LIFAC - Economical Solution to S02 Control M.E. Ball ‘SaskPower D. W. Smith ‘SaskPower J. J. Koskinen ‘Tampelia Power Canada < T. A. Enwald Tampella Power Canada Presented to: Canadian Institute of Minit Annual General Meeting, 4992 April 28LIFAC - ECONOMICAL SOLUTION TO SO, CONTROL 1, INTRODUCTION One of the major influences on the coal mining industry today is public and legislative response to acid rain. When sulfur bearing fuels such as coal are burned, the sulfur oxidizes to sulfur dioxide (SO,) which, if uncontrolled, enters the atmosphere as one of the by-products of combustion. SO, then combines with water in the air to form an acid and acid rain results. Combustion also produces nitrogen oxides (NO,) which can combine with water in the air forming nitrogen based acid, also contributing to acid rain. Acid Rain has become a significant international concern. We have seen newspaper reports of dying forests, dead lakes and crumbling statues. Papers also include articles professing that the physical results of acid rain are vastly overstated. In the US, a 10 year, 5 billion dollar study called the "National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program" (NAPAP) was commissioned to evaluate the effects of acid rain. Even this extensive scientific study did not resolve the controversy. Despite disagreement over the quantitative effects of acid rain, there is no doubt that public concern over the issue is widespread and deeply felt. In response to this concern, legislators throughout the world have reacted with programs which restrict the emissions of SO, and NO,. To industries involved in the supply and use of coal, the impact of these legislative programs has been extensive. US power plants will be spending 10 billion dollars in the next decade for flue gas clean up equipment. Even all this new equipment will not stem the tide of change to low sulfur coals and to "clean" natural gas. The box below summarizes legislative actions taken for Canada and the United States. USA = 110 existing power plants limited to 1032 ng so2/s after 1995. - All plants limited to 516 ng s02/J after 2000.. = National so2 emission cap beginning in 1995, 50% reduction from 1980 levels by 2000. - Limits for Nox pending. CANADA, = Power plants built after 1983 limited to 258 ng/J. ~ Provincial so2 caps for 6 of 10 provinces (capped at 50% of 1985 levels by 1994). ~ Limits for Nox likely to be reduced.It is not only power plants that are affected, but coal suppliers too will feel the squeeze. High sulfur coal will drop in value as customers use fuel switching schemes to achieve their SO, targets. "Clean" fuels like natural gas and alternative energy sources will gain larger shares of the energy market. SASKPOWER'S RESPONSE TO ACID RAIN CONCERNS SaskPower recognized in the early 1980's that acid rain issues would impact design standards for new coal burning facilities. Since the utility depends heavily on coal for meeting the electrical needs of its customers, SaskPower began a program of reviewing available $0, control technologies. The initial approach was to examine wet limestone scrubbing and dry scrubbing which were the contemporary technologies. It soon became apparent to SaskPower that the cost of these technologies would be high. SaskPower was using low sulfur lignites, located in a area which was not suffering effects of acid rain, and felt that lower cost solutions must be available. In the mid 1980's SaskPower, in conjunction with the Canadian Electrical Association, and sometimes in partnership with boiler manufacturers, undertook a program of testing Furnace Sorbent Injection (FSI). With FSI, a sorbent such as lime is injected into the furnace to combine with SO, forming a solid particle which can later be removed in the plant's dust collector, usually an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). In 1986, when SaskPower applied for permits to build a new coal fired power station at Shand, Saskatchewan, FSI technology had been sufficiently tested and demonstrated to win approval as the SO, control technology for that facility. While SaskPower was pursuing FSI, a Finnish company, Tampella Power, was developing a system called LIFAC which improved FSI with a second stage of SO, removal in a downstream reactor. Tampella's two first large scale installations of the technology were on Imatran Voima's Inkoo power station in Finland (see reference list in appendix A). In 1989, SaskPower and Tampella entered into a joint venture to build a full scale LIFAC Demonstration System at SaskPower's Poplar River Power Station. LIFAC PROCESS DESCRIPTION LIFAC is a flue gas desulfurization process combining furnace limestone injection with post-furnace humidification producing a dry, stable end product (See Figure 1). LIFAC stands forLimestone Injection into the Furnace and Activation of unreacted Calcium. In the first stage of the LIFAC process, pulverized limestone (Caco,) is injected into the upper part of the furnace, ideally where gas temperatures are in the range of 800 to 1200°C. The limestone quickly decomposes to form calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO,). Part of the newly formed calcium oxide reacts with SO, to form calcium sulfate, and both the calcium oxide and the calcium sulfate are carried along with the flyash to the downstream sections of the boiler. The second stage of the process occurs in a specially designed reactor installed downstream of the boiler and upstream of the ESP. Here water is injected into the gas stream. The water droplets dissolve entrained calcium oxide particles and SO, from the gas. A quick ionic reaction then occurs within the droplet to form calcium sulfite, some of which later oxidizes to calcium sulfate. Both the sulfate and sulfite are subsequently removed from the gas stream by the ESP. The water injection is carefully controlled to maximize the life of the droplet in the gas stream, while still ensuring that the droplets evaporate before they contact The top of the reactor. An ash recirculation system adds to the effectiveness of the process by recycling ash from the ESP back through the LIFAC reactor, providing additional opportunities for the calcium oxide to react. PRPS TEST PROGRAM The SaskPower/Tampella LIFAC Demonstration at Poplar River Power Station was initiated in mid 1989, and testing was completed in mid 1991. A project summary is indicated below: July 1989 Start Engineering February 1990 Award First Contracts April 1990 Start on Site September 1990 Start Commissioning Oct to Dec 1990 Phase I Testing Dec 1990 to July 1991 -. Phase II Testing While the Poplar River LIFAC Demonstration was not Tampella's first LIFAC installation, it was an important step for the technology because it addressed specific concerns of the NorthAmerican utility industry. The reactor was built to full scale’ and operated in a commercial environment. The first phase of the test program was focused upon determining the capability of the process to control SO,. Parameters such as furnace conditions, reactor performance, and effect of ash recycle were examined during this. testing phase. The second phase of testing consisted of 1500 hours of operation to assess the impact of the process on plant operations. Equipment failures, maintenance requirements and operating labour were recorded. Effects on related systems such as ash system, precipitator, and furnace were observed. The entire program was carried out without affecting production of the generating unit except where tests were scheduled to measure performance at part boiler load. The LIFAC system was "tied in" to the existing boiler during a scheduled 3 week maintenance outage. No unit outages or derates were caused by the equipment. In general, the process was found to be effective in controlling S80, as indicated in figure 2. The process was also found to be relatively simple to operate, labour requirements were about 30% of requirements for more conventional S0, control technologies, and reliability was judged to be good. The Poplar River test results have been previously published’. Results from these tests were used in two ways; to identify opportunities for design improvement and to permit SaskPower, or other potential users, to do a detailed financial assessment of the TOTAL costs of operating a LIFAC system. SASKPOWER'S SO, CONTROL OPTIONS SaskPower will commission the Shand Power Station in mid 1992. That station has been designed as the “most environmentally friendly coal fired power station in Canada", featuring zero liquid waste discharge, low NO, burners and SO, control. The coal to be used at Shand is a local low sulfur lignite. The coal ash contains alkalies which can absorb some of the sulfur during combustion. As a résult of the low initial levels of sulfur and the inherent capture of sulfur, only about 50% (overall; see note 4 on page 6) of the SO, must be removed from Separate reactors are normally required for each of two 50% flue gas streams from a large utility boiler. The single Poplar River reactor treats 50% of the flue gas from the 300 NWe boiler. 4the flue gas to achieve the 258 ng/J target imposed upon the plant. Because of the low capture requirement, the Shand plant was originally planned for S0, control by sorbent injection only. The boiler has been constructed with a special cavity to provide gas/sorbent contact and residence time at optimal temperatures. SaskPower expects that this design will double the effectiveness of sorbent in the furnace when compared to the Poplar River furnace (see figure 2). In spite of the modest removal requirements for Shand, and the highly reactive furnace, SaskPower's economic modelling showed a present worth lifetime cost advantage of $10,000,000 by using LIFAC in place of sorbent injection. A much larger cost advantage was found over wet scrubbing. Table I shows details. LIFAC REACTOR Shand Power Station March 1992Table I. 1990 Lifecycle Cost Projection SO, Control at Shand Present Worth Millions $ CDN one trrac | two urrac | Fst Wee Reactor | Reactors scrubber capital costs Reactor cost $10.0 $19.7 $0.0 $77.0 Sorbent storage 0.3 0.3 0.6 incl. sorbent Processing | 0.0 0.0 3.3 incl. air/water supply 0.2 ond 0.0 incl. Electrical supply out 0.15 0.05 incl. Electrical 0.7 1.2 0.2 inel. Installations Foundations ot 0.15 0.05 incl. controls 0.3 0.5 on incl. Subtotal 11.7 22.4 4.3 77.0 operating costs Sorbent cost $32.1 $20.9 $53.4 $7.3 Fan Energy 1.2 wi 0.0 1d Reheat Energy 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2 Labour & Maintenance | 3.4 47 Ld 14 Ash Disposal 1.0 0.6 1.0 5.0 Subtotal 37.7 28.3 55.7 32.3 Total P.W. of costs $49.4 $50.7 $60.0 109.3 for cost Projection: Go, is controlled to 258 ng/d in all cases. Eto, cose 11590) Se27hg. Ca(ok), manufactured on eite for Fst from cao at (1990) sot/mg The "One Reactor" option has a single LIFAC reactor operating on one half of the total gas stream (150° Mi equivalent). 750 So, renoval on that gas stream and 258 Fenoval (due to the’ furnace) on the untreated gas strean will give S00 overall reduction the "wo Reactor™ option hunidifies all the flue gas (300 fom, equivalent), thereby needing less sorbent than the Sone Rokcthr option. Net scrubber capital cost based on 1981 estimate for 50% Fenoval ayston, 1981 cost was eecallated to 1990, a reduced by 15% for technological development.Based upon this economic analysis, SaskPower placed a order with Tampella Power Canada in February 1991 for installation of a LIFAC reactor on the Shand power station. The LIFAC system will be ready for startup as the unit goes commercial in mid 1992. GENERAL ECONOMICS We feel that SaskPower's economic comparison of SO, control options for Shand is not dissimilar to what many utilities will find as they review their control options. LIFAC has many advantages over competing technologies, however it may not be the ideal choice in every circumstance, just as SaskPower found that the conventional choices are not always best. In general, once proven technologies have been identified, the selection of SO, control options should proceed on the basis of establishing economics. This means integration of site related factors, such as indicated in Table II, with features of the technological choices, such as indicated in Table III. Table II. Site Related Factors Cost of Capital Delivered cost of Limestone Boiler Age (Remaining life) Annual Operating Hours sulfur in Coal Boiler Temperatures Access to Site Allowable outage time for installation Table III. Technical Features LIFAC |Wet Scrubber Lowest Cost Lowest Manpower Requirement Lowest Maintenance Requirement Smallest "Footprint", easy tie in Lowest limestone use per Mg S02 No need for chemical enhancers Shortest Delivery Time Dry Product Disposal SAN OAKSTampella's own cost comparisons indicate that LIFAC would be the best evaluated technology for most cases where limestone costs are reasonable and SO, removal requirements are typically < 80%. LIFAC derives its superior technical features from its relative simplicity. This proven system: - uses no wet sludge handling equipment - uses few pumps and auxiliaries - uses simple reactor internals (no mist eliminators) - uses no complex external chemical processes - produces a dry, stable, easily disposable waste with sales potential - can consume site waste water, reducing or eliminating waste water disposal problems. WASTE PRODUCT No discussion of the economics of SO, control is complete without addressing waste products, because many processes produce an unstable sludge which is difficult and expensive to dispose of, while others produce neutral or even saleable products. We feel that LIFAC waste ash (by-product) fits in the latter category; some of the product will be sold and the remainder we expect will be used for landfill. LIFAC by-product was successfully tested over a four year period in Finland for land fill, road bed and surface material and as light weight construction material. The by-product was stabilized with water and compacted in a process similar to preparation of a roller compacted concrete bed. The stabilized material developed significant strength (4 to 10,MPa in 91 days) and showed permeabilities in the range of 10° m/s. Leachate quality was determined to meet European (German) standards for release to the environment. In Saskatchewan, SaskPower has historically serviced a significant market for flyash because of the pozzolanic nature of ash. Laboratory testing on both Poplar River LIFAC ash and simulated Shand ash showed that LIFAC improves the pozzolanic characteristics of the ash. In a cement replacement study, SaskPower found that a low strength concrete, termed flowable fill, could be produced by replacing up to 80% of the cement in a conventional concrete mix with LIFAC by-product. Flowable fill is an excellent candidate for use as mine backfill and for other applications which require high volumes of material with some strength. Figure 3 shows 40 day compressive strength of the fill material.Contract negotiations with at least one client are at an advanced stage for the sale of Shand ash in a flowable fill application. LIFAC byproduct has also been used in trial production of concrete bricks. 8. CONCLUSIONS The role of acid rain in the environment may never be quantitatively resolved, however SO, control is a reality, and that reality has a strong influence 6n the economic use of coal. To remain competitive in a world focused on acid rain, "clean" natural gas, and alternate energy sources, producers and users of coal must apply the most economical technologies to control SO,. This means that each case must be examined for its own optimal arrangement. In the global picture, the optimal solution for SO, control will be a combination of new and conventional technologies; and we firmly believe that LIFAC will be one of the solutions. 9. REFERENCES ENWALD, T.A., BALL, M.E., LIFAC Demonstration at Poplar River, The 1991 SO, Control Symposium, December 3-6, 1991, Washington, D.C. 10. ADDRESSES SaskPower 2025 Victoria avenue Regina, Saskatchewan s4P Osi tel. (306) 566 3231 Tampella Power Canada 2022 Cornwall Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 2K5 tel. (306) 347 0026FIGURE 1 LIFAC process Example of LIFAC flow diagram$02 Removal (%) Figure 2. $02 Removal in the LIFAC Process | {_______fINKOO im 1 |SHAND, PROJECTED, Uttimate Compressive Strength (MPa) Figure 3. Compression Strength of Concrete LIFAC Byproduct as Concrete Replacement x0 Py 7» Cement Replacement by Byproduct (9) —== Sample A-+- Sample BLIFAC Reference List APPENDIX A CUSTOMER/PLANT courray | peLtvery unrr ‘coaL YEAR CAPACITY ow, matran voima Bituminous fEnkoo #4 (55 mm, Pilot) | Pintend 1986 250 1 to 1.58 8 Neste xulloo Finland 1986 3 varies tmatran voima - Bituminous tnkoo #4 uintand use ad 1 to 1.585 |prommashimport Bituminous ee ussr see 45 amin matran voima . Bituminous eon ae Finland 1989 250) tiie lsaskatchewan Power - hignite poplar River #1 canada aza0 300 0.78 8 lRichmond Power & Light Bituminous lwnitewater valley #2 usa 1992 60 2.5 to 3.08 s |saskatchewan Power Lignite lshand #1 canada 1992 300 0.4 to 0.88 5 lkostamuksha combine Russia 1993 2x 125 coke 1988, second in 1989. One 50% (125 MW) capacity LIFAC reactor installed in One 50% (150 MW) capacity LIFAC reactor installed.