist Detailing operating costs for LNB 22

Working assumptions for oil & gas: - if we do not obtain contrary data SCR Abatement efficiency is assumed to be equivalent Pressure drops at gas and oil combustion are (almost) equivalent? Stoichiometric ratios are assumed to be equivalent Catalyst costs are assumed to be equivalent SNCR not suitable No diesel & dual fuel mode for gas turbines (diesel / natural gas) 23

Where do we need data? Oil compositions, otherwise we have to use the flue gas factor 280 Nm³/GJ NOx emissions for gas and oil boilers Data on primary NOx techniques for turbines (water & steam injection, DLN), otherwise we cannot integrate it SCR Lifetime, regeneration cycles Specific catalyst volume (m³/MWth) 24

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP Integration of Biomass Firing

Current status of implementation Automated calculation of changes in flue gas (SO 2 and PM emissions, flue gas factor) NOx emission correction is still manual formal relationship of NOx emissions and co-firing share could not be obtained up to now. We focus on obtaining published operator data from some co-firing plants. Effect on efficiency? one literature source: 89% of coal efficiency SCR Catalyst lifetime influences we currently try validate literature data with more sources 26

Biomass Co-Firing Data Case: Biomass-Only (100%) Rodenhuize Plant („Max. Green“, BE, GDF Suez) § 200 MWe , 100% wood pellets § Biomass LNB + OFA: 400 mg/Nm³ @ 6% O 2 § NOx limit: 90 mg/Nm³ @ 6% O 2 Dordrecht Plant (75 MWth): permit: 180 mg/Nm³ NOx 19 Swedish plants (wood) § § 50 – 230 MWe, 100% wood (chips, pellets, etc. ) Various PM (OFA; FGR, etc. ) + NH 3 -SNCR NOx emissions: 30 -52 mg/MJ [via 333 Nm³/GJ: 90 -155 mg/Nm³] Only 1 SCR (incl. FGR): 50 mg/MJ [150 mg/Nm³, 105 MWe] 27

Biomass Co-Firing Data Case: Co-Firing of wood with hard coal plants For hard coal, different types exist: co-crushing in coal mills: << 10%, depending on wood type (chips, pellets, …) separate modified coal mills direct biomass injection (biomass mills, biomass burners) > 10% LHV/LHV with refined biomass (dried, LHV -> 20 MJ/kg) NL permits: RWE Essent, 2 x 800 MWe, ~10% biomass, 60 mg/Nm³ NOx E. On Maasvlakte 3: 1, 100 MWe, ~20% biomass, 65 mg/Nm³ NOx Electrabel Maasvlakte, 800 MWe, ~50% biomass, 50 mg/Nm³ NOx only lab scale co-firing with lignite known (50% share: reduction 20 -30%) 28