Flexibility of thermal

power plants
Flexible coal power generation as a key to
incorporate larger shares of renewable
power

Frank Peter
14.11.2018, JAKARTA
 From a pragmatic point of view, existing coal power plants are
likely to continue to play a role in several countries during the
transition period towards renewable energy systems.
China (72%)
921
United States (39%)
287
145 65
0

Japan (34%)
UK (30%)
44 4 3
13 0.4

Korea (43%)
Poland (81%) 6 2.5
33
27 4
Vietnam (24%)
Germany (45%) 13 15 12
53 Turkey (30%)
0.6

16 3 22 Indonesia (53%)
(X%) : Share of coal in India (75%) 26
211 27 8
power production South Africa (87%)
Australia (61%)
plants

Operating (GW)
Coal

40 8 2.3 48
Construction (GW) 39
26 1.3 1.2
Announced (GW)
Making conventional power plants more flexible can be a key
strategy to integrate large shares of renewables.
Renewable and conventional power production during two examplary days
in a system with 60% RES in 2030
Agora Energiewende (2017)
In several countries, the development of renewables is
often hampered after reaching a certain level, because of
the claim that the existing power system cannot cope with
the weather dependent electricity generation of wind and
solar plants.
An obvious illustration of this trend is the high level of
renewable energy curtailment occurring in certain power
system (for example China), where the priority is given to
baseload operation of conventional generators.
Different systems possess different flexibility options for
integrating higher shares of renewables (grid, DSM,
storage technologies, flexible biomass/biogas, flexible
operation of conventional generation).
In markets characterized by few other flexibility options,
making conventional power plants more flexible can be a
key strategy to integrate higher shares of renewables.
Already today, existing coal power plants provide more
operational flexibility than many think.
Conventional power generation in Germany during ten days in November

Agora Energiewende (Agorameter)

This session aims at framing the „flexcoal“ issue around
several questions.

→ What are current technical parameters regarding the flexibility of thermal power plants?
→ What retrofit measures could increase the flexibility of coal power plants?
→ What are the technical and economic parameters of flexible coal (retrofit)?
→ What are the impact of flexible coal on costs, lifetime and CO2 emissions?
→ What regulatory framework and market design could incentivize flexibility of thermal power plants
without locking the respective power system into a high-carbon dependency?
Effects of Expanded
Renewables on
Conventional
Generation
Increasing requirements for flexible operation arise from
increasing shares of renewable generation.
Flexibility requirements with high share of renewables. Example load curves for two weeks during the winter in Germany

Prognos
Renewables also impact the operation pattern of thermal
power plants of vertical integrated electricity suppliers
Decreasing utilisation of conventional plants due to increasing shares of
renewable energy production (Merit-Order Effect)
Prognos
In vertically integrated power markets power
generators usually rely on long-term supply
contracts. Typically, the contracts cover the full
costs of the expected electricity supply. However
supplier use a marginal costs approach to optimize
the operation of their fleet of plants.
In contrast to thermal power stations, wind and PV
have low or zero marginal costs. Therefore,
renewable energies integrate at the beginning of
the merit order, pushing conventional technologies
further out on the merit order.
This has two effects: Firstly, the utilisation rate of
power plants tends to decrease — especially
during times of high renewable energy production
and low demand. Secondly, the average
generation costs of conventional plants increase
due to lower utilization. Both effects decrease the
profitability of thermal power plants.
Congestion management and renewables curtailment
Relationship between monthly wind generation and monthly redispatch volumes
in Germany (Jan. 2013–Oct. 2016)
→ Even in Germany, higher wind generation is
causing higher curtailment rates
→ Flexibility needs of the power markets are
required when introducing larger shares of
variable renewable generation
→ Flexibility can be derived from various
resources:

✓ Generation technologies
✓ Grid interconnections
✓ Storage technologies
✓ Demand side measures

Prognos based on TSOs data (netztransparenz.de)

Thermal power plant
technology
Fundamentals of thermal power plant
Energy conversion process for fuel-fired thermal power plants

Thermal power plant

A thermal power plant is
characterized by an
energy conversion
process, in which
thermal energy (e.g.
released through fuel
combustion) is converted
into electric energy.

Fichtner (2017)
Overview of thermal generation technologies
Overview of thermal generation technologies by fuel type

Thermal power plant

A thermal power plant is
characterized by an
energy conversion
process, in which
thermal energy (e.g.
• released
Coal is thethrough
major fuel used in steam power plants. A distinction between lignite and hard-coal as fuel type is necessary,
fuel
as they have a large influence on power plant operation characteristics
combustion) is converted
• Natural gas, simply referred to as gas, is the fuel used in gas-fired power plants. They are differentiated by their
into electric
operation energy.
design: One distinguishes between an open cycle (exhaust gas directly released to environment after turbine
stage) or a combined cycle configuration (part of the thermal energy in exhaust gas (approx. 500-650 °C) used in a waste
heat recovery boiler to drive a steam turbine)

Fichtner (2017)
What are current
technical parameters
regarding the
flexibility of thermal
power plants?
Flexibility of a power plant is the ability to adjust the net
power fed into the grid, its overall bandwidth of operation
and the time required to attain stable operation when starting
Qualitative representation of key flexibility parameters of a power plant
Fichtner (2016)
The 3 key parameters of operational flexibility are :
1/ minimal load Advantage : The lower the minimal
load, the larger the range of generation output.
Disadvantages : at minimum load the power plant
operate at low efficiency. Limitations : at low load, it
is difficult to ensure a stable combustion.
2/ start-up time Advantage : The shorter the start-
up time, the quicker a power plant can reach
minimum load. Disadvantages : faster start-up
times put greater thermal stress on components.
Limitations : thermal gradient for components.
3/ ramp rate Advantage : A higher ramp rate allows
a power plant operator to adjust net output more
rapidly. Disadvantage : rapid change in firing
temperature results in thermal stress. Limitations :
allowable thermal stress and unsymmetrical
deformations, storage behavior of the steam
generator, quality of fuel used, time lag between
coal milling and turbine response.
Comparison of power plants with most commonly used
technologies and power plants with state-of-the-art
technologies for each generation type
Comparison on minimum load Comparison on ramp rate
Comparison of most commonly used power plants and state-
of-the-art technologies for each generation type with regard to
start-up time
Hot start-up time (interrupted < 8h) Cold start-up time (interrupted >48h)
Example
Comparison of three state-of-the-art coal-fired power plants in Poland and Germany

Fichtner (2017); * The values in italics represent the average values for state-of-the-art power plants
State-of-the-art-design improves significantly the flexibility
characteristics of fossil-fuel power plants
Minimum load of different hard coal power plants (as a percentage Ramp rates of hard coal power plants in South Africa compared to
of nominal capacity) most-commonly used and state-of-the-art designs

60% 7%

% of Nominal Capacity per

6%
50%
5%
% of Pnom

40%

minute
4%
30%
3%
20%
2%
10% 1%

0% 0%
Typical hard coal Most-commonly used Example of retrofit in hard coal power most-commonly state-of-the-art
power plants in China and state-of the art Germany (Bexbach plants in South used hard coal coal power
and India hard coal power Unit)
Africa power plants plants
plants

DEA, NREL, Fichtner Prognos, Fichtner

Coal-fired power plants are in most case still less flexible
compared to gas-fired generation units
Ramp rates and start-up

Fichtner (2016), based on VDE (2012)

What retrofit measures could
increase the flexibility of
coal power plants?

What are the technical and

economic parameters of
flexible coal (retrofit)?
Numerous technical possibilities exist to increase the
flexibility of coal power plants
Retrofit measure for Minimum Start-up Ramp Limitations
Illustrative subdvision of a coal power plant reducing: load time rate

Indirect Firing ✓ ✓ Fire stability

Switching from two mill to
✓ Water-steam circuit
single mill operation
Control system and plant Fire stability/ thermal
✓ ✓
engineering upgrade stress
Auxiliary firing with dried Fire stability and boiler
✓ ✓
lignite ignition burner design
Thermal energy storage for
✓ N/A
feed water pre-heating
“Repowering” ✓ ✓ N/A
Usage of optimized control
✓ Thermal stress
system
Thin-walled components Mechanical and
✓
/special turbine design thermal stresses
“New” turbine start ✓ Turbine design
Reduction of wall thickness Mechanical and
✓
of key components thermal stresses

Klumpp (2009) Fichtner (2017)

Options for
decreasing minimum
load
Current limitations for reducing minimum load
Minimum load
describes the lowest possible net power a power
plant can deliver under stable operating conditions.
Reasons for decreasing minimum load
it provides a larger range of generation capacity.
This helps plant operators maintain operation
when power demand is low and avoid expensive
start-up and shutdown procedures. From a system
standpoint, reducing the minimum load of
conventional power plants allows a greater share
of renewables by avoiding potential curtailment
Major limitations
▪ Fire instability at certain load (35-50% for lignite,
25-40% for hard coal) for state-of-the-art plants
▪ Minimum flue gas temperature for DeNOX
operation
▪ State of steam (pressure and temperature)
Fichtner, 2016 in the water-steam circuit
Option 1: Indirect Firing
Schematic illustration of coal supply to burner →Key idea: Shifting auxiliary load needed for
milling to periods of very low load (e.g. at night)
to further reduce the net power fed into the grid.

→Indirect firing: describes a retrofit option, where

a pulverized coal (PC) storage facility, a so-
called dust bunker, is implemented between coal
mills and burners. This enables a decoupling of
the direct supply chain between mills and
burners.

Fichtner, 2017
Option 1: Indirect Firing
Net grid feed-in for indirect (IF) and direct firing (DF) configurations
→ The decoupling has the following effects:
▪ Stable fire at low load due to faster response to
fire instabilities
▪ Reducing net power fed into the grid by
maintaining nominal coal mill operation during
low load (e.g. at night)
▪ Improving milling efficiency (operation closer to
the design point)
▪ Reduced time lag between mills and burners
allows for a higher ramp rate during operation

→ Intentionally shifting the auxiliary load required

for milling to periods of low load, e.g. during the
night

Fichtner, 2017
Option 1: Indirect Firing

Result:
→ implementing indirect firing in combination with a staged vortex burner retrofit, led to a decrease in
minimum stable firing rate from 25-30% down to 10%. This leads to a similar reduction of
minimum load.
→ Another advantage of reaching such a low stable fire is that the need for ignition fuels, such as oil
or gas, was reduced by 95%
Option 2: Switching from two-mill to single-mill operation
Coal mill and burner arrangement of a boiler in tangential firing configuration
with four burner stages (single-mill operation)
Fichtner (2017) based on Heinzel, et al. (2012)
→Key idea: Operating with only one instead of
two mills in combination with a single burner
stage can reduce minimum load by achieving a
lower stable firing rate.
→During nominal power plant operation all of
the typically 4-6 coal mills are operating at full
load.
→In direct firing configuration, reducing the net
power of a power plant requires the burners and
the coal mills to both run in part load.
→Result:
→ At Bexbach (780 MW PNom ): 170 MW to 90
MW (12.5% PNom)
→ At Heilbronn unit 7 (800 MW PNom ) : 200 MW
to 100 MW (12.5% PNom)
Option 3: Upgrade of control system in combination with plant
engineering upgrades
Load curves for pre-retrofit and post-retrofit of Unit G and H at Weisweiler
Fichtner (2017) based on Frohne (2012)
→Key idea: An improved control system leads to
faster, more precise and more reliable
monitoring and control of processes, which can
reduce the minimum load.
→An upgrade of the control system in
combination with plant engineering upgrades
describes a retrofit option where the control
system, which acts as the “operating system”
of a power plant, is upgraded (for instance from
analog to digital). In addition, required plant
engineering upgrades are performed.
Option 3: Upgrade of control system in combination with plant
engineering upgrades
Lignite-fired power plant Wesweiler in Germany
Source: (RWE Power AG, n.d.) (in the image:Wesweiler)
Results
According to (Frohne, 2012):
→ Unit G: The retrofit led to a decrease of
minimum load by 170 MW and resulted in an
increase of ramp rate. The total cost amounted
to 60 million euros (RWE Power AG, 2012).
→ Unit H: The retrofit achieved a reduction of
minimum load from 400 MW to 290 MW. The
total cost amounted to 65 million euros (RWE
Power AG, 2012).
Option 3: Upgrade of control system in combination with plant
engineering upgrades
Lignite-fired power plant Neurath in Germany
Source: RWE Power AG, 2011]) (in the image: Boiler retrofit at Neurath)
▪ Unit E & D each with 600 MW PNom at Neurath
both underwent an upgrade of the control
system in combination with the required plant
engineering retrofits.
Results
→ Unit E: The retrofit led to a decrease of
minimum load from 440 MW to 290 MW,
resulted in an increase of efficiency by 0.6%
and an improved ramp rate .
The total cost amounted to 70 million euros.
→ Unit D: The retrofit achieved a reduction of
minimum load from 440 MW to 260 MW and
an increased ramp rate. In addition, positive
and negative control power can be delivered to
the market. Unit D also gained prequalification
for 75 MW of secondary control power.
Options for reducing
start-up time
Current limitations for reducing start-up time
Start-up time
defined as the period from starting plant operation
until reaching minimum load.
Reasons to decrease start-up time
it enables a more rapid response to power
demand. Start-up procedures are complex and
expensive since they usually require
supplementary fuel, such as oil or gas, during the
ignition period.

Major limitations
▪ Allowable thermal stress in thick-walled
components
▪ Minimum required state in the boiler, before a
stable pulverized coal fire can be achieved

Fichtner, 2016
Option 1: Optimized control systems
Basic principle of BoilerMax application
▪ Predictive controller solutions are used for the
online-optimization of start-ups
▪ These controllers are based on dynamic
optimizations and beat the performance of
conventional control systems
▪ Several parameters of a real boiler are analyzed
and optimized for shortening start-up times (e.g.
fuel costs and thermal stress on thick-walled
components)
Option 1: Optimized control systems
Comparison of two start-ups at Zolling, one with BoilerMax and one without
BoilerMax
▪ Due to increased fuel supply and wider opening
of high pressure bypass station the power
station start-up time is shortened by 33% (15
minutes) (Franke & Weidmann, 2008).

▪ A shorter start-up time normally implies higher

thermal stress for the materials. The tool also
provides plant operators with the opportunity to
choose between different start-up options,
allowing them to adjust the specific start-up to
the current market situation.
Option 2: Thin-walled components/special turbine design
Challenge Solution

▪ The quicker a start-up, the faster the ▪ utilization of high-value materials (e.g. ferritic
temperature of thick-walled components martensitic steel P92) that can cope with
rises thermal stress in a better way
▪ The allowed thermal stress on components ▪ special component design (e.g. Siemens
limits the temperature change rate that can SST5-6000 steam turbine)
be run by a power plant
▪ To realize quicker start-ups, the wall-
thickness of thick-walled components needs
to be reduced
Option 2: Thin-walled components/special turbine design

→ Highest possible efficiency is only achieved with steam at very high pressure and temperature. To
withstand this, components need to be designed rather thick-walled. However, the thicker the
components are the less flexible they are with regard to load and temperature changes.
→ Choosing between thin- or thick-walled components means a consideration if a power plant operator
▪ wants the power plant to be more flexible → rather thin-walled components
▪ wants to have the highest efficiency possible → rather thick-walled components
Option 2: Thin-walled components/special turbine design
Example for reduced wall thickness: Siemens SST5-6000 steam turbine
Power Online, 2013
→ By redesigning the steam turbine, it was
possible to reduce wall-thickness of the outer
casing and thus enabling a faster heat-up. As
a result, starting performance is improved
(Alstom, 2013).
→ Such a turbine was installed in the new hard
coal power plant Lünen in Germany
(Trianel, n.d.):
▪ 750 MW installed capacity
▪ Total costs of 1.4 billion Euros
▪ Started commercial operation in the
beginning of 2014
Options for
increasing ramp rate
Current limitations for increasing ramp rate
Illustration of the ramp rate of a power plant
Fichtner, 2016
Ramp rate
is defined as the change in net power per time
Reasons to increase the ramp rate
Power plant operators are interested in increasing
ramp rates because it allows dynamic adjustments
to net power. This is especially important in power
systems with rising shares of renewables.
Major limitations
▪ Allowable thermal stress in thick-
walled components, such as
headers
▪ Quality of fuel used for combustion
▪ Time lag between coal milling and turbine
response
Option 1: Repowering
Effect of repowering on ramp rate
→Key idea: Using the thermal energy of a gas
turbine exhaust to pre-heat the feed water of the
water-steam circuit to achieve a shorter start-up
time and an improved ramp rate.
→Repowering is a retrofit measure, in which a
gas turbine is implemented into a coal-fired
power plant upstream of the water-steam circuit.
The thermal energy in the exhaust stream of the
gas turbine is transferred to the feed water via
heat exchangers.
→ Gas turbines can start-up significantly faster
than coal-fired power plants.
→With repowering, a second heat source can be
used to pre-heat the feed water. It is therefore
possible to achieve a greater change in heat
input per time, which translates into a faster
ramp rate.
Option 2: Upgrading control systems and plant engineering

Result
→According to (Frohne, 2012), the ramp rate was increased by 10 MW/min as part of the total retrofit
cost of 60 million euros at unit G at Wesweiler.
→According to (Schulze & Hoffmann, 2013), the ramp rate was increased by 6 MW/min as part of the
retrofit at unit D at Neurath.
Option 3: Reducing the wall thickness of key component
Influence of relative pressure on allowable temperature change rate in K/min for
a high pressure header designed with two different materials
Fichtner (2016) based on Jeschke, et al. (2012)
→Key idea: Reducing the wall thickness of
components, such as headers or separators
increases the allowable temperature change
rate. This allows for faster ramping.
→Reduction of wall thickness can either result
from using superior materials or by increasing
the number of the specific components, e.g.
switching from a 2 line to a 4 line design.
→A reduction of wall thickness by 23% leads to an
increase of allowable temperature change rate
of 60%. This in turn translates into an increase
of ramp rate by 3% (Jeschke, et al., 2012).
Trade-off between flexibility and efficiency
Relationship between operating point and plant efficiency
Fichtner (2016)
→ Reduction of minimum load
OP: Operating Point
▪ In general, operating a thermal power plant in
part load leads to a lower efficiency than in
nominal power operation.
▪ Extremely low load (e.g. achievable after a
retrofit) leads to a lowered efficiency at this
OP.
▪ However, operating at very low load can avoid
expensive and CO2 intensive shutdown and
start-up processes.
▪ Example CO2 emission of 600 MW Coal Unit
at minimum load:
− Before retrofit 50% MinLoad: 309 T/hour
− After retrofit 25% MinLoad: 180 T/hour
Trade-off between flexibility and efficiency
Illustrative power production of one coal power plant in a day with high share of
renewables (comparison of a flexible and inflexible power plant) → The flexible operation of coal power plants can
700 60 have a negative impact on CO2 emissions at

renewables in-feed in system (GW)

renewables very low load operation points and if lower
Coal power plant output (MW)

600 in-feed (right minimum load prevent the power plant to shut-
50 axis) down during some period
500
40 inflexible coal
output (left
400 axis, minimal
30 load 240 MW)
300 flexible coal
20 output (left
200 axis, minimal
load 150 MW)
100 10 inflexible coal
plant (left axis,
switch off)
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
hours of the day

Agora Energiewende (2016)

Potential and limitation of the retrofits
Major subsystems for retrofits to improve flexibility →Retrofits to increase flexibility were employed to
numerous coal-fired power plants in recent
years.

→These retrofits significantly improved the

flexibility of the coal-fired power plants with
regard to minimum load, start-up time and
ramp rate.

→The retrofits often had a positive influence on

plant efficiency and thereby lowered specific
CO2 emissions
Retrofit measures to increase flexibility were employed in
numerous coal-fired plants in recent years.
The flexible operation of coal power plant reduces however its
technical lifetime but increases economical lifetime.

Several retrofit measures were implemented on

German power plants for enhancing their flexibility:
• at the coal power plant Bexbach (780 MW), the
minimum load was reduced from 170 MW (22%
of PNom) to 90 MW (11% of PNOM) by
switching from two mills to single mill operation.
• Upgrades in plant engineering and control
systems in Unit G and H of the German plant
Wesweiler have reduced the minimum load of
170 MW. This retrofit also had a positive effect
on the ramp rate.
Costs for retrofit in flexibility must be considered
case by case but can be roughly estimated in a
range from 100 to 500 €/kW. Retrofit usually
increase the technical lifetime of a power plant by
about 10-15 years (for comparison, the investment
in a new power plant ranges between 1.200 €/kW,
for a lifetime of more than 40 years.
What are the
economic impacts of
more flexible
operation?
The revenue effects of increased coal power plant flexibility
Hard coal power plant operation before and after retrofitting with lower minimum load,
increased ramp rates and reduced start-up time in a 48-hour example period → Power systems with significant shares of
renewable generation require more flexibility to
cope with fluctuating generation. If markets are
adequately designed, flexibility needs are
reflected in electricity prices at the wholesale
level.
→ Because of high shares of renewable
generation, the power plants face periods of
low and even negative electricity prices
→ If plants have to stay in the market (e.g. to
provide system services), more flexibility has
direct economic value for the operator.
Moreover, switching off a power plant entails
start-up costs. Therefore, a tradeoff exists
between avoiding losses from negative prices
and the costs associated with start-up.

Prognos (2017)
The revenue effects for inflexible generation
Hard coal power plant in must-run operation in a 48 hour example period
Prognos (2017)
→ Due to its limited flexibility in “must run”
operation, the plant has to stay in the market
and experiences losses during times with low
or negative prices.
→ Because the minimum load of the plant is
limited to 40 percent:
• Profit margin: 46,800 EUR
• Total generation costs: 740,400 EUR
• Specific generation costs reach
36.70 EUR/MWh.
The revenue effects for higher operational flexibility with must-
run condition
Hard coal plant with lowered minimum load to 25% of its nominal capacity and
increased ramp rates in must-run operation in a 48 hour example period
Prognos (2017)
→ Furthermore, some conventional plants have to
stay in operation because of their relevance for
system services or heat supply (“must-run”
conditions). In this situation, reducing the
minimum load is a key solution for optimising
power plant earnings while limiting losses.
→ The plant is able to generate additional
earnings during some hours after the price
drop:
• Profit margin: 116,100 EUR
• Total generation costs: 726,900 EUR
• Specific generation costs reach
36.70 EUR/MWh.
The revenue effects for no must-run but limited flexibility
Hard coal power plant with temporary shut-down in a 48 hour example period
Prognos (2017)
→ If the plant is able to shift to a more flexible
mode of operation, the first possible approach
would be to avoid negative prices and shut
down temporarily during times with negative
prices. However, the plant loses part of its
earnings due to shut-down and start-up times.
→ Because losses during times of negative prices
can be avoided:
• Profit margin: 84,900 EUR
• Total generation costs: 621,900 EUR
• Specific generation costs reach
42.5 EUR/MWh.
The revenue effects for flexible operation without must-run
Hard coal power plant with lowered minimum load and increased ramp rates
and shorter start-up time in a 48 hour example period
Prognos (2017)
→ The reduced minimum load mitigates losses
during times of negative prices. The increased
ramp rate and the reduced start-up time leads
to more flexible operation compared to a plant
with weaker flexibility characteristics.
• Profit margin: 122,200 EUR
• Total generation costs: 672,800 EUR
• Specific generation costs reach
41.5 EUR/MWh.
Enhancing the flexibility parameters of coal power plants can
improve significantly their economic situation within a proper
market environment
Illustrative profit margin of a coal power plant in a short-term market with high Flexible operation of coal power plants can
shares of renewables under different flexibility and must-run conditions. increase operating costs but it minimizes the
losses coming from the increasing shares of
Illustraitve profit margin of a

renewable energies (and the associated

coal power plant (M€)

decreased utilization of the coal power plants).

The reduction of the minimum load is in many

cases key for an increased profitability.

In markets with a mixed portfolio of coal power

plants and other lower emission technologies, such
as natural gas, flexible coal retrofit improve the
competing position of the coal plants, compared to
must-run and no-must-run must-run but no-must-run the other technologies.
inflexible but limited increased and increased → Therefore, the goal to limit the CO2
flexibility flexiblity flexiblity emissions in the power sector must also be
specifically addressed with an effective CO2
Agora Energiewende (2017) policy.
What are the impact
of flexible coal on
CO2 emissions ?
In several systems, the flexible operation of coal power plants
can contribute to reduce overall CO2 emissions, as it allows to
integrate higher shares of renewables
In a system with high share of vRES, the flexible
operation of coal power plants generally reduce its
overall CO2 emissions, since the coal power plants
produces in general less electricity over the year,
avoiding wasteful curtailment of RES
The flexible operation of coal power plants can have a
negative impact on CO2 emissions at very low load
operation points (lower efficiency at low load) and if
lower minimum load prevent the power plant to shut-
down during period of non-profitable operation1.
To measure the global effect comprehensively, it is
important to assess the CO2 emissions of the power
plant under characteristic dispatch conditions and
over the entire operation cycle of the power plant.

Embracing this comprehensive view shows that in

many cases, the gained flexibility of the power plants
outweighs the CO2 emission drawbacks at low
Agora Energiewende (2017) operating points.

1 without being compensated by the avoided CO2 emissions of start-up processes.

Operation pattern of a coal and gas plant in a 48 hour example
with alternating market conditions
CCGT operation versus hard-coal plant operation in a 48 hour example period

Prognos (2017)
Flexible coal power plants emit more CO2 per electricity output
than flexible gas power plants, even when taking into account
the overall lifecycle emissions of the fuels.
Efficiency of hard coal and CCGT gas power plants (600 MW nominal power) at CO2 emissions of CCGT and hard coal power plants under similar dispatch
different operating points (up, illustrative) and specific ranges of CO2 emissions for conditions but with different flexibility features during 2 exemplary days
different fuels.(down) 20 ktCO2
60% 18

efficiency at different operating points

52% gas power plant hard coal power plant
50%
16

40% 14
40%
40% 12
35% 31 % 30%
10

20%
8
Min. load Min. load 6
nominal 10%
before after 4
load
retrofit retrofit
0% 2
600 500 400 300 200 100 hard coal gas
0
operating point of a 600 MW power plant (MW)
inflexible "inflexible flexible flexible CCGT CCGT with
Fuel Natural gas Hard coal Lignite coal power coal" coal with coal without must-run
Range of specific 202-300 325-350 340-410
plant with without lower without must-run
emissions gCO2/kWhth] high must- must-run must-run must-run
Specification lower limit Pipeline gas Bituminous coal
Pulverized run
lignite
Fichtner &
Specification upper limit Shale gas Anthracite Raw lignite
Prognos (2017) Agora Energiewende (2017)
In order to fully tap the technical potential for increased
flexibility, it is crucial to adapt the power market conditions.
Power generation from nuclear, hard coal and lignite power plants and demand in
Germany, 23 to 30 March 2016
Agora Energiewende (2016)
Economics of flexible coal (retrofit) is significantly
influenced by the availability of remuneration
options for flexibility. A market design which
hampers the investment in flexibility is constraining
the realization of retrofit in coal power plants, as
well as alternative flexibility options.
With high shares of renewable power generation,
electricity markets should help to fully integrate
market players that provide valuable flexibility
options.
Shorter electricity markets (e.g. intraday) and
products, as well as the adjustment of the
balancing power arrangements, are among the
necessary measures. In doing so, renewables can
be integrated more easily and in an economically
efficient way into the power systems, limiting in
particular wasteful renewable energy curtailment.
Major take-aways
Structure

Existing thermal power plants can provide much more flexibility than often assumed, as experience
1. in Germany and Denmark shows.

Numerous technical possibilities exist to increase the flexibility of existing coal power plants.
2. Improving the technical flexibility usually does not impair the efficiency of a plant, but it puts more
strain on components, reducing their lifetime.

Flexible coal is not clean, but making existing coal plants more flexible enables the integration of
3. more wind and solar power in the system and therefore reduces the overall CO2 emissions.

In order to fully tap the flexibility potential of coal and gas power plants, it is crucial to adapt power
4. markets.

Flexible operation of coal power plants is an interim solution in power systems characterized by very
5. high shares of coal generation.
Agora Energiewende T +49 (0)30 284 49 01-00 Please subscribe to our newsletter via
Rosenstraße 2 F +49 (0)30 284 49 01-29 www.agora-energiewende.de
10178 Berlin @ info@agora-energiewende.de www.twitter.com/AgoraEW

Thank you for

your attention!

Questions or Comments? Feel free to contact me:

frank.peter@agora-energiewende.de

Agora Energiewende is a joint initiative of the Mercator

Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.
Back up
Sorted hourly load change with and without the impact of renewable energy in Germany.
Example load curves for two weeks during winter in Germany → The addition of intermittent renewables leads
to a significant change in both the minimum
and maximum hourly load changes
→ The overall average hourly load change
increases from 2,219 MW per hour to 2,595
MW per hour. This represents an increase of
about 17 percent. If intermittent renewable
shares reach even greater levels, the observed
load changes will also increase accordingly.
Basic working principle of coal-fired power plants
Schematic view of a water-steam power process → Schematic of a general water-steam circuit (Rankine
cycle) with main components:

▪ Pump
▪ Boiler
▪ Turbine (coupled with generator)
▪ Condenser

The working cycle is self-contained, meaning that the

working fluid (water) experiences different state changes
but does not leave the cycle. Steam turbines create a
torque by expanding high temperature and high pressure
steam.

Process steps:
→ Step 1: Pressure increase
→ Step 2: Heat addition through coal combustion
→ Step 3: Expansion in the turbine
→ Step 4: Condensation
Fichtner
The qualitative state changes of water in a water-steam cycle
Simplified representation of the state changes of water in a water-steam circuit Differentiation of subcritical, supercritical and ultra-
supercritical water-steam circuits:
Water-steam circuits can be operated below or
above the critical point of water specified by its
critical pressure and temperature (pc=221,2 bar;
Tc=374,15°C).
Three types of water-steam circuits exist and are
differentiated based on their live steam
parameters:
→ subcritical: 160 bar/535°C
→ supercritical: 240 bar/540°C
→ ultra-supercritical: 285 bar/600°C

The small rectangles represent the water in a liquid state; the large rectangles, the water in steam state;
the blue represents a state at lower temperature and the red a state at high temperature. Fichtner (2017)
Basic working principle of gas-fired power plants
Schematic of a gas turbine in open cycle configurations
Joule cycle is the underlying working principle of a gas-fired
power plant. One distinguishes between the open cycle and the
combined cycle configuration.
Basic components:

▪ Compressor
▪ Combustion chamber
▪ Turbine (coupled with generator)
Compressor, gas turbine and generator are mounted on a
common shaft.

Gas turbines create a torque by expanding a mixture of

compressed air and flue gas at high pressure and temperature.
In the open cycle configuration the exhaust stream is released to
the environment

Process steps:

→ Step 1: Compression
→ Step 2: Heat addition

→ Step 3: Expansion
Fichtner (2017)
Basic working principle of gas-fired power plants
Schematic view of a combined cycle gas turbine configuration Combined cycle gas turbines contain both the Joule, as well as
the Rankine cycle.

Basic components:

▪ Combination of a gas and a steam turbine

▪ Using the waste heat of the gas turbine exhaust to drive a
water-steam circuit process
▪ Components of a CCGT are similar to gas and steam turbine
power plants
▪ Difference: heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) instead of
externally-fired boiler

Process steps:

→ Step 1: OCGT process

→ Step 2: Heat recovery steam generator

→ Step 3: Steam turbine process

Fichtner (2017)
Comparison of flexibility parameters in different generation
technologies
Comparison of flexibility parameters in different generation technologies

Fichtner (2017); Original sources: (VDE, 2012), (Steck & Mauch, 2008) and (Balling, 2010). The technical data is from OEMs
Option 2: Switching from two-mill to single-mill operation
Operation of four burner stages (left) in comparison to a single burner stage in
single-mill mode (right)
Fichtner (2017) based on Heinzel, et al. (2012)
→At a certain net power output it is common to
turn off some of the typically 4-6 mills
completely and have the remaining mills operate
closer to their design point.
→At low load operation typically only two mills
are left in operation.
→To achieve very low load operation only one
mill can be operated in combination with one
burner stage. This allows both the mill and the
burner stage to operate closer to their design
point.
Option 4: „New“ turbine start
“Old” turbine start: “New” turbine start:

▪ Steam temperature has to be higher than ▪ Allowing “cold” steam to enter the steam
the metal temperature turbine at an earliest possible point
▪ Plant is kept in bypass operation until boiler ▪ Turbine is enabled to start with the boiler
outlet temperature meets steam turbine which is still ramping-up in load
conditions
▪ Used to be based on static performance
curves of the boiler and did not take any
possible ramp rates into account

▪ The start-up time is shortened and the

▪ “Hot” turbine became a disadvantage for the turbine is dispatched earlier
overall plant hot start performance
Potential and limitation of the retrofits:
Reduction of minimum load
Potential and limitation of the retrofits:
Reduction of start-up time
Potential and limitation of the retrofits:
Increase of ramp rate
Main challenges for the remuneration of flexibility
Balancing demand due to schedule leaps (hourly and quarter hourly) → A. In the morning hours the scheduled load
exceeds the actual load. Negative balancing
power is required. In the second half of the
hour, the situation reverses, and positive
balancing power is required.
→ B. In the evening hours when the load gradient
is negative, we see a mirror image of the same
trend. This results in the typical saw-tooth
pattern for balancing power demand – with
right-tilted spikes in the morning hours and left-
tilted spikes in the evening hours
→ C. Load procurement interval has a significant
impact on the magnitude of balancing power
demand. If the market design offers 15-minute
products, electricity can be purchased and
scheduled on a quarter-hour basis—which
significantly lowers the demand for balancing
Prognos (2017) power
Average balancing demand in Germany for each 15 minutes interval of the day
in 2012 to 2015
→ The typical saw-tooth demand pattern caused
by load schedule jumps can be clearly
observed in empirical data on German
balancing demand in 2012 and 2013:
Balancing demand is characterised by right
tilted spikes in the morning and left tilted spikes
in the evening hours
→ In 2014 and 2015 the pattern is less
pronounced. This is attributable to the rise of
the intraday market in German power trading,
which significantly reduced the structural
demand for balancing power associated with
schedule leaps

50 Hertz
Option 1: Repowering
Simplified illustration of a coal-fired power plant with a gas turbine employed for
feed water pre-heating → Key idea: Using the thermal energy of a gas
turbine to pre-heat the feed water of the water-
steam circuit to achieve a shorter start-up time
and to improve ramp rates.

→ Repowering is a retrofit measure, in which a

gas turbine is implemented into a coal-fired
power plant upstream of the water-steam
circuit. The thermal energy in the exhaust
stream of the gas turbine is transferred to the
feed water via heat exchangers.
Option 1: Repowering

Lignite-fired power plant Wesweiler in Germany Results

→According to (RWE Power AG, n.d.) in
2006/2007 two gas turbines with a net power of
190 MW each were installed at units G & H
(each 600 MW PNom) at Wesweiler in Germany.
→The pre-heating of the feed water by the gas
turbine exhaust led to an increase of net power
per unit by 80 MW (+ 6.6% PNom). The total
investment amounted to 150 million euros.

Source: (RWE Power AG, n.d.) (in the image:Wesweiler)