15th EPConf 5-14-2013 SJ Final

GAS COMBINED HEAT & POWER:GAS COMBINED HEAT & POWER:
A SILVER BULLET FOR BOILER MACT
Suresh Jambunathan,
Director of Business Development,
Recycled Energy Development LLCRecycled Energy Development, LLC
Cell# 630-335-4544
May 14, 2013y ,
Donald E. Stephens Convention Center
Rosemont, IL
EP13, Track 9, Session 9A
RED | the new green Slide # 1 www.recycled-energy.com

Recent Boiler MACT influenced headlines

Boiler MACT made simple
Emissions control rules for “major source” coal, oil, biomass and process gas boilers
Finalized by US EPA on Dec. 20, 2012.
• Impacts > 500 coal units, >800 oil units and > 400 biomass units
• 3-to-4 year compliance window from publication of final rule
Stringent limits for
• Mercury (Hg)
• Filterable Particulate Matter (PM)
• Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)
Gas CHP is the most
economical option.
Implementation is not
diffi lt b t i • Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)
• Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Compliance likely uneconomic for older coal and oil boilers. Options include
• Spend on pollution control equipment
difficult, but requires
careful planning
Spend on pollution control equipment
• Convert boiler to burn natural gas
• Invest in a gas Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system
Gas CHP implementation requires utility engagement via power buyback programsGas CHP implementation requires utility engagement via power buyback programs.
Utilities (Regulated and deregulated ) must recognize that their future is tied to the future of
their customers, many of whom may just close shop under the weight of MACT compliance

An example site affected by industrial Boiler MACT
150 psig
STG 10 MW
Rating
150 psig
30 psig
Steam
250 K h
Process
steam
load
7 MW
Vintage stoker boiler
Rating
300 Kpph
600 psig
600 psig250 Kpph 7 MW
Condenser
ESP
600 F
ή~75%
FSF~ 1,600 Btu/lb
Coal
400 MMBtu/Hr
Flue Gas
Cleaned
Flue GasBag House FD
or
Stack
Condenser
A “classic” CHP
system.
Economical when coal
i i d
Does this look like your coal boiler operations?
St k t 30 t 70 ld ή 75% d FSF 1 6 MMBt /Klb
ue G sBag House
fan
Stack
was inexpensive and
pollution control was
“not my problem”
Stoker system, 30-to-70 years old; ή ~75% and FSF~1.6 MMBtu/Klb
Burns costly compliance coal, steam load (250 Kpph) and 95% (8,322 hrs/yr) operations
Hi h f l O&M t ($3 t $4 illi / )High non-fuel O&M costs ($3-to-$4 million/year)
Minimal pollution control - ESP or BH only. Monitor SOx, NOx, PM, Hg, HCl and CO
B t o ha e a VALUABLE air permit
STG = Steam turbine Generator; ESP = Electro-Static Precipitator, FSF = Fuel-to-Steam Factor
But, you have a VALUABLE air permit

Selected Boiler MACT pollution control equipment
Boiler Air
ESP
or
Your system today controls PM. Less effective for Hg. Ineffective for HCl, NOx, SOx
Boiler Air
heater
Bag
House
FD
fan Stack
or
SCR ESP
Standard Boiler
MACT compliance
CapEx required
O E i d
Option #1: Control PM, HCl. Less effective for Hg. Controls NOx, SOx
Boiler Air
heater
Bag
House
Wet
FGDFD
fan StackSNCR
or or
OpEx increased
Efficiency decreased
.
Increase your delivered
cost of steam
But…..
You keep your SCR ESP
Option #2: Control PM, HCl, Hg. Controls NOx. Less effective for SOx
air permit Boiler Air
heater
Bag
House
FD
fan StackSNCR
or orSDA
CO control via combustion system improvements; i.e. more CapEx

Natural gas Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a
f d t ll i lt tifundamentally superior alternative
150 psig
50 psig
Process
Clean
stack gas
Steam
250 Kpph
HRSG*
300 Kpph
900 psig
900 F
STG 10 MW
Rating
900 psig
steam
load
Power toNat. gas to
CHP reduces delivered
steam cost and
increases reliability of
delivered steam and
Gas Turbine
45 MW
Nat. gas
Power to
utility, 8 MW
Power to utility
42 MW
Nat. gas to
duct fire
power
This pollution
control system
Option #3:
• Reliably satisfy process steam load ~ 250 Kpph and 8 322 hours/yeary
requires a new
air permit
Reliably satisfy process steam load ~ 250 Kpph and 8,322 hours/year
•Compared to a boiler MACT compliance case (Options #1 or #2), gas fired CHP (Option #3)
• Reduces O&M
• Reduces specific emissionsReduces specific emissions
• Increases system efficiency Plus….
• Generates power (50 MW ~ 412,000 MWh/yr) and revenue as a valuable by-product
* HRSG = Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Is there a fuel switch risk? gas availability
Shale gas fracking has
unlocked huge domestic
gas supply

Is there a fuel switch risk? gas production
US gas production has
increased dramatically.
Several LNG export
j t i th l iprojects in the planning
stage

Is there a fuel switch risk? Gas versus coal price
2010 to 2012
Currently, “burner-tip”
price of coal and gas
are essentially the
same.
2010 to 2012
You can buy a 3-year
gas strip for just over
$4/MMBtu todayy
1950 to 2012

Gas CHP is a Boiler MACT pollution control device
80
90
100
Filterable PM stack emissions, tons/yr
30
40
50
60
70
Emission reductions
PM 77%
HCl 100%
0
10
20
30
Current system Blr. MACT limit GT-CHP
140
HCl stack emissions, tons/yr
50
Hg stack emissions, lbs/yr
HCl 100%
Hg 100%
80
100
120
25
30
35
40
45
20
40
60
5
10
15
20
25
0
0

Gas CHP reduces other emissions
600
700
NOx stack emissions, tons/yr
300
400
500
0
100
200
Emission reductions.
NOx: 91%
SOx 99% Current system Blr. MACT limit GT CHP
4,500
SOx stack emissions, tons/yr
SOx 99%
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
,
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
,
0

Economic snapshot: operating assumptions
Vintage
Stoker
Boiler
ή ~75%
Process
steam loadFuel (coal)
OpEx
Steam
250 Kpph
Pollution
Gas
CHP
System
ή ~ 80%
Process steam
load
Steam
250 Kpph
Fuel (gas)
OpEx Po er
FSF~1,600
Control
Equipment
FSF~2,275
OpEx Elec. utility
(Grid)
Power
50 MW
Parameter Unit Spend on Pollution
Control Equipment
Invest in
Gas CHP system
Process steam Klb/hr
Klb/year
250
2 080 500
250
2 080 500
Power sold to utility,
thus maintaining
thermal host as utility
customer.
Klb/year 2,080,500 2,080,500
Power sold MW
MWh/year
-
-
-
50
412,000
Requires utility
engagement and a
mind-set that views
long-term survival of
Grid Power price* $/MWh $60
Coal
Gas
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$4.0
-
-
$5.0
g
thermal host as key to
utility’s own business.
Gas $/MMBtu $5.0
*CHP power sold to utility per a gas indexed Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
FSF = Fuel-to-Steam Factor. Btu of fuel in per lb of steam out

Economic snapshot: operating results & steam cost
Vintage
Stoker
Boiler
ή ~75%
Process
steam loadFuel (coal)
OpEx
Steam
250 Kpph
Pollution
Gas
CHP
System
ή ~ 80%
Process steam
load
Steam
250 Kpph
Fuel (gas)
OpEx Po er
P t U it
Spend on Pollution Invest in
Diff
FSF~1,600
Control
Equipment
FSF~2,275
OpEx Elec. utility
(Grid)
Power
50 MW
Value created by Power
significantly offsets
cost of steam.
R i ili
Parameter Unit
p
Control Equipment
or
Gas CHP
Difference
Fuel (coal or gas) $/Klb $6.4 $11.4 ($5.0)
O&M $/Klb $1.4 $1.3 $0.1
Requires utility
engagement and a
mind-set that views
long-term survival of
thermal host as key to
O& $/ b $ . $ .3 $0.
*Power credit $/Klb $0.0 ($11.9) $11.9
Delivered steam cost $/Klb $7.8 $0.8 $7.0
y
utility’s own business.
CHP operating value created $MM/yr $14.5
N t i i l th ti i d d dNet savings is lower than operating savings and depends on
• Capital for either approach – depends on scope
• Weighted average cost of capital
• Investment term.
*CHP power sold to utility per a gas indexed Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
FSF = Fuel-to-Steam Factor. Btu of fuel in per lb of steam out

Economic sensitivity: cost of gas versus coal
$16.0
CHP Operating Savings at points below Net Zero Line
$12.0
$14.0HHV
What is your view of the
long term relative price
of coal versus gas?
$8.0
$10.0
s,$/MMBtu,H
$4.0
$6.0
Deliveredgas
Current Operating
savings ~$14.5 million
$0.0
$2.0
$2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0
D
Delivered coal, $/MMBtu, HHV
Net savings is lower than operating savings and depends on
• Capital for either approach – depends on scope
• Weighted average cost of capital
Weighted average cost of capital
• Investment term.

Gas CHP benefits
Benefit to Grid
l id bili i l di f d d d li lLocal grid stability including power factor support and reduced line loss
Balance variable power from wind and solar, thus speed renewable energy deployment
Defer or avoid investment in
Remote central generation plantsRemote central generation plants
Transmission & Distribution infrastructure
Benefit to the thermal hostBenefit to the thermal host
Reduced cost of steam and increased steam supply reliability
More reliable power supply
Benefit to society
Reduced pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions
Net reduced energy costs increases productivity

Hurdles facing natural gas CHP
Inertia and unfamiliarity
Standard compliance solutions seen as “tried and true”Standard compliance solutions seen as tried and true
Energy Policy Act, 2005
Hurts ability of regulated utilities to secure certain cost recovery for long-term Power Purchase
Agreements (PPA) with CHP plants Makes CHP plant financing difficultAgreements (PPA) with CHP plants. Makes CHP plant financing difficult
Air permit
MACT pollution control regulations allow retaining current air permit.
CHP reduces pollution yet requires a new permitCHP reduces pollution, yet requires a new permit
Standby & exit charges
Imposed by some utilities before allowing CHP systems to interconnect with the grid.
Upfront investment
Gas CHP investment often significantly higher than cost of standard compliance solutions.

Questions?
Suresh Jambunathan
sjambunathan@recycled-energy.com| (630) 335-4544

APPENDIX
Boiler MACT limits - Federal Questions, vol 78 #21, Jan 31, 2013Boiler MACT limits Federal Questions, vol 78 #21, Jan 31, 2013

APPENDIX

15th EPConf 5-14-2013 SJ Final

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à 15th EPConf 5-14-2013 SJ Final

Similaire à 15th EPConf 5-14-2013 SJ Final (20)

15th EPConf 5-14-2013 SJ Final