EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP SO 2, NO x and PM abatement techniques 4th meeting 5 February 2013 UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

Agenda Results from the questionnaires (consumption figures, etc.), Overview / Comparison Investment Data Questionnaire – EGTEI Functions & Co, Still missing information / Data to be verified, Presentation of the Excel tool (how it works, aim, etc.), Work to be done in the next few months from the technical secretariat (biomass, excel-tool developments,...), Next meeting. 2

Plant characteristics 3

Results from the questionnaires : plant characteristics 4  Four questionnaires received with information completed in most of the cases Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D PortugalNot provided France Capacity MWe Capacity MWth Number of units 4 x 314 MWe111 Operating hours Fuel used Hard coalBrown coalHard coal Sulphur content of fuel %

FGD LSFO investments 5

Results from the questionnaires for FGD 6  FGD Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D Investment FGD (LSFO) k€/MWth (2008/2009) (1998) (2001) (1998) Investment k€ 2010/MWth Efficiency (But 95 % with input/output) 86.4 Pollution control device Auxiliairy equipment Instrument XXXXXX Not provided Project definition Building and civil works Performance testing XXXXXX FGD complexityComplicated AverageComplicated Space, seismic zone, winds High S, (7 sprays)

Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments 7  FGD

Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments 8  FGD Inv cap 1 cap 1 ______ Inv cap2 cap 2 = P P in the range 0.6 to 0.7

9  FGD Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments

FGD LSFO investments collected 10  FGD

FGD investments collected: cost function determination 11  FGD

FGD investments collected : cost function determination 12  FGD

FGD investment function to be retained? 13 Not enough data do define cost function able to distinguish the efficiency of the FGD What function to select? Is it too early to select? Do we try to collect other investments? Can we have a better representation if we try to define two or more ranges of capacity? The retrofit factor was 30 % in the current EGTEI methodology. The current data collected do not enable the definition of the retrofit factor. Do we continue with 30 % by default?

FGD LSFO variable costs 14

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 15 Wet FGD with limestone forced oxidation: SO 2 + CaCO 3 + ½ H2O CaSO 3. ½H 2 O + CO 2 CaSO 3.½ H 2 O + ½ O H 2 O CaSO 4.2H 2 O 1 mole CaCO 3 abates 1 mole SO 2. In terms of mass, the ratio Ca/S = 1, accounts to CaCO 3 consumption of t CaCO 3 /t SO 2 Current EGTEI methodology: Efficiency of SO 2 removal η t CaCO 3 /t SO 2 abated Ratio Ca/S input 85.0% % %

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 16 Limestone is not pure: With 95 % purity the consumption is as follows: Efficiency of SO 2 removal η t limestone/t SO 2 abated Ratio Ca/S input 85.0% % % Aim of the questionnaire: Check with real data consumption the levels of consumption

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 17 Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D Hard coal Brown coal Hard coal S content Efficiency Outlet concentration mg SO 2 /Nm Data provided t reagent/t SO 2 removed Limestone purity96 94 Ca/S1.3 Not provided 0.88 Recalculation made by the secretariat t limestone/t SO 2 removed (purity taken into account Ca/S input scrubber recalculated from the factor t reagent/t SO 2 removed and taking into account the purity of limestone Ca/Sinput (scrubber)

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 18 Efficiency of SO 2 removal η t CaCO 3 /t SO 2 abated Ratio Ca/S input 85.0% % % Data collected Plant A : 94% Plant B : 96% Plant C : 95% Plant D : 86.4% Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 19 Current EGTEI methodology Plant D Plant B Plant C Plant A Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 20 Limestone Prices Purity%Prices € 2012/t Plant A (Portugal) 9611 to 16 Plant B Plant C9632 Plant D (France) 9440

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption 21 Current EGTEI methodologyCurrent EGTEI methodology compared to data collected Not enough data to establish other assumptions than those of the current EGTEI methodology Conclusion: Keep the current EGTEI parameters but consider the purity of limestone which is on average 95 % Do you agree ? Still to be obtained : percentage of S retained in ash?

Variable operating costs : water consumption 22 FGD Efficiency S %m3/hour annual consumption m3/t** reagent Plant A Plant B Plant C à *8* Plant D *Calculated by the secretariat based on 50 m3/h ** Calculated by the secretariat to try to derive parameter easily usable in cost functions What to conclude? Opposite figures? Can the perimeter used by the 4 plants, be different? Water prices not collected

Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination 23 According to chemical reaction theory, 1 t of CaCO 3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO 4,2H 2 O) or t of CaSO 3.½H 2 O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained).

Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination 24 Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D Limestone consumption t/year Quantity of by- products produced t by- product/yea r t sludges t gypsum Price of by- products sold €/t by- product à for gypsum Prices of by- products for waste disposal €/t by- product Proportion sold/total amount of by-products % Ratio by- product/reagent 1.78 (1.85)1.45 (1.5)11.01?1.6 (1.7)

Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination 25 According to chemical reaction theory, 1 t of CaCO 3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO 4,2H 2 O) or t of CaSO 3.½H 2 O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained). It is proposed to keep the by-product production linked to the chemical theory. What proportion of gypsum and liquid wastes? Example of plant D (about 5%) Do you agree?

Variable operating costs : electricity consumption 26 Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D CapacityMWe Thermal PowerMWth Operating power of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling) MW Operating power of other auxiliaries (absorption tower: spray headers, mist eliminator; by-products handling, slurry pumps, oxidation air compression…) MW not available 6.75 Average load of these equipments % Electricity consumptionMWh/year98850*55650* Not complete Cost of electricity€/kWh Installed capacity of fans and auxiliaries / plant capacity 1%3.6%2.1

Variable operating costs : electricity consumption 27 Data provided assume full use of the capacity of fans and auxiliaries during the operating hours. In plant D real consumption has been provided corresponding to a load of 80 %. Sulphur content of coal Capacity of fans and auxiliaries to be used 1 %1.1 %/Power plant capacity 2.25 %1.5 %/Power plant capacity The following data from IEA are proposed to be used as average values whatever the efficiencies are: Do we have to include parameters to take into account the efficiency of FGD?

Variable operating costs : wages 28 Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D Portugal Not provided France Labour intensity of FGD operation man-day/yr not provided Labour cost€/man day Plants B and C have the same capacity but very different labour intensity. There is no direct relation with the size of the plant. The labour costs provided by Plants A to C are probably expressed per hour as they appear very low compared to plant D. For validation : do we finally include wages in fixed operating costs? If not, what labour intensity do we consider? Is it constant whatever the size of the plant?

Fixed operating costs 29 Plant A0.37% Consider that some maintenance costs were covered by warranty period (4 years after PAC). The costs include labour and materials. Plant B1.2%Maintenance in 2011: € Plant CCannot be specified Plant D0.00%Not provided To be validated: do we continue with 4 % including labour cost? 4% seems to be too much, even when wages are included in the fixed cost

FGD LSFO in case of use of liquid fuel 30 Very few data available Proposal : estimate investments using investments for coal plant and relative flue gas ratio (as in the current EGTEI methology) (coal : 358 m3/GJ at 6 % and 289 m3/GJ at 3%?)

Reagent injection and fabric filters 31 Work in progress with some French plants Investment data would be useful if available elsewhere

ESP and fabric filters 32

33 Ash content of coal Efficien- cy % Number of fields Oulet concentra -tions Invest- ments Plant A (Portugal) Plant B Plant C (ESP alone) Plant D (France) Results from the questionnaires for ESP

Investments 34

Variable operating costs: electricity consumption 35 Plant APlant BPlant CPlant D CapacityMWe Thermal PowerMWth Capacity of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling) MW Capacity for electrodesMW2.0 not available 1.8 Average load of these equipments % Electricity consumptionMWh/year6400 Cost of electricity€/kWh

Variable operating costs: electricity consumption 36 ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency What is the electricity consumption per MWth for different efficiency or ELVs to be obtained (10, 20, 30 or 50 mg/Nm 3 )? For coal and heavy fuel oil? 1.2 MW/MWth max for 20 mg/Nm3 ELV for coal ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency

Variable operating costs: by-products 37 ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency Plant BPlant CPlant D Quantity of by- products produced t by- product/year Price of by-products sold €/t by- product to By-products for waste disposal €/t by- product Proportion sold/total amount of by-products %

ESP and fabric filters data needed 38 Obtain more recent investments with efficiency data, inlet and oulet concentration, and characteristics of the combustion plant

Proposal of agenda for the next months 39 For mid/end June : finalise FGD LSFO, FF, ESP, SCR, SNCR and LNB for coal plants and liquid fuel plants For October : finalise FGD by dry injection and FF, for coal plants and fuel plants Finalise costs for co combustion plants Gas turbine?