Unclassified: January 2000

Unclassified
Version
Australian Greenhouse
Office
January 2000
Integrating Consultancy -
Efficiency Standards for
Power Generation
Report
Unclassified
Version
Australian Greenhouse
Office
January 2000
Integrating Consultancy -
Efficiency Standards for
Power Generation
Report
Sinclair Knight Merz Pty. Ltd.

A.C.N. 001 024 095
100 Christie Street
PO Box 164
St Leonards NSW
Australia 1590
Telephone: +61 2 9928
2100
Facsimile: +61 2 9928
2500
http://www.skm.com.au
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this

document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or
copying of this document in whole or in part without the written
permission of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd constitutes an
infringement of copyright.
Contents
Definitions iv
Units vii
1. Executive Summary 1
1.1 Background and Terms of Reference 1
1.2 The Benchmarking Framework 2
1.3 The Survey Process 2
1.4 The Benchmarking Findings 3
1.5 Comparison with International Best Practice 5
1.6 Economic Analysis 10
1.7 Approach to Standards 12
1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations 14
2. Introduction 18
2.1 Background 18
2.2 Scope of Work 20
2.3 Teaming Arrangement 21
3. Approach to Benchmarking 22
3.1 Commonality in Approach 22
3.2 Questionnaire Development 24
3.3 Survey Process 24
4. Survey Analysis and Database 26

4.1 Data Collation 26
4.2 Methodology 26
4.2.1 Brown Coal Methodology – HRL 26
4.2.2 Black Coal Methodology – AUSTA 27
4.2.3 Natural Gas Methodology – PB Power 28
4.2.4 Other Fuels 30
4.3 Data Analysis 31
4.4 Potential Improvements 38
4.4.1 Black Coal 38
4.4.2 Brown Coal Stations 38
4.4.3 Natural Gas 40
4.4.4 Other Fuels 42
5. International Benchmarking 46
5.1 North American Experience 46
5.1.1 Databases 46
5.1.2 Data extraction and analysis 47
5.1.3 Black coal units 49
5.1.4 Brown Coal Units 51
5.2 US Gas Fired Power Generation (PB Power/Radian) 53
5.2.1 Data Source, Analysis and Collation 53
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC i
Version
5.2.2 Data Analysis 56
5.3 Japanese Black Coal Fired Power Plants (EPDC) 56
5.4 Other International Coal Experience 57
5.4.1 Conventional Advanced Cycles 58
5.4.2 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 60
5.4.3 Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustor 61
5.5 Worlds Best Practice Station Efficiency 61
5.5.1 Black Coal 61
5.5.2 Brown Coal 61
5.6 International Best Practice for Brown Coal (HRL) 65
5.6.1 Background 65
5.6.2 PF – Boiler/Turbine Technology 66
5.7 Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle (IGCC) 67
5.8 Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) 68
6. Financial and Economic Analysis 70

6.1 Evaluation Techniques 70
6.2 Options for Analysis 71
6.3 Existing Technologies and Change Technologies 72
6.4 Existing Plants with Current Technology Efficiency Improvements 72
6.4.1 Impacts 72
6.4.2 Method 1: Efficiency Improvements – Results 75
6.4.3 Method 2: Most Cost Effective Efficiency Gains 77
6.4.4 Threshold Analysis 78
6.5 Sensitivity Tests on Fuel Savings 80
7. Approach to Standards 81
7.1 Operational vs Design Efficiency 81
7.2 Algorithms 82
7.2.1 Effect of Coal Quality on Station Efficiency 83
7.2.2 Black Coal 83
7.2.3 Brown Coal 84
7.2.5 Site Temperatures and Humidity 85
7.2.6 Correction Algorithms 86
7.3 Gas Turbines 91
7.3.1 Open Cycle Gas Turbines 91
7.3.2 Combined Cycle Gas Turbines 92
7.4 Cogeneration 93
Appendix A - Integrating Consultancy Terms of Reference A-1
Appendix B - Benchmarking Database - Australian Fossil Fuel Generators B-1
Appendix C - Benchmarking Database - North American Fossil-Fuel

Generators C-1
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC ii
Version
Appendix D - Plant Modifications to Improve Efficiency D-1
Appendix E - Economic and Financial Analysis - Spreadsheets E-1
Appendix F - Addendum: Plants With Major Technology Changes F-1
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC iii

Version
Document History and Status
Issue Rev. Issued To Qty Date Reviewed Approved
Printed: 25 January 2000 11:18 A1/P1

Last Saved: 4 February 2000 3:53 PM
File Name: \\SKM-SYD1\VOL1\JOBDATA\DOC\HARB\Projects\Ha00316\REP99_02.18\Unclassified Version\r51irmdmu.doc
Project Manager: Ian Maitland

Name of Organisation: Australian Greenhouse Office
Name of Project: Efficiency Study
Name of Document: Report
Document Version: Unclassified Version
Job Number: HA00316.0
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC iv

Version
Definitions
Age The number of years the unit(s) has been in

commercial service.
Available State in which a unit is capable of providing service

regardless of the capacity level that can be provided.
Available Hours (AH) Period Hours (PH) less Planned Outage Hours
(POH), Forced Outage Hours (FOH), and
Maintenance Outage Hours (MOH).
Availability Factor (AF) Available Hours (AH)/Period Hours (PH) x 100 (%)
Equivalent Availability Factor {(Available Hours (AH) less Equiv. Unplanned De-
(EAF) rated Hours (EUDH) less Equiv. Planned De-rated
Hours (EPDH) less Equiv. Seasonal De-rated Hours)
/ Period Hours (PH)} x 100 (%)
Base Load Continuous load at or near rated capacity normally

with an annual capacity factor in excess of 60%.
Best Practice Thermal Efficiency Best commercially proven thermal efficiency for each
class of fossil fuel power generation, adjusted to a
common basis for comparison, and corrected for
significant technical influencing factors.
Capacity The power output measured in MW or kW, for

generating, pumping, or storing electric power.
Capacity Factor Ratio of the energy production of a generating plant

during a period compared to the total energy
production if the plant had operated continuously at
full output during the period:
Total Generation ( MWh ) x 100

(%)
Total Installed Plant Capacity ( MW ) x Period Hours
Demand The instantaneous requirement for electric power

normally expressed in kW or MW.
Dispatch The order in which generating units are brought on-

line to meet system load.
Fuel Chargeable to Power (FCP Total fuel input less fuel otherwise required to
generate equivalent useful heat output without
cogeneration.
FCP Efficiency Fuel Energy Ch arg eable To Power

FCP Efficiency = (%)
Net Plant Electrical Energy Output
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC v

Version
Gross Actual Generation (GAG) Actual number of electrical megawatt hours generated
by the unit during the period being considered.
Gross Available Capacity Greatest capacity at which a unit can operate with a
(GAC) reduction imposed by a derating.
Gross Maximum Capacity Maximum capacity a unit can sustain over a specified
(GMC) period of time when not restricted by seasonal or other
deratings.
Gross Output Factor (GOF) [GAG/(SH x GMC)] x 100 (%)
Higher Heating Value (HHV) Higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel including the
latent heat of vaporisation of moisture in the
combustion process.
Lower Heating Value (HHV) Lower heating value (LHV) of the fuel excluding the
latent heat of vaporisation of moisture in the
combustion process.
Net Actual Generation (MWh) Actual number of electrical megawatthours generated

NAG by the unit during the period being considered less any
generation (MWh) utilised for that unit’s station
service or auxiliaries.
Net Capacity Factor (NCF) [NAG/(PH x NMC)] x 100 (%)
Net Dependable Capacity (NDC) GDC less the unit capacity utilised for that unit’s
station service or auxiliaries.
Net Maximum Capacity (NMC) GMC less the unit capacity utilised for that unit’s
station service or auxiliaries.
Net Output Factor (NOF) [NAG/(SH x NMC)] x 100 (%)
Period Hours (PH) Number of hours a unit was in the active state.
Planned Outage Hours (POH) Sum of all hours experienced during Planned Outages
(PO) and Planned Outage Extensions (SE of PO).
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC vi

Version
Units
The units applied throughout this report generally conform to the Système
International (SI) with some limited reference to Imperial Units in relation to US
best practice.
Units Description
a annum (year) = 8760 h
bar bar (pressure) = 100 kPa
Btu 1 British thermal unit = 1.0555 kJ
GJ gigajoule = 109 joules = 278 kWh
GWh gigawatt hours = 106 kWh = 3.6 TJ
h hour = 60 min
J joule (energy)
kcal 1 kilocalorie = 4.187 kJ
kg kilogram (mass)
kJ kilojoule = 103 joules
km kilometre
kPa kilopascals (pressure)
kW kilowatts = 103 W
kWe kilowatts = 103 W (electrical)
kWh kilowatt hours = 3.6 MJ = 3,600 kJ
kWt kilowatts = 103 W (thermal)
L litre (volume)
m metre
min minute = 60 s
MJ megajoule = 106 joules
MW megawatts = 106 W = 103 kW
MWe megawatts = 106 W (electrical)
MWh megawatt hours = 103 kWh = 3.6 GJ
o
C degrees Celsius
PJ petajoule = 1015 joules
s second (time)
t tonne = 103 kg
TJ terajoule = 1012 joules
W watt (electric power: 1 Watt = 1 joule per second)
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC vii

Version
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Background and Terms of Reference
This Integrating Consultancy has been commissioned by the Australian Greenhouse

Office (AGO) in relation to the Efficiency Standards for Power Generation measure,
announced by the Prime Minister in November 1997 in his statement; Safeguarding
the Future: Australia’s Response to Climate Change. The Efficiency Standards for
Power Generation measure is one of a package of measures aimed at addressing the
issue of global warming. The measure is directed at working towards best practice
efficiency in the greenhouse intensity of energy supply.
An Efficiency Standards Working Group (ESWG) has been established with

representation from the Commonwealth, States, Territories and industry groups to
develop implementation strategies for the measure. The ESWG, through the AGO,
has commissioned four fuel specific consultancies (black coal, brown coal, natural
gas and other fuels) to:
¨ identify current international best practice from commercially operated power

generating plants in minimising greenhouse emissions per unit of electricity sent
out;
¨ identify constraints and variables that impinge on the achievement of

international best practice conversion efficiency at Australian power generating
plants;
¨ benchmark all Australian generation plants over 20MW capacity and identify
Australian best practice, highlighting current plant achieving Australian best
practice;
¨ determine and recommend appropriate emission standards for existing Australian

generation classes/plant over 20MW capacity together with an assessment of the
financial implications, and
¨ determine and recommend appropriate emission standards for new Australian

generation classes over 20MW capacity and identify financial implications where
relevant.
The Terms of Reference for the Integrating Consultancy were to:
¨ develop a framework for the four independent fossil fuel specific consultancies to
assess the best practice;
¨ review and integrate the work of the four fuel specific consultancy studies and
recommend appropriate emission standards for all relevant fossil-fuel classes
within Australia for both existing and new plant;
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC 1

Version
¨ recommend efficient mechanisms and processes for monitoring compliance on an
on-going basis, and
¨ assess the economic implications of the measure.
The more detailed Terms of Reference for each of the four consultancies and the
Integrating Consultancy can be found at Appendix A of this report.
1.2 The Benchmarking Framework
Sinclair Knight Merz, as the Integrating Consultants, developed a framework for the
four independent fossil fuel specific consultancies within which current Australian
best practice in fossil-fuelled power generation could be assessed in a common
format.
A single survey form for all generators was initially contemplated, but it was found
to be too difficult to develop one questionnaire suitable for all four fuel groups, and
particularly when taking into account the diversity of technologies within each fuel
group. Instead a set of key performance parameters was developed to allow a
common approach. The individual questionnaires were developed around this
framework and Sinclair Knight Merz ensured, through a process of review and
comment, that the fuel specific questionnaires contained the essential information
and performance data for later integration and economic modelling of the impact of
the measure.
Of particular technical significance were parameters that influenced thermal

efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions such as:
¨ fuel quality
¨ thermodynamic cycle and steam conditions
¨ operating regime (peak, intermediate or baseload)
¨ ambient conditions
¨ cooling and condensing systems.
Of significance to the economic assessment were:
¨ potential opportunities for improvement

¨ target CO2 savings
¨ incremental capital and operating costs
¨ timing of implementation in improvements
1.3 The Survey Process
The fuel specific consultants then prepared and issued questionnaires to the
generators identified in an earlier Sinclair Knight Merz report to the Australian
Greenhouse Office (AGO) in November 1998. These were supplemented with new
generators and/or modified by enquiries made to the industry by the consultants
during the process of the survey.
Version
The cut offs for inclusion in the measure were an aggregate fossil fuel generation
capacity on one site of greater than or equal to 20MW and greater than or equal to
50 GWh of annual generation. Our review of the data returns confirmed that this
removed from the measure generators that served emergency and standby duty only.
The questionnaires were variously issued in the period February to April 1999 and
were largely returned by June 1999, after an extended period of follow up, although
some still remain outstanding at the time of writing this report. The data collected
were verified and cross checked for consistency and an assessment made of the
current (1998 calendar year) performance at each generating site. In some cases
data were unavailable for the calendar year and it was necessary to work to another
time period (eg Financial Year).
The quality of the data returned was highly variable with some requiring extensive
research and follow-up with the respondents to clarify and gain confidence in the
final assessments of operating efficiency and emission rates. Other data returns
were of a very high standard of completeness and accuracy.
1.4 The Benchmarking Findings
Fossil fuelled generation, in Australia, was found to contribute an aggregate of 162

million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in calendar
year 1998. The split between fossil fuel classes is illustrated in Figure 1.1 below.
Figure 1.1: CO2 Equivalent Contribution of each Fuel Class
Brown coal: 37% Natural gas: 4%

Other fuels: 2%
Black coal: 57%
Power generation from black coal makes the greatest contribution at 92 million
tonnes of equivalent CO2 emissions (57% of total) due to the predominance of black
coal generation (56% of total).
Brown coal produces 60 million tonnes (37% of total) but at a higher carbon
intensity and lower electrical generation. Natural gas and other fuels are of much
lower significance; 4% and 2% respectively.
Version
The Australian current best performance for each fuel class was determined from an
analysis of the survey returns and is summarised in Table 1.1 Australian Current
Best Performance for Fuel Class below:
Table 1.1: Australian Current Best Performance for Fuel Class

Fuel Thermal Efficiency % Emission Rate
kgCO2/MWh
Black Coal 36.8 861
Brown Coal
Victorian 27.7 1220
Sth Australian 32.0 1080
Natural Gas
Steam 35.9 510
OCGT 35.1 537
CCGT 40.0 451
Other Fuels
Diesel 37.0 681
Cogen 83.8 314
Notes: Thermal efficiency is expressed as net (sent out) on an higher heating value (HHV) basis. All data have
been obtained through surveys by the Fuel Specific Consultants.
OCGT – Open cycle gas turbine.

CCGT – Combined cycle gas turbine.
Cogen – Oil fired steam cogeneration efficiency expressed on a fuel chargeable to power basis.
The relative intensiveness of the various fuel classes is illustrated in Figure 1.2:
CO2 Emission Rate Versus Efficiency based on typical fuel qualities. The actual
Australian best practice (ABP) performance of generators and world best practice
(WBP) has been overlaid on each fuel class curve. Whilst the world’s best practice
for commercial plant has been corrected to Australian conditions for significant
technical differences, no corrections are made for economic and regulatory
differences which may have influenced progress towards international best practice.
This graphical representation indicates that:
¨ Australian current best practice in each fuel class is behind worlds current best
practice (supercritical), after adjusting for site specific technical differences,
however it should be noted that the most efficient Australian generators were
placed in service in the 1980’s and their age and vintage need to be taken into
account in any comparison with current world’s best practice generation;
¨ Australian sub-critical best practice is only marginally behind world’s best

practice generation (see also Table 1.2);

Version
¨ there is very little difference between the carbon/hydrogen ratio of black and
brown coals; the efficiency versus CO2 rate curves are quite close together;
¨ the higher moisture content of Australian brown coal places it higher up the CO2
curve (lower efficiency) than European and North American brown coal;
¨ The natural gas CO2 emission rate curve falls well below coal due to the lower
carbon to hydrogen ratio.
Figure 1.2: CO2 Emission Rate Versus Efficiency
Brown coal
Black coal
2000
CO2 Emissions, kg/MWh
Natural gas
1500
ABP black coal
1000
ABP brown coal
500 WBP black coal
0 WBP brown coal

20 30 40 50 WBP CCGT
Net Plant Efficiency % (HHV basis)
ABP CCGT
Notes: ABP - Australian Current Best Practice

WBP - World Best Practice
CCGT - Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
1.5 Comparison with International Best Practice
Each consultant was required under their Terms of Reference to seek out measures
of International Best Practice of commercial plant and to make any adjustments
necessary to bring them on to a technically equivalent basis for comparison with
Australian generators. Under the Integrating Consultancy Sinclair Knight Merz
commissioned Sargent & Lundy of the US to provide data on the performance of
North American utility and non utility generators. In addition to this data on the
performance of plants in Europe and Japan were obtained from international sources
and literature.
The findings of these investigations are summarised in Table 1.2: Worlds Best
Practice Thermal Efficiency below. The thermal efficiencies have been adjusted
for known differences in technical parameters affecting efficiency to allow more
meaningful comparison with Australian generators. The North American generators

Version
are not at worlds best practice with the highest supercritical thermal efficiency being
reported at 39.8% for a 600MW plant built in the late 1960’s.
Table 1.2: Worlds Best Practice Thermal Efficiency (Fossil Fuels) – Sent Out
Black Coal WBP Efficiency Cycle Notes
HHV Basis
440MW 41.7% Supercritical # 27 MPag/580/600oC
Lubeck, GDR
405MW 37.7% Subcritical # 17 MPag/538oC/538oC
Brunner Is, USA
Brown Coal
850MW 31.4% * Supercritical # Schwarze Pumpe, GDR
25 MPag/544/562oC
500MW 29% Subcritical # International Literature
Gas Open Cycle

50MW 37.6% OCGT # International Literature
200MW to 35.5% OCGT # International Literature
300MW
Gas Combined
Cycle
200MW 46.7% CCGT # International Literature
500MW 52.0% CCGT # International Literature
Gas Steam Cycle

230MW 37.7% Subcritical # Haynes Generating Station, USA
IGCC
Black Coal 49.4% Joule III Study
Brown Coal 44.7% Joule III Study
PFBC
Black Coal 38.2% International Literature
Brown Coal 34.2% International Literature
Note: Adjusted for typical Australian condenser pressure (8kPa) and Australian coals.
OCGT – Open cycle gas turbine; IGCC – Integrated gasification combined cycle;
FPFBC – Pressurised fluidised bed combustion.
* Adjusted to a Victorian brown coal basis for comparison.
# Plants in commercial operation.
Germany and Denmark have led the development of advanced cycles in coal fired
power generation over the last 15 years. Advances in thermal efficiency over time
are illustrated in Figure 1.3: Development of Thermal Efficiency of Black Coal
Power Plants for black coal power plants. Over the period 1970 to 1993 net plant
efficiencies rose from 33% to 42% (HHV basis) with efficiencies projected to reach
45% by 2005. The integration of gas turbine topping cycles with conventional coal
fired stations is illustrated in the higher efficiency line from the mid 1990’s to mid
Version
2006. These cycles combine gas turbine exhaust with furnace wind (called hot
windbox) to give even higher cycle efficiencies. These advances in Europe have
been primarily driven by high fuel prices and a tightening in environmental
regulation.
Less emphasis has been given to efficiency improvement in conventional coal fired
generation in the United States where there has been more of a shift to natural gas
for new power generation. Although there are over 100 supercritical coal fired units
in the US most of these were installed in the 1960’s and 1970’s with only a very
small number coming on line in the 1990’s (only 3 stations were identified).
The US has however been at the forefront of integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) technology development with 250MW class plants installed and operating at
Tampa, Florida and Wabash River, Indiana. These are essentially demonstration
plants and are not able to be operated on a fully commercial basis. There are also
similar plants operating in Europe but again not on a fully commercial basis.
The Japanese have developed very high pressure supercritical plants with high steam
temperatures but the available performance data does not currently put these at the
worlds best practice efficiency levels of the German power plants.
Figure 1.3: Development of Thermal Efficiency of Black Coal Power Plants

55
η th % high-temperature steam process

with topping GT
50
high-temperature steam process

45
2
40 27MPa / 540°C / 600°C
1
25MPa / 540°C / 560°C
based on HHV
35
30
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Note: ηth – thermal efficiency (HHV basis).- Sent Out
The impact of moisture content on coal fired power plant emission rates is illustrated
in Figure 1.4: Effect of Coal Moisture on CO2 Emissions below. The thermal
efficiency (HHV basis) and CO2 emission rates are adversely impacted by high
Version
moisture due to the latent heat of evaporation needed to drive off the moisture during
the heat process (up to 20% on wettest coals). This is of particular significance to
the high moisture Victorian brown coals. However, technologies are emerging
which are aimed at capturing this latent heat in integrated fluid bed driers.
It should also be noted from Figure 1.4 that differences in the carbon/hydrogen
ratios of the various coals represented leave minor differences in emission rates after
adjustment to the common moisture basis (~60%).
The US, Europe and Japan have led the development of gas turbine technology.
Since the early 1950’s power turbine blade material temperature capability
advanced significantly (about 10oC per annum). The importance of this being that a
50oC increase in turbine firing temperature gives rise to an approximate increase of
10% in output and 3% in cycle efficiency.
Other significant areas of technology development have included:
¨ high enthalpy rise compressor stages (achieve required compression with fewer
rows of blades).
¨ improved cooling to turbine blades to permit higher turbine inlet gas temperature.
¨ inlet air cooling via evaporative effect of chilling to increase output and
efficiency.
¨ compressor on/off line blade washing systems to reduce performance
degradation.
¨ steam and water injection into the head end of combustors for NOx abatement,
increased mass flow and output.
¨ 2 and 3 pressure heat recovery steam generators to give optimised heat recovery
and overall combined cycle plant performance.
Open cycle gas turbine efficiencies have risen to as high as 37.6% (HHV basis) for
the latest aero-derivation designs and combined cycle efficiencies have reached 52%
(HHV basis).

Version
Figure 1.4: Effect of Coal Moisture on CO2 Emissions
CO2
(kg/MWh sent out)
emissions
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
950
900 Moisture = ∼ 60%wb
Victorian Normal Moisture

Brown coal Sth Aust.
Brown coal Black coal
(∼ 60%wb) (~30%wb) Illinois #6
(~ 45%wb) (~12.0%wb)
Coal Source (normal moisture)
1.6 Economic Analysis
At this stage it has only been possible to undertake a broad economic and financial
analysis. Detailed evaluation of improvements at each plant has not been
undertaken; rather an analysis that provides broad trends and indicative estimates of:
¨ the relationship between net costs and GHG emission benefits as efficiency
improvements are implemented by plant in order of cost effectiveness (i.e. least
cost per tonne of emission saved).
¨ the net cost of the efficiency improvements which would need to be covered by
the community either in the form of tradeable permit costs and/or increases in
electricity prices (i.e a threshold analysis to indicate the payments required to
cover the net cost across the 4 fuel groups).
The measured impacts include the capital costs, additional operational costs where
identified, the fuel saving benefits and a simplified payback period. Quantified
impacts are converted to net present values across an evaluation period of 28 years,
using a range of discount rates, with 10% being used as the “central” rate. The
analysis should be interpreted with care, taking into account the various caveats
which are shown in the report.
The analysis focuses on the improvements of existing technologies at existing plants.

Some information was gathered during the course of the consultancy on
improvements which involve the application of new technology or fuel switching for
generation at existing plants. This information is provided in Appendix F.

Version
For the current technology improvements at existing plants, the results from the
analysis can be summarised as follows:
Total Emission savings. Implementation of the identified capital improvements

results in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 3.9 million tonnes (CO2
equivalent) per annum. This represents an estimated 2.5% of current emissions
from these plants. The shares for each fuel type are:
¨ Black Coal (64% of generation) accounts for 45% of GHG reduction

¨ Brown Coal (29% of generation) accounts for 52% of GHG reduction
¨ Gas (6% of generation) accounts for 2% of GHG reduction
¨ Other fuels (1% of generation) accounts for 1% of GHG reduction.
Cost effectiveness by fuel source: At a 10% discount rate, the efficiency

improvements result in net present values for each fuel source (taken as a whole, not
on a plant by plant basis) as follows:
¨ Black Coal: the fuel savings over the period more than pay for the capital cost,
at the 10% discount rate “no regrets”.
¨ Brown Coal: a cost of $5 per tonne of emissions saved.
¨ Gas: a high cost for the improvements at the gas fired power stations of around
$200 per tonne of emissions saved. These existing technology improvements have
a high capital cost (totalling $177 million) and a relatively small improvement in
GHG emissions (totalling 72,000 tonnes per annum). As contrast capital
expenditure on Black Coal plant improvements is slightly less than that for Gas
plants, but the emission savings for Black Coal are almost 25 times the
magnitude).
¨ Other Fuels: a net cost result of around $47 per tonne of emissions saved.
The average simple payback periods for the improvements (not including
discounting effect) are estimated for the fuel groups at:
¨ Black Coal 5 years
¨ Brown Coal 19 years
¨ Gas 36 years
¨ Other Fuels 15 years
It should be noted that the payback periods vary significantly between plants in each
group.
Net cost and emissions relationship: Implementing the efficiency measures in order
of cost effectiveness (i.e. cost per tonne of emissions saved), the table shows the
breakdown of cumulative costs and emission savings.

Version
Table 1.3: Cost Effectiveness of Emission Savings
Number of plants Emission savings Emission savings Cumulative Net Cost per tonne
(cumulative) (cumulative) Cost saved
Cumulative 000 tonnes p.a. % of total % $ NPV (range)
14 2,124 54% 26% $0 or positive(a)
20 3,838 98% 59% $1 to $10
26 3,902 99% 77% $11 to $110
39 3,935 100% 100% $110 to $2,100
Note: (a) $0 or positive band refers to improvements that cost $0 or less to implement (i.e no regrets
position).
The net costs bands have been chosen on the basis of natural breaks in the result
data. Given the estimated nature of the data we do not feel it is appropriate to group
the data into narrower bands. The robustness of the data is such that policy
implications should not be based on narrower cost bands than those shown.
Key results:
¨ For the 39 plants for which data has been provided and analysed, these results
show that, of the maximum identified GHG emission savings (3.9 million tonnes
p.a.), about 2.1 million tonnes per annum (54%) can be achieved on a “no regrets
basis”. Black Coal plants dominate this area (results are using a 10% discount
rate).
¨ A level of net cost of $10 per tonne of CO2 would imply that 3.8 million tonnes
of GHG emission reduction could be achieved in this sector (98% of total
emission savings identified). This saving can be achieved for 59% of the total
cost of all the identified improvements. All the Black and Brown Coal Plants
analysed fall into this band, plus one plant in the Other Fuels Group.
¨ 41 % of the capital cost is accounted for by the 19 least cost efficient plant
improvements, and these only account for 2% of the emission reductions
identified (these plants are either in the Gas Group or the Other Fuels Group).
1.7 Approach to Standards
Operational Versus Design

We recommend the adoption of operational standards rather than design standards
for existing generators. The widespread nature of conditions that affect station
efficiency means that it is not practical, nor economic, to maintain plant in “as new”
condition to avoid off-design effects. Good management should involve monitoring
and tuning plant and continuously undertaking repairs and refurbishment aimed at
improving operational performance. However many of the remedial actions can only
be undertaken at the time of major overhauls (4-8 year intervals).
For new plants we recommend standards on a new plant design basis with economic
drivers associated with the cost of fuel saving also to maximise operational
efficiency. Standards for new plant will need to be set at the time of approval taking
Version
into account technology advances and best practical and commercial technology in
the Australian context. The formulation of commercial best practice will require an
extensive analysis and optimisation process taking into account the station specific
technologies and efficiency improvement opportunities and their cost benefit
analysis, including consideration of greenhouse emission costs if appropriate.
Efficiency versus Emission Standards

Two types of standards have been contemplated:
¨ Thermal efficiency, as measured in percentage terms or as a heat rate (kJ/kWh)
¨ Emission rates, in terms of kilograms of CO2 emitted per MWh of electricity sent
out.
The two standards are readily interchangeable through the application of fuel
specific emission factors (kg CO2/GJ).
We recommend the application of emission standards (kg CO2/MWh) on a station

by station basis so that the influence of the carbon to hydrogen ratio of the fuel is
taken into account. In setting targets this leaves greater opportunity for generators
to reduce emission rates through a broader range of options (eg co-firing of a
secondary fuel with a lesser carbon intensity).
Cogeneration
We recommend the inclusion of cogeneration in the measure and that the emission
standards be based on fuel chargeable to power bringing to full account the net
benefit of useful heat to delivered to an external process. The fuel chargeable to
power (FCP) is the actual fuel input less the fuel that would have otherwise been
used to generate the same amount of useful heat in the absence of cogeneration. The
emission rate is then calculated for the FCP generation in units of kg CO2/MWh.
Direct comparisons are possible with conventional generators within any fuel class.
Improvements for cogeneration most usefully apply to new plant where the heat to
power ratio can be optimised ahead of detailed design. There is much less that can
be achieved with existing plants with given heat to power ratios.

Version
Accuracy of Efficiency Measurement
The order of accuracy likely to be attainable for black coal stations is ±1% and for
brown coal stations ±2%. The most accurate means of determining efficiency is by
the measurement of coal input (quality and quantity) and electricity sent out
(preferably metered at a interconnection point net of auxiliaries). The order of
accuracy for gas fired power generation is likely to be of the order of ±0.5% to 1%
depending on the metering accuracy of the primary fuel flow measurement device.
Adjustments for output factor can be made from manufacturers performance data
supplemented by station performance tests. Adjustments for other site specific
variables can be made using the algorithms proposed below to allow comparison
with other stations.
Algorithms
In Section 7 of this report we propose a series of algorithms for the correction of
efficiency for site specific conditions. These include consideration of:
¨ fuel quality
¨ site temperature and humidity
¨ cooling water temperature.
The algorithms cover black coal, brown coal and natural gas fired generation. The
correction factors proposed for fuel quality are readily applied across the range of
fuels encountered in Australia and allow adjustment away from best practice to a
site specific standard.
The correction factors for cooling water temperature are presented graphically and
include a curve fit algorithm. We would however recommend the use of
manufacturer supplied curves where these are available.
The correction factors and curves provided for gas turbines are typical and we
recommend either the application of manufacturers curves for specific machines or
gas turbine performance evaluation software available from suppliers and
thermodynamic software houses.
1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations
Existing Generators
The plant performance determined by the fuel specific consultants, as given in this
report, provides the thermal efficiency and emission rates for each generator over the
baseline time period (1998). These performance indicators are based on a particular
set of conditions applying over this time period; for example; the output factor,
quality of fuel supplied, non recoverable degradation and prevailing ambient
conditions. Whilst adjustments can be made for all of these significant performance
influencing factors, we consider that it will be necessary to not only establish a
baseline performance for this measure, but to agree with each generator a set of

Version
benchmarks against which deviations in later years can be corrected. In order to
achieve this we recommend a process of consultation with each of the generators to
review, correct and agree the baseline performance figures given in this report and to
establish and agree a set of benchmark influencing factors. It is expected that plant
output factors and fuel quality will be the most significant of these but that others
such as ambient conditions and cooling water temperature will be identified in the
process of consultation.
We would support the development and agreement of curves and algorithms as

necessary on a site specific basis. There may be some parameters where generic
algorithms will apply to all generators within a fuel class.
Having established the baseline performance, and the associated correction

methodology, we recommend that the improvement measures identified by the fuel
specific consultants be reviewed with each generator to establish a target, or series
of targets, for improvement. As part of this process reference would need to be
made to Australian and Worlds best practice, adjusted as required for significant
influencing factors, to ensure that the targets set are challenging and reasonably
achievable recognising local conditions. More accurate technical investigation and
cost/benefit studies will be required, than was possible within the Terms of
Reference of this study, to determine the life cycle economics of each improvement
opportunity.
It is anticipated that a series of improvements would be agreed over a time frame

that recognised maintenance cycles and progressive improvement towards an
ultimate target performance. The targets and measures would need to be reviewed at
regular intervals to reflect potential changes in technology and commercial factors
(eg emergence of new equipment). We would expect that a review every 3 years
would be adequate to take account of such changes.
New Generators
This study identifies Worlds best practice for newer generation and makes
adjustment to general Australian conditions for significant technical factors that
influence performance comparisons in the context of this study. It was beyond the
Terms of Reference to identify, analyse and adjust Worlds best practice performance
for commercial and other non-technical factors that may have led to the higher levels
of performance identified in some countries. The objectives of this study were to
identify what technology is currently available to significantly lift Australian new
plant performance providing the commercial and other non technical factors are in
place to support new technology uptake.
We recommend that a set of new plant performance standards be set for Australia
taking into account all known technical differences that would require adjustment of
Worlds best practice to Australian site specific conditions. The algorithms proposed
in Section 7.2 of this report can then be applied for this purpose by an experienced
power engineer. It would then be up to the new plant developer to present any

Version
commercial and non-technical justification for anything less than the new plant
standard.
The standards will need to be reviewed regularly and we would recommend a short
review of international literature each year with a longer investigation, including
some further international benchmarking, every three years.
Refurbished Generators
We propose that refurbished generators be defined as those which involve major

capital expenditure over a relatively short period of time (typically 10-20% of
original plant capital cost over a period of less than a year). The refurbishment
should be aimed at returning plant to its original or an improved condition. There
are various levels of improvement;
¨ without uprating -life extension, improved efficiency and emission rates with and
without increase in capacity;
¨ with uprating – as above, but including technology change that will increase
capacity.
We recommend that refurbished generators be considered in a similar manner to

existing generators but with performance baselines and targets reflecting the
refurbished performance as a result of new technology employed.
Cogeneration
We recommend that cogeneration, embedded or otherwise, be approached in a

similar manner to existing and new generation. Our report identifies limited
opportunities for improvement in existing cogeneration and it should therefore be
afforded a lower priority.
We support the inclusion of cogeneration into new plant standards on the basis of
fuel chargeable to power as described in this report. Its inclusion will ensure the
capture of all forms of generation that are capable of providing significant amounts
of export power to the grid. We propose that the standards for new cogeneration be
the same as for conventional generation within each fuel class. New cogeneration
plant developers would be required to demonstrate an FCP efficiency higher than the
best conventional plant standard within the fuel class or provide commercial and
other non-technical justification for anything less.
Monitoring and Reporting
We recommend that monitoring and reporting be taken up within the existing

Greenhouse Challenge framework providing this can be modified or extended to
accommodate any needs that may emerge as the implementation of this measure
moves forward.
The key elements of monitoring and reporting that will be essential to this measure
are:
Version
¨ ensuring that existing and new plant measuring and metering accuracies are
sufficient to provide the required tolerances.
¨ establishing a common data collection and reporting format, preferably in

electronic form, that will facilitate the analysis and reporting of performance
against agreed targets and identification of non-compliance and proposed
remedial actions.
¨ accrediting the methodology to be adopted by each generator in collecting,

analysing and reporting performance in the agreed format.
¨ independent auditing of adherence to the methodology and target performance

compliance at agreed time intervals or milestones.
¨ submitting regular reports to the Australian Greenhouse Office (annual basis

preferred).

Version
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
Although Australia only contributes just over 1 % of total global greenhouse gas
emissions the per capita emissions are amongst the highest in the world. Without
targeted and specific actions Australia’s total emissions were expected to grow by
28% from 1990 to 2010 with emissions from the energy sector expected to grow by
40%.
Australia is a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (FCCC) and took part in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol to that Convention
which Australia has subsequently signed. Australia has yet to ratify the Protocol
but the Protocol does not come in to force until 90 days after 55 countries
representing at least 55% of total emissions have ratified the Protocol.
The Protocol potentially commits Australia to a legally binding differentiated target

of an 8% increase above 1990 levels by the first commitment period (2008-2012).
The National Greenhouse Strategy is the primary mechanism by which these
international commitments are to be met. The limitation of Australia’s net
greenhouse emissions has been identified as the most important area for action.
The strategy to achieve this commitment focuses on three fronts:
¨ improving awareness and understanding of greenhouse issues;

¨ limiting the growth of greenhouse emissions and enhancing the greenhouse sink
capacity, and
¨ developing adaptation responses.
The strategy includes the package of measures announced by the Prime Minister in
November 1997. This integrating consultancy has been formulated in response to
the Prime Minister’s November 1997 Statement; Safeguarding the Future:
Australia’s Response to Climate Change, which described a broad range of
initiatives aimed at addressing the issue of global warming. This statement
contained a package of measures to be adopted to demonstrate willingness to
effectively contribute to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One
of the measures; Efficiency Standards for Power Generation, was directed at
working towards best practice efficiency in the generation of electricity using fossil
fuels so as to deliver reductions in the greenhouse intensity of energy supply. The
measure is to apply to:
¨ new generation projects;

¨ significant refurbishments, and
¨ existing generation.
The fundamental objective of the measure is to reduce greenhouse gas emission

intensity by encouraging the adoption of world’s best practice for fossil fuelled
power generation without discriminating between fossil fuel classes.

Version
An Efficiency Standards Working Group (ESWG) was established with
representation from the Commonwealth, States, Territories and industry groups to
develop implementation strategies for the measure. The ESWG sought through
public consultations the views of stakeholders and prepared an issues paper which is
available on the Web at:
http://www.environment.gov.au.net/consulten.html.
An independent consultancy report on the measure was commissioned in May 1998

by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) and reported in November 1998. This
review was undertaken by Sinclair Knight Merz and had as its primary focus:
¨ to identify a set of classes of fossil fuelled power generation from consideration

of the relevant issues and diversity of circumstances;
¨ propose minimum sets of classes to produce the best outcome in terms of the
given criteria;
¨ determine whether the standards are best developed as emission standards,

thermal efficiency standards or operational thermal efficiency standards;
¨ identify barriers and solutions;
¨ propose compliance reporting and monitoring, and
¨ develop a database of fossil fuel fired power generators of greater than 30 MW

capacity at each site.
The report essentially recommended that:
¨ several classes of fossil-fuelled power generation be adopted taking into account;

fuel, unit capacity, cycle types and site specific operating parameters;
¨ minimum design standards for new generating plant including cogeneration plant;
¨ operating efficiency based standards for existing generators, with individual CO2
emission targets to capture the plant and site specific nature of emission levels
and improvement potential;
¨ recognition of efficiency measures that included fuel switching, and
¨ a scheduled approach to achievement of improvement in emissions from existing

generators recognising where they currently are in terms of life cycle, current
best practice and maintenance cycle.

Version
The ESWG subsequently recommended that emission efficiency standards be
developed for four different fossil fuel classes; black coal, brown coal, natural gas
and other fuels (coal seam methane, diesel and fuel oil). A further four
consultancies were commissioned in early 1999 to report on these four fuel specific
groups. The studies were awarded to:
Black coal: AUSTA Energy

Brown coal: Herman Research Pty Ltd (HRL)
Natural gas: PB Power
Other fuels: Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM)
An integrating consultancy was also commissioned at the same time to ensure

consistency of approach to benchmarking and world’s best practice, to bring
together the reports of the four fuel specific consultancies into an integrated whole
and to assess the economic impact of the measure. This consultancy was awarded to
Sinclair Knight Merz in association with Sargent & Lundy, a US based power
consultancy group with over 110,000 MW of fossil-fuelled power plant engineering
experience.
2.2 Scope of Work
The Scope of Work for the four fuel specific consultancies was essentially identical
except for the fuel considered with the objectives of each consultancy being to:
¨ identify current international best practice from commercially operated power

generating plants in minimising greenhouse emissions per unit of electricity sent
out;
¨ identify constraints and variables that impinge on the achievement of

international best practice conversion efficiency at Australian power generating
plants;
¨ benchmark all Australian generation plants over 20MW capacity and identify
Australian best practice, highlighting current plant achieving Australian best
practice;
¨ determine and recommend appropriate emission standards for existing Australian

generation classes/plant over 20MW capacity together with an assessment of the
financial implications, and
¨ determine and recommend appropriate emission standards for new Australian

generation classes over 20MW capacity and identify financial implications where
relevant.
In addition to this the Other Fuels consultant was required to identify all other fuels
relevant to the measure and to recommend appropriate emission standards.
The scope of work for the integrating consultancy was to:

Version
¨ develop a framework for the four independent fossil fuel specific consultancies to
assess the best practice;
¨ review and integrate the work of the four fuel specific consultancy studies and
recommend appropriate emission standards for all relevant fossil-fuel classes
within Australia for both existing and new plant;
¨ recommend efficient mechanisms and processes for monitoring compliance on an

on-going basis, and
¨ assess the economic implications of the measure.
The more detailed Terms of Reference for each of the consultancies can be found at
Appendix A of this report.
2.3 Teaming Arrangement
To assist in the identification of international best practice in power generation

efficiency Sinclair Knight Merz retained Sargent & Lundy, a US power consultant,
to undertake a review of the large database of information available on the
performance of North American utility and non utility power plants and to advise
on international best practice for advanced cycles. The North American utility
databases contain performance data reported as part of US environmental
compliance, system planning and electricity pricing in relation to over 13,000 utility
and non utility generating units.

Version
3. Approach to Benchmarking
3.1 Commonality in Approach
It was important in developing the approach to the survey process to ensure that the
fuel specific consultants all worked to a common approach. It had been initially
contemplated that this would necessitate a common survey questionnaire for all
fuels. However, in developing the common approach, it soon became clear that it
would not be easy to accommodate, within one questionnaire, the diversity of data
across all fuels and technologies. To do so would have also made the document
large, unwieldy and more difficult for survey respondents to complete in a timely
manner.
Instead the approach taken was to set a minimum number of plant descriptive and
performance related parameters which were essential to analyse and benchmark
thermal efficiency and greenhouse gas emission rates and to allow financial and
economic analysis of the measure. The key parameters are set out in Table 3.1 –
Key Survey Parameters below.
Table 3.1: Key Survey Parameters

Parameter Description
Owner Company
Location Address, State
No. of units 1, 2, 3, etc
Size Gross Available Capacity (GAC)
Date on line Year
Cycle Rankine, Brayton, Otto, Cogen
Steam conditions Pressure, temperature (main and reheat)
Operating regime Base, Cycling, Peak
Fuel Brown coal, black coal, gas, other
Fuel quality Ultimate analysis “as received” including auxiliary/start up fuels
Ambient Dry bulb, wet bulb, relative humidity (averages)
Elevation Reference level
Cooling type Once through (river, lake, sea), cooling tower (natural, forced draft)
Condensing system CW return temperature, temperature rise across condenser
Design heat rate (MCR) kJ/kWh (net, HHV basis)
Operating performance Annual capacity factor (ACF), Gross output factor (GOF), Net
capacity factor (NCF), Net heat rates (unit, plant), Net actual
generation (MWh)
Maintenance cycle Major overhauls; degradation and recovery in heat rate
Efficiency monitoring Method of measurement
Efficiency improvement Opportunities, financial impacts and timing
Note: MCR – Maximum Continuous Rating; HHV – Higher Heat Value (also called gross calorific value of
fuel).

Version
In addition to this it was necessary to define some calculated measures of thermal
efficiency for all fuels and plant classifications. These definitions, abbreviations and
units have then been applied consistently throughout all consultancies and can be
found in the Definitions and Units sections of this report. The most significant of
these to thermal efficiency determination were:
Net Heat Rate
Net heat rate is a measure of the thermal efficiency of the plant expressed in terms of
the fuel energy input (kJ) per unit of net plant (sent out) electrical energy output
(kWh). This is the most common form of plant performance reporting
internationally, although the units are sometimes different, and lends itself towards
quick conversion to thermal efficiency as follows
Total fuel energy input (HHV basis)

Net heat rate (NHR) = (kJ/kWh)
Net electrical energy output
where;
Total fuel energy input is calculated from metered fuel consumption (eg tonnes)
and higher heating value (HHV) as received (eg MJ/kg). These values are
generally reported on a monthly basis for station performance monitoring and the
unit computer identifies deviations some of the key variables that impact
efficiency (eg losses in dry flue gas).
Net electrical energy output is calculated from the gross generation (MWh) as
metered at the start and finish of each monthly period less the auxiliary energy
(MWh) which is separately metered over the in service period. The boundary for
auxiliaries was defined as all station auxiliary users necessary for the operation
of the plant including coal and ash handling, water supply, waste water treatment
etc (where these are supplied by the station auxiliary electrical system). Energy
used in any mine associated with the station is not debited from the gross
generation.
We have elected to use the higher heating value (HHV) of fuel throughout this
report, unless otherwise specified, for consistency and for meaningful comparison.
The higher heating value includes the latent heat of vaporisation of moisture in the
fuel and the latent heat of moisture formed in the combustion reaction. The lower
heating value (LHV) excludes this latent heat. The use of HHV is also preferred as
it is in keeping with the Australian methodology for greenhouse gas emissions (ref.
NGGIC/AGO Workbooks).
Thermal Efficiency
The thermal efficiency of the plant in percentage terms can be calculated by bringing
the energy units to a common kJ/kJ basis as follows:
Thermal efficiency (η th) = 3600*100/NHR (%)

Version
Cogeneration Efficiency (%)
Net electrical energy output + all useful heat output

Cogeneration efficiency = (units%)
Total fuel energy input (HHV basis)
where:
Net electrical energy output and total fuel energy input are as defined above.
Plant useful heat output is heat energy of all the process steam and water streams
(excluding gas turbine injection and inlet conditioning) plus all bled steam or
water; minus the heat energy of the process condensate return, process water
return, and the heat energy of any steam or water added from external sources.
The methodology recommended for calculation of CO2 equivalent emissions is

contained in the Greenhouse Challenge Workbook relevant sections of which appear
in Appendix D of this report. This calculation procedure brings to account the
global warming potential of the several greenhouse gases related to fossil fuelled
generation as a carbon dioxide equivalent basis.
3.2 Questionnaire Development
The questionnaires were developed by each fuel specific consultant in keeping with
the common approach and incorporating the key survey parameters identified in
Table 3.1 above. The questionnaires were all prepared as an Excel 97 spreadsheet
to facilitate quick delivery and return by Email and to allow data to be cut and
pasted into other spreadsheets for thermal efficiency and CO2 emission analysis.
The spreadsheets were accompanied by a letter of introduction about the measure,
the purpose of the consultancies and technical background to the questionnaire.
Copies of the questionnaires are provided at Appendix I of this report.
3.3 Survey Process
The consultants made contact with each of the generators to determine the most
appropriate contact and survey respondent within each organisation. Where
generators were unaware of the measure, or concerned about its implication for their
industry, the Australian Greenhouse Office sent a letter clarifying the government’s
intentions relating to the measure and provided reassurances about the very strict
confidentiality provisions of each of the consultancy agreements. In most cases
these reassurances were sufficient to allay the generators’concerns but in some
cases generators declined to participate for reasons such as:
¨ concerns over confidentiality and price sensitivity particularly for embedded

generators in an energy intensive and competitive industries;
¨ a belief that the measure should not apply to them as they either didn’t believe
they made the 20MW aggregate site cut-offs and/or the minimum generation
level of 50GWh;

Version
¨ a perception that generators embedded within an industrial process were not
included within the measure, and
¨ a view that cogeneration should not be included as it was believed to be superior

to conventional fossil fuelled generation through higher overall thermal
efficiency.
In some cases the consultants accepted these representations and noted the absence
of data returns for these organisations in the fuel specific consultants’reports.
The quality of survey responses was highly variable; some completed most of the
questionnaire to a high level of detail and accuracy and others were incomplete. In
the latter case, the consultants either followed up the data with the relevant
organisation or estimated thermal efficiency and emission rates. In some cases, sites
were visited to clarify the data. Respondents provided the least data in relation to
potential opportunities for improvement and associated plant capital and operating
costs. In many cases the consultants had to identify and develop best estimates of
potential improvements based on technical experience and public domain
information on each plant.
It was intended that data be collected for several years of operation to allow trend
analysis but these data were rarely provided. The consultants analysed the data,
compared it across classes of plant for consistency and with International Best
Practice. The consolidated data were then provided to Sinclair Knight Merz for the
purposes of integration.

Version
4. Survey Analysis and Database
4.1 Data Collation
The data provided by the fuel specific consultants were received progressively and
some were still outstanding at the time of finalising this report. Most generators had
not completed all of the survey questions and the consultants had to interpret the
data as best they could and develop estimates of key performance parameters
necessary for the determination of thermal efficiency and carbon dioxide emission
rates. The consultants also spent a considerable amount of time and effort in
developing opportunities for potential efficiency gains and emission reductions.
All data were consolidated into an Excel 97 spreadsheet; a reduced version of this
appears in Appendix B of this report. The spreadsheet has been designed to allow
efficient sorting of plant data by the adoption of a common set of acronyms and
nomenclature within each information group.
The database contains several descriptive columns of data providing information on

the plant name, location and ownership. The balance of data are largely numerical
and fall under the broader headings of:
¨ unit design specifications;

¨ site ambient conditions;
¨ operating performance ;
¨ target CO2 emission rates; and
¨ improvement potential and costs.
Each of the consultants adopted a slightly different approach to the analysis of the
raw data as summarised in Section 4.2 below.
4.2 Methodology
4.2.1 Brown Coal Methodology – HRL

The dominant greenhouse gas emission is CO2, although other gases such as CO,
N2O, and CH4 need to be considered. Whilst emission rates of these gases can be
obtained by direct measurement of the exhaust gas mass flow and composition these
direct measurements are generally not made and, therefore, an indirect method of
estimation was required. For CO2 emissions, this was done in a number of ways
using available plant performance data and coal composition data.
Method 1 – Annual Average CO2 Emission Rate
An estimate of the annual average CO2 emission rate was determined by calculating
the total amount of CO2 emission from the annual tonnage of coal delivered to the
power station and the carbon content of the coal. The annual average specific
emission rate was then calculated by dividing the annual CO2 emission by the annual
electrical energy sent out of the power station. A small correction was also made to
allow for any unburnt fuel.

Version
Method 2 – Instantaneous CO2 Emission Rates
An estimate of instantaneous CO2 emission rate was determined from test data
conducted under specific conditions. In the case of brown coal fired power plants,
conditions at or close to maximum continuous rating (MCR) were most desirable.
The coal quality data was used together with the coal flow rate to determine the
instantaneous rate of CO2 emission under the test condition. The specific emission
rate was then determined by dividing the CO2 emission rate by the rate of electrical
energy sent out by the power station. A small correction was made for any unburnt
fuel.
Method 3 – Instantaneous Boiler Efficiency and CO2 Emission Rates
This method of analysis was used to calculate the specific emission rates of CO2
from readily available plant data, and applied to each unit that was surveyed
because of differences in design, fuel and operating conditions.
The coal analysis and exhaust gas oxygen content is used to perform a combustion
calculation, which provided the air-to-coal ratio, the flue gas-to-coal ratio and the
flue gas composition. These data were then used with the flue gas temperature to
calculate the boiler efficiency. A correction was needed for minor losses such as
heat lost from the outer surfaces of the boiler, but this correction was small.
The steam side plant data (flow rates, pressure and temperature) were used to
calculate the heat absorbed by the water and from this, the boiler efficiency, heat
input, and coal flow rate. The flue gas flow rate, flue gas composition, and CO2
flow rates were then calculated. Data on electrical output was then used to
determine the specific emission rate.
The data was analysed using each of these methodologies and the results were
provided to Sinclair Knight Merz for consolidation.
4.2.2 Black Coal Methodology – AUSTA

The methodology adopted by AUSTA for the black coal generators was as follows:
¨ Detailed study of the plant and its performance for all Australian black coal fired
plants (≥ 20 MW capacity) through the following five step process:
− Staff Interviews
− Staff Questionnaires
− Plant Walkdowns
− Records Review
− Data Verification
The plants surveyed were then classified using the following criteria:
¨ Size
Version
¨ Steam conditions (pressure and temperature)
¨ Coal quality including gross calorific value, volatile matter content and ash
characteristics
¨ Type of auxiliary plant (eg., airheaters, cooling towers and coal pulverising
mills)
The black coal fired generators were benchmarked against the following criteria:
¨ Boiler/combustion efficiency
¨ Turbo-generator efficiency
¨ Auxiliary plant energy consumption (eg., flue gas cleaning plant, coal pulverising
mills, fans, boiler feedwater pumps, cooling water pumps, compressors, etc)
¨ Configuration of critical plant items such as condensers, cooling towers and
airheaters; and power plant Unit cycle chemistry
¨ Load profile
¨ Geographical factors
¨ Commercial factors including electricity dispatch and market factors
¨ Power station licensing and legal factors
In addition, during the plant surveys, particular consideration was given to:
¨ Plant condition
¨ Plant performance being achieved
¨ Environmental performance
¨ Operation and maintenance practices
The data collection process was supplemented with site visits to, and/or face-to-face
meetings with representatives of the following power plants:
¨ Six black coal generators in NSW.

¨ Six black coal generators in Qld, one proposed and one under construction.
¨ Four black coal generators in WA.
4.2.3 Natural Gas Methodology – PB Power

The key element of PB Power’s approach to Australian natural gas fired power
generation plant are described below.

Version
Data Review
A review of established data and public data bases of Australia power generation
and emission standards was carried out leading to the compilation of a list of
Australian natural gas power generation units.
The main sources of data were as follows:
¨ Electricity Australia 1988, Electricity Supply Association of Australia Limited

(ESAA), including diskette with data tables.
¨ Who’s Who in Australian Cogeneration, Plant Register, Members Directory and

Annual Review, Australian Cogeneration Association Incorporated, March 1998.
¨ Who’s Who in Australian Cogeneration, Annual Review, Market Analysis, Plant

Register, Members Directory, Australian Cogeneration Association Incorporated,
March 1999.
¨ Efficiency Standards for Fossil-Fuel Power Generation, Sinclair Knight Merz,

November 1998. (Unpublished)
¨ The Australian Greenhouse Office web site [http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ago/]
¨ The Workbook for Fuel Combustion Activities (Stationary Sources), National

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee, Workbook 1.1.1996 from
[http://www.erin.gov.au/portfolio/esd/climate/ggi/natmethod/energy1/energy1.ht
ml]
¨ Queensland Department of State Development web site

[http://www.dedt.qld.gov.au/projects/]
Questionnaire
PB Power developed a questionnaire which sought to define power generation

process technologies and the technological factors affecting plant efficiency.
Survey
PB Power established contact with all Australian natural gas fired power generators
with 20MW capacity or more and had them complete the survey questionnaire. An
extensive period of follow up and data verification led to the compilation of a
database of plant performance and potential improvements.

Version
World’s Best Practice
PB Power believed US research and developments in power generation and

greenhouse gas abatement to be amongst the World’s best. Radian Corporation,
who are held in high regard in this field, were engaged to undertake a study to define
current best practices in minimising greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas fired
power generation plants.
Radian’s work was based largely on a review of the very large US Department of
Energy data base along with input from recent projects undertaken by Radian.
Analysis
Data from completed questionnaires were downloaded into an Excel Workbook

spreadsheet database and audited for completeness and sensibility.
PB Power then sought to identify, analyse and describe variables which impact on
the achievement of world’s best practice conversion efficiencies, taking into account
the possible significance of technological factors, geographical implications, other
commercial factors, and legal factors such as local or State government
requirements.
4.2.4 Other Fuels

Sinclair Knight Merz’s approach to the “other fuels” power generation in Australia
was to survey those plants which did not fall under the other major fuels. In so
doing the data base developed for the Australian Greenhouse Office and reported in
November 1998 was used.
A questionnaire was developed to collect the necessary operating and performance

data together with all technological factors affecting the plant efficiency.
Sinclair Knight Merz then established contact with all the “other fuelled” fired
power plants listed with 20MW or more installed capacity requesting them to
complete the survey questionnaire.
Data from the completed questionnaire were downloaded into a spreadsheet data
base. Many of the plants surveyed were found to be peak load units or emergency
sets which did not achieve the 50 GWh per year criteria and were deleted. As a
result only 9 plants were evaluated within the study.

Version
4.3 Data Analysis
An analysis of the data conceived in the consolidated database (Appendix B)

indicates that black coal currently accounts for 62% of total installed capacity
(MW), with brown coal 20%, natural gas 15%, and the other fuels 3%. This is
illustrated in the pie chart of Figure 4.1 Installed Capacity (MW) by Fuel Class.
The net generation (MWh) by fuel class is similarly illustrated in Figure 4.2: Net
Generation (MWh) by Fuel Class. Of interest here is that brown coal, whilst
accounting for 21% of total installed capacity accounts for 25% of total generation.
This reflects the current load duty and dispatch level achieved by the brown coal
fired power stations in the overall generation mix. Brown coal fired power
generation currently enjoys a lower short-run marginal cost and tends to secure base
load generation. With the introduction of higher efficiency combined cycle and
cogeneration plants it is expected that the natural gas will start to assume a greater
proportion of base loaded generation just as it has in the United Kingdom and the
USA.
Figure 4.1: Installed Power by Fuel Class
Natural gas: 15%

Brown coal: 21% Other Fuels: 3%
Black coal: 61%

Version
Figure 4.2: Net Generation (MWh) by Fuel Class
Natural gas: 12%

Brown coal: 25% Other fuels: 7%
Black coal: 56%
Figure 4.3: CO2 Emissions (tonnes) by Fuel Class
Brown coal: 37% Natural gas: 4%

Other fuels: 2%
Black coal: 57%
The distribution of CO2 emissions across the four fuel classes is illustrated in Figure
4.3 CO2 Emissions (tonnes) by Fuel Class. It is interesting to note that brown coal
assumes a greater proportion of the total emissions (37%) due to the higher moisture
content and lower thermal efficiency. Natural gas is proportionally lower at 4% due
to its lower carbon to hydrogen ratio and CO2 intensity. Other fuels remain
relatively insignificant at 2% of total emissions.
Clearly the greater emphasis for overall emission improvement must be placed on
the existing black and brown coal fired generation if a significant reduction in CO2
emissions is to be achieved from this measure. It is however likely that natural gas
will play a greater role in the future and standards for new gas fired power plants
will have a more significant longer term impact.

Version
The distribution of thermal efficiency and CO2 intensities of the existing black coal
generation is illustrated in Figure 4.4: Black Coal Thermal Efficiencies and
Figure 4.5: Black Coal CO2 Intensities. This indicates that 6 of the 19 black coal
generators have an efficiency of greater than 35% (HHV basis) and, when compared
to WBP Efficiency of 37.7% for similar subcritical plant, suggests some potential
for improvement in the performance of those with lower efficiency and therefore
higher CO2 intensity. The potential for improvement of the existing plant is
discussed in later Section 4.5 of this report. In addition to specific efficiency
improvements in existing plants it is likely that there will, over time, be a shift to
higher efficiency new entrants and older less efficient plants will be retired or placed
on a lower merit order of duty.
Figure 4.4: Black Coal Thermal Efficiencies
40%
35%
30%
Thermal efficiency
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
11
13
15
17
19
Station

Version
Figure 4.5: Black Coal CO2 Intensities
1600
1400
1200
Emission rates
1000
kg/MWH
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Station
The distribution of thermal efficiency and CO2 intensities of the existing brown coal
generators is illustrated in Figure 4.6: Brown Coal Thermal Efficiencies and
Figure 4.7: Brown Coal CO2 Intensities. This distribution indicates that only 4
generators have an efficiency greater than 25% (HHV basis) and again suggests
some potential for improvement across the remaining group although account needs
to be taken of the age, vintage and cycle conditions. A range of potential
improvement opportunities are identified in Section 4.4 below. It is however
acknowledged that the greatest potential improvements are likely to be found in the
older plants and economic analysis will determine whether these measures are
attractive or, if CO2 targets are not being met, whether the lower efficiency stations
will in time need to be retired or placed on lower merit order of duty.

Version
Figure 4.6: Brown Coal Thermal Efficiencies
35%
30%
25%
Thermal efficiency
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Station
Figure 4.7: Brown Coal CO2 Intensities
3000
2500
2000
Emission rates
kg/MWh
1500
1000
5 0 0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
S ta tio n
Note: Plant 8 is not representative of straight power generation as steam is also sent to process.

Version
Figure 4.8: Natural Gas Thermal Efficiencies
90.0%
Cogeneration plants
80.0%
70.0%
Gas turbine combined cycle

Thermal efficiency
60.0%
Steam thermal
50.0%
40.0% Gas turbine open cycle
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
Station

Version
Figure 4.9: Natural Gas CO2 Intensities
1200
Combined cycle gas turbine
Steam thermal
1000
Open cycle gas turbine

Cogeneration plant
800
Emission rates
kg/MWh
600
400
200
0
1
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
Station
The distribution of thermal efficiency and CO2 emission intensities of the existing
gas fired generators are given in Figures 4.8 and 4.9 for open cycle, steam, and
cogeneration plants. The open cycle gas turbine efficiencies range from 20 to 30%
with a mean of approximately 25%. These efficiencies are considered reasonable
taking into consideration the age, ambient condition, class and duty cycle of the
various plants. Newer aero-derivative and large heavy industrial turbines are
achieving higher efficiencies (up to 40%) but in an operating environment are less
due to the ambient conditions and duty cycles. It is expected that open cycle
efficiencies will continue to improve as newer plant comes on line and older plant is
overhauled and upgraded.
The Rankine cycle steam power plant efficiencies average around 31% which
compares reasonably well with similar class of plant internationally taking into
account age and cycle conditions. The major opportunities for improvement lie in
repowering these plants to include gas turbine exhaust heat recovery. There are only
two operating gas combined cycle power plants in Australia, excluding those which
incorporate cogeneration. The efficiencies of these plants are consistent with those
of comparable international plants of similar age and class.

Version
The cogeneration plant efficiencies range from 25 to 83%. This suggests that there
may be some potential to improve the overall performance of cogeneration plants
during the development phase by ensuring a better match of heat to power ratios.
4.4 Potential Improvements
4.4.1 Black Coal

For most of the black coal fired stations a range of measures to reduce greenhouse
gas emission intensity has been provided. In general the measures for the older
stations provide a greater improvement in efficiency than for the more recently
installed stations as is to be expected. Typically the projected reduction in CO2
intensity is of the order of 1% for the newer stations and up to 6% for older stations.
The economics of the modifications for the older (smaller) stations are not as
attractive as for the newer stations. Details of the measures are given in the
spreadsheet in Appendix B. On some stations where no specifics are given as to the
improvement measures proposed an effective reduction in CO2 intensity of up to 7%
is listed. In these cases because of the absence of specifics an assessment of this
figure has not been possible.
The major initiatives focus on:
¨ improvements in condenser pressure by modifications to condensers and cooling

towers and/or by the installation of an on-line cleaning system for the condensers.
¨ reinstatement/repair of feed water heaters
¨ reduction of leakage air in the airheaters.
For older plant overseas there has been a trend to undertake a major upgrade of the
turbine involving new high efficiency turbine blades together new rotors. The
resultant reduction in CO2 intensity has been claimed to be from between 3 and 5%
depending on the extent of the upgrade and the original design of the plant.
Such major upgrades can only be justified where the fuel cost is moderate to high
and the remaining life of the station is substantial. An examination of the economics
of this option for some of the black coal stations may show that it is economically
justified. The cost of such upgrades have been included in the economic evaluation
for the brown coal fired stations but information on such upgrades was not included
for the black coal fired stations.
4.4.2 Brown Coal Stations

The following measures have been forwarded by HRL as measures that could be
implemented on brown coal fired plant. Intentionally the measures are non-station
specific.

Version
Table 4.1: Efficiency Improvement
Action Efficiency CO2 Capex Opex CO2 Notes

Improve- emission $/kW $/MWh reduction
ment, * reduction cost
% kg/MWh $/t#
Restore the plant to design
conditions:
Operate boiler at the design O2
Restore and maintain airheaters
Minimise boiler tramp air 0.42 6 0 0.023 4.00 1
Reinstate any feedheaters out of 0.46 6 5.5 0 9.75 2
service (Plant X)
Reinstate any feedheaters out of 1.97 27 5.8 0 2.81 2
service (Plant Y)
Refurbish feedheaters(3) 0.84 11 1 0 1.15 2
Reduce steam leaks 1.1 14 2 0 1.77 1
Reduce turbine gland leakage 0.84 11 0.055 0 0.06 1
Changes to operational
settings:
Low excess air operation (1) 1.22 19 0 .08 4.23 3
Improved combustion control 0.84 11 0 0.015 1.33 1
Increased condenser cleaning
Increased boiler cleaning
Retrofit improvements:
Coal drying with heat recovery 4.5 55 177 1.44 63 1
Extra airheater surface in the 2.1 26 8.2 0.013 2.11 3
boiler
Install additional sootblowers
Install new high efficiency 0.98 13 22.1 0 21.42 1
turbine blades
Change to steam driven feed
pumps
Install variable speed drives 1.97 27 5 0 2.41 1
Install on-line condenser cleaning 0.84 11 2.8 0.019 4.79 1
system
Install new cooling tower film 1.97 27 11 0 5.35 1
pack
Install intermittent energisation 0.32 4 0.4 0.007 2.82 1
to ESP’s
Notes:
* One percent change produces one percent change in fuel flow and CO2 intensity.
# Discount rate 8%, 25 years
1 Based on information supplied in survey
2 Three estimates based on survey data and on plant performance model. Result is plant specific (Plant X and Y).
3 Based on estimates from plant performance model, with in-house cost data
The measure of ‘coal drying with heat recovery’is a capital intensive process and
the technology has not been used on a major utility boiler. Hence it should be viewed
as being not commercially nor technically proven at this stage.
Because of the different plant configuration and the variable condition of the each
station not every item can be implemented at each station. In addition a number of
the initiatives have already been implemented at some stations either before or as
part of the Greenhouse Challenge Program.

Version
There are a number of items which will 'overlap' in their effect such that the
efficiency gains are not directly additive. For example extra airheater surface, lower
excess air, minimisation of tramp air and re-installation of feed heaters will interact
such that the overall improvement will be significantly less than the sum of the
individual items. For each station detailed calculations would need to be undertaken
to determine the combined effect of inter-dependant initiatives.
For a number of the initiatives the gain in efficiency stated would appear to be
optimistic. The improvement of 1.97% stated for the installation of variable speed
drives needs to be considered in relation to the overall auxiliary power usage,
approximately 8%, and the extent of variable speed drives already installed. The
motors without variable speed drives amount to less than 4% of generated output
and thus a saving of approximately 50% would seem to be unattainable. Variable
speed drives usually show an efficiency improvement only where the station
operates for a proportion of time at lower loads. Because of the economics, brown
coal fired stations do not normally operate for long periods at low loads.
One other efficiency improvement measure where the nominated gain would appear
to be optimistic is for the improvement of the cooling tower performance by the
inclusion of a film pack. A potential improvement of 1.97% has been stated. Based
on a theoretical thermodynamic calculation in order to achieve this improvement a
reduction in condenser pressure of 3.5 kPa would be required which in turn would
necessitate an 8oC reduction in cooling water temperature. A film pack is capable of
reducing the water temperature by only some 3oC. The foregoing analysis is based
on theoretical consideration. In practice because of the restriction of the exhaust
flow area the actual gain in efficiency due to an improvement in condenser pressure
will be below the theoretical predictions.
In order to advance the practical options for efficiency improvement a soundly based
engineering study with costings would need to be undertaken for each station.
4.4.3 Natural Gas

PB Power has developed a list of potential power plant improvements for the various
classes of gas fired power generation.
Open Cycle Gas Turbines

The open cycle gas turbines were considered to be at or near International Best
Practice considering the size of turbine, duty cycle and time of installation. The
most significant factor affecting gas turbine performance is the ambient inlet
temperature to the compressor. Lowering the compressor inlet temperature can be
accommodated by the installation of an evaporative cooler or a chiller in the inlet
ducting downstream of the inlet air filters. Careful application of these systems is
required as condensation or carry over of water can exacerbate compressor fouling
and degrade performance. Moisture separators, or coalescing pads, are often used
to reduce the possibility of moisture carryover.

Version
The most significant gains from evaporative cooling can be realised in hot, low
humidity climates. Evaporative cooling is limited to ambient temperatures of 15oC
and above because of the potential for icing of the compressor.
Chillers, unlike evaporative coolers, are not limited by the ambient wet bulb
temperature. The achievable temperature is limited only by the capacity of the
chilling device to produce coolant and the ability of the coils to transfer heat.
PB Power has proposed that inlet air cooling could be added to many of the existing
gas turbine plants. PB has estimated an average efficiency gain of 0.5% and that an
aggregate 2000 tonnes of CO2 per annum could be saved through this measure.
These proposals will need to be subject to detailed investigation and cost analysis to
determine whether a significant improvement could be cost effectively achieved at
each site. An added benefit of inlet air chilling is the increased power output
achieved which would also need to be taken into account in the financial analysis.
It would also be possible to convert open cycle plants to combined cycle providing
this suited the duty cycle and was economically justifiable. PB Power has estimated
an efficiency gain of 25 to 50% with an aggregate 168,000 tonnes of CO2 saved
through this measure. Conversion to combined cycle will require substantial
changes to staffing, operations and maintenance and those plants will need to run at
much higher capacity factors to be commercially viable.
Combined Cycle Plants

There are only two combined cycle plants currently operating in Australia, without
cogeneration, with two others committed, one of which will be commissioned in
1999/00. The opportunities for improvement are limited and include inlet air
chilling and some minor potential for reducing boiler exhaust temperatures and
improving condenser performance. These measures have been estimated by PB
Power to produce gains of 0.1 to 0.3% in thermal efficiency and an aggregate
reduction of only 860 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
Steam Power Plants

The Rankine cycle steam power plants generally represented International Best
Practice at the time of installation (∼ 1970’s). The most significant opportunity for
improvement identified by PB Power is the potential for repowering. Repowering is
generally defined as the integration of gas turbine generators with heat recovery
equipment into an existing steam power plant. There are essentially three
approaches to repowering:
¨ feedwater heater repowering

¨ boiler repowering (eg hot windbox)
¨ heat recovery repowering (as proposed by PB Power)
Feedwater repowering utilises the gas turbine exhaust to heat feedwater in the
existing steam plant.

Version
Boiler repowering systems utilise the gas turbine exhaust for combustion air in the
existing boiler. The hot, oxygen rich gas turbine exhaust supplements, or replaces,
the function of the forced draft fan and air heater. The heated combustion air
reduces the boiler fuel requirements.
Heat recovery repowering utilises gas turbines and heat recovery steam generators
(HRSG’s) to replace the power boiler in the existing steam plant. The steam supply
to the existing steam turbine is generated in the HRSG by energy recovered from the
gas turbine exhaust. The thermal efficiency gains are typically 50%. The
economics of repowering are primarily dependent upon the fit of the gas turbine -
HRSG system with the existing steam turbine generator, the incremental capital and
fuel cost and plant operating profile.
PB Power has estimated an aggregate CO2 reduction of 540,000 tonnes per annum
from repowering.
Cogeneration
Potential improvements for cogeneration lie in many of the areas identified above
and include:
¨ GT inlet air cooling

¨ reducing boiler exhaust temperatures
¨ improving condenser cooling
¨ maximising heat to process
The potential gains from these measures were not able to be assessed by PB Power.
4.4.4 Other Fuels

The other fuels generators are purpose designed to suit either a location or a process
and are not as easily benchmarked against World’s Best Practice.
Of the “other fuels” generators using fuels such as:

¨ coal seam
¨ distillate
¨ heavy fuel oil
¨ bagasse (as well as fossil fuels)
¨ LPG
¨ opportunity fuels such as light petroleum by-products
¨ coal washery rejects
The bagasse fired plant is a multi fuel plant which when fired on bagasse firing
alone, achieves the 20MW/50GWh threshold. If supplementary firing with fossil
fuel is used, it will extend its capability.
Only the first four met the criteria of installed capacity of 20MW or more and
generation of over 50GWh per year.

Version
It is considered that there are a few installations using refinery by-products but no
operating data was made available. There is also a new 140MW power station
being constructed which will use coal washery rejects in fluidised bed boilers but
operation is not scheduled to commence until 2000.
Coal Seam Methane Generators

The spark ignition reciprocating engines installed to utilise coal seam methane
(CSM) are sophisticated, modern gas engines designed for ‘low BTU’fuels. The
design is quite different to an engine designed to burn natural gas and must be able
to withstand the corrosive constituents that can result from burning coal seam gas
and similar low BTU fuels.
The performance of existing CSM generators was compared to world’s best practice
by obtaining test data from a range of engine manufacturers. The comparison was
made on the basis of low BTU fuels, and not natural gas. Consideration has also
been given to the next generation of gas engines and predicted efficiencies. The
results are present in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Summary of gas engine performance

Manufacturer Engine type Model Electrical efficiency
(%)
Waukesha 1075 kW spark ignition VHP5500GL 32.7
gas engine
Jenbacher 1000 kW spark ignition JMS320 GS-B.L. 38.9
gas engine
Deutz 1000 kW spark ignition TBG 620K 38.7
gas engine
Caterpillar 1000 kW spark ignition G3516 35.5
gas engine
Diesel Generators
Diesel stations of the size surveyed usually service a remote site without indigenous
fuels. These stations are normally not used for utility power generation and are
generally owned and operated by mining companies. Little data are available on
world’s best practice.
The best indication of world’s best practice can be obtained by comparing the
efficiencies of the installed diesel engines with the latest commercial engine
technology. A summary of current diesel engine performance and future engine
developments is given in Table 4.3 below.

Version
Table 4.3: Summary of Diesel Engine Performance
Manufacturer Engine type Model Thermal efficiency @ Thermal efficiency
MCR (%)* of next generation
(%)
Ruston 5 MW, 4 stroke 16RK270 39.0
Wartsilla 5.1 MW, 4 stroke 18V26 38.5 50
MAN B&W 5.4 MW, 4 stroke 14V3240 39.7
* converted to higher heating value basis (HHV).
Steam Generators
The steam generators using other fuels are either embedded cogeneration within an
industrial complex or located in a remote area and servicing mining or mineral
processing operations. There are no international benchmarking data for these types
of installations so we have therefore looked at the major elements of the generating
plants.
Boiler Performance
The efficiency of a boiler varies with the type of fuel. Some typical best practice
levels of efficiency are indicated below:
¨ Coal fired 90%

¨ Oil fired 89%
¨ Natural gas 86%
¨ Blast furnace gas 87%
¨ Coke oven gas 83%
¨ Bagasse 68%
These efficiencies are at full load and the performance drops off approximately 1-
2% as the load reduces to 60% of full rated output. Other corrections for fuel
quality and site specific ambient conditions apply as described in Section 7.2 of this
report.
Steam Turbine/Generator Performance

There have been considerable improvements in steam turbine blading design over the
past 20 years. These improvements have resulted in between 3-4% increase in
thermal efficiency assuming the same inlet and exhaust conditions. There have also
been improvements in the efficiency of the electrical generator.
The units currently installed are generally of early vintage and a gain in efficiency
could be obtained by increasing the steam conditions. However, this change would
involve considerable capital cost as it requires essentially a new power plant with
new boilers, turbine generators and auxiliaries.

Version
Cogeneration
The most efficient development of cogeneration plant requiring medium pressure
process steam is the combined cycle incorporating a combustion turbine. At present,
such an installation would require natural gas or distillate as the fuel, although some
turbine manufacturers do offer turbines which fire heavy fuel oil or low BTU fuel
such as coke oven, blast furnace or mine gas, but their performance is not reliably
proven.

Version
5. International Benchmarking
5.1 North American Experience
5.1.1 Databases
To assist in the task of benchmarking data collection and analysis SKM
commissioned Sargent & Lundy (S&L) of the US to undertake benchmarking of
North American fossil-fuel generators. S&L have reported on the heat rate data
available from two databases related to US electrical system demand planning, price
forecasting and environmental compliance requirements.
¨ Resource Data International (RDI)

¨ Utility Data Institute (UDI )
The UDI database contains data on 13,000 generating units including Utility
Generators, Non Utility Generators (NUG’s) and Canadian units. In most cases the
units need to be over 25MW in capacity. The database contains heat rate
information gathered from continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) and
Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) reports. All of the required heat rate data
required for thermal efficiency benchmarking are available from the RDI database,
and supplementary unit descriptive data from the UDI database which contains 1800
units.
We have been informed that the UDI database is being progressively replaced by the
RDI database which is no longer being kept up to date. S&L have therefore relied
more on the RDI data which is not only more extensive but is being kept up to date.
Most of the data are provided on multiple CDROM’s with quarterly updates.
Options for searching, sorting and filtering the data are available. The data can be
exported into an Excel spreadsheet format. A separate database program called
Powerdat is available to more easily provide much of the data contained in the
Basecase program.
The data contained in these databases are relevant to thermal efficiency

benchmarking but are structured to provide other data essential to atmospheric
environmental compliance. They include several descriptive fields relating to flue
gas emission technology, particulate matter dust removal, flue gas desulphurisation
(deSOX) and reduction of oxides of nitrogen (deNOX). Unfortunately the data did
not include information on the cooling system and associated design parameters.
The data available and of relevance to benchmarking for thermal efficiency included:
¨ Plant name and in some cases location (useful to establish site specific ambient
conditions)
¨ Unit number, type and duty (peak, cycling baseload)
¨ Date the unit went online
¨ Design steam conditions (main steam and reheat)
¨ Fuel type (black coal, lignite, gas)
¨ Full load tested, gross available capacities and net unit heat rates
Version
¨ Auxiliary power consumption
¨ Monthly operating fuel rates, generation (MWh) and load factors which allow
calculation of operating net unit heat rates
5.1.2 Data extraction and analysis
Fully Loaded Tested (Net Plant) Heat Rates
These data come from EIA Form 860. The most currently available values are in
the database. The values are based on full load conditions. If a reported value is not
available for a particular unit, a value is "assigned" based on the unit type and size.
A code identifies whether the value is a true reported value or an assigned one. Only
a small percentage of the units have an “assigned” value. These values are already
sorted and available for comparison to operating units. These “default” values are
based on data averages from all the industry units in 50 MW size increments.
Average (Gross or Net) Unit Heat Rates
Hourly unit load, and heat input data is collected by the continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS). Data are available for January 1995 through
September 1998. Basecase uses a curvefit procedure to derive a polynomial
relationship between heat rate and the MW load level of the unit, based on a year’s
collected data. The average gross plant heat rate can be determined for any
operating MW load level using the curvefit equation. The equation is given in terms
of the coefficients b, b1, b2, and b3.
Basecase estimates the auxiliary power consumption by comparing unit level

monthly net generation reported on EIA Form 767 and the monthly sum of hourly
gross generation data collected by the CEMS. The net plant heat rate can be
calculated from the auxiliary power consumption and the gross plant heat rate.
Average Monthly Net Unit Heat Rates
The Powerdat program calculates average net unit heat rate on a monthly basis.
Data for 1994 through 1998 are currently available. The heat rate is calculated by
using the monthly net generation and fuel consumption, reported on EIA Form 759,
combined with the heat content of the fuel reported on FERC Form 423. The total
heat energy in fuel (Btu’s), calculated from the consumption and the heat content of
the fuel, is divided by the net generation to determine the average monthly net unit
heat rate value. The results will give low efficiency if significant low load operation
occurred during the month.

Version
Utility Data Institute (UDI)
S&L has access to a database containing the UDI annual average net plant heat
rates for 1,807 units (665 stations) for the years 1985 through 1992. In all, the
database contains 10,565 recorded heat rate values. Unfortunately, UDI no longer
publishes updates to the unit level data. The only heat rate data currently available
from UDI is on a station level basis.
The UDI heat rates are based on information reported on EIA Forms. The net unit
generation and total fuel consumption comes from EIA Form 767. The net unit
capacity is the summer (net) value reported on EIA Form 860.
UDI has calculated arithmetic annual averages of monthly unit fuel heat content
rather than weighted averages. This introduces some error, particularly in instances
where units burn more than one type of fuel in a given year. Also, if capacity
factors are low, the heat rates will not be representative of design specifications
because extensive low-load operation could be included in the reported values.
Calculation of heat rates by this methodology results in an approximation of net
plant heat rate.
The data is in Access and dBase format. This can be converted and linked to other
UDI database files which give specific unit design information.
In summary, four industry net unit heat rate value options are available.
1. Fully Loaded Tested (Net Plant) Heat Rate (RDI, latest value, 13,000 units,
single value per unit)
2. Annual Average Net Heat Rate (RDI, 1995-1998, 13,000 units, one curve
equation/unit)
3. Monthly Average Net Plant Heat Rate (RDI, 1994-1998, 13000 units, one
value/unit/month)
4. Annual Average Net Plant Heat Rate (UDI, 1985-1992, 1,807 units, one
value/unit/year)
Option 1 and Option 2 were selected for benchmarking plants for this measure. The
curves obtained from the individual industry units have been combined (as required)
to create a single benchmark curve for each unit based on MW size, unit type, fuel,
and/or other criteria. These were then applied to the determination of the operating
heat rate for each calendar year.
S&L developed an Excel spreadsheet listing of all the required parameters described
above for each annual heat rate record (with the exception of the auxiliary power
information). Sinclair Knight Merz then re-organised this into a format suitable for
the purpose of the Integrating Consultancy.

Version
The analysis of the S&L data was subdivided into four primary classes as described
below.
5.1.3 Black coal units

The gross available capacity (MW) distribution for all units in the black coal
database is illustrated in Figure 5.1 - Capacity Distribution Black Coal Units.
This indicates that there are over 40 units in the 600-700MW class and 110 units in
the 200-399 MW class which are of most relevance for benchmarking the Australian
black coal generators.
Of the total population 558 units are sub-critical, 64 units are supercritical and 23
units are supercritical with high final superheater and reheater temperatures. Only
14 units are double reheat.
Figure 5.1: Unit Size Distribution Black Coal
450
400
350
300
Number
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
<200 200 -2399 400 -3599 6004- 700 5
>700
Size of unit
The age profile of the 622 black coal units in the database is illustrated in Figure
5.2 - Age Profile Black Coal Units below. This indicates that over 80% of the
population were placed in service over 20 years ago which reflects a trend away
from coal fired power generation in the 1970’s and 1980’s due to the uptake of
nuclear power generation and then a more recent trend to natural gas fired combined
cycle power generation.

Version
Figure 5.2: Unit Age Distribution Black Coal
300
250
200
Number
150
100
50
0
1940s
1 1950s
2 1960s
3 1970s
4 1980s
5 1990s
6
Age
The distribution in terms of efficiency (net, HHV basis) is illustrated in Figure 5.3 –
Efficiency Distribution Black Coal.
Figure 5.3: Thermal Efficiency Distribution Black Coal
1
38%
36%
Thermal efficiency
3
34%
32%
30%
5
28%
7
26%
24%
9
22%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Version
This distribution reveals that only 2% of the total population has an efficiency
greater than 38% with the most efficient in this group being 39.8%. The most
efficient plant, Tanners Creek power station Unit 4 employs supercritical technology
with steam conditions of 24.13 MPag and 538/552/566. It should be noted that the
thermal efficiencies quoted are full load tested and have not been adjusted for any
Australian conditions.
The full set of data on US power plant is contained in Appendix C - Benchmarking

Database - North American Fossil Fuel Generators.
5.1.4 Brown Coal Units

The gross available capacity (MW) distribution for all units in the brown coal
database is illustrated in Figure 5.4 - Efficiency Distribution Brown Coal Units.
This indicates that there are 9 units in the 400- 600 MW class in which are of most
relevance for benchmarking the Australian best practice brown coal generators. Of
the total population 8 units are sub-critical, 12 units are supercritical and 4 units are
supercritical with high final superheater and reheater temperatures.
Figure 5.4: Unit Size Distribution Brown Coal
10
9
8
7
6
Number
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
<200 200 2
- 400 400 3
- 600 600 -4700 5
> 700
Size of unit
The age profile of the 20 brown coal units in the database is illustrated in Figure 5.5
– Unit Age Distribution Brown Coal Units below. This indicates that over 80% of
the population were placed in service over 20 years ago which again reflects a trend
away from coal fired power generation in the 1990’s due to a trend to natural gas
fired combined cycle power generation.

Version
Figure 5.5: Unit Age Distribution Brown Coal
10
6
Number
0
1940s
1 1950s
2 1960s
3 1970s
4 1980s
5 1990s
6
Age
The distribution in terms of efficiency (net, HHV basis) is illustrated in Figure 5.6 –
Efficiency Distribution Brown Coal.
Figure 5.6: Efficiency Distribution Brown Coal
> 345
Thermal Efficiency (%)
> 324
> 303
> 282
> 261
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Percent of units (%)

Version
This distribution reveals that only 30% of the total population has an efficiency
greater than 32% with the most efficient in this group being 33.9%. The most
efficient plant, Pirkey power station, employs subcritical technology with steam
conditions of 16.55MPag and 538/538. It should be noted that the thermal
efficiencies quoted are full load tested and have not been adjusted for any Australian
conditions.
The full set of data on US power plant is contained in Appendix C - Benchmarking

Database - North American Fossil Fuel Generators.
5.2 US Gas Fired Power Generation (PB Power/Radian)
5.2.1 Data Source, Analysis and Collation

The natural gas fired power generation consultant (PB Power) retained Radian in the
US to assist them in determining international best practice for the following classes
of gas fuelled power plant:
¨ Rankine Cycle (Thermal Steam) Plants

¨ Combined Cycle Plants
¨ Open Cycle Brayton (gas turbine) Plants
The data on power plant performance was obtained by Radian through the US
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
These data are available in the public domain and are reported monthly on the
following forms:
¨ Form EIA-759, Monthly Power Plant Report, US DOE, Energy Information

Administration, Washington DC.
¨ Form EIA-860a, Annual Electric Generator Report (Utility), US DOE, Energy

Information Administration, Washington, DC.
The databases were queried for plants that generated over 70% of their electricity
from natural gas. The fuel consumptions, heat rates and thermal efficiencies were
calculated for the plants before being sorted into the categories above. Some
contacts were made with the most efficient plants to confirm operating data and to
discuss potential improvement opportunities.
The results of this research are summarised in the following Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3
for Steam, Combined Cycle and Open Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants
respectively.

Version
Table 5.1: Natural Gas Steam Power Plants in North America
Plant Location Utility Generation Thermal Heat Capacity, Year
Name Company MWh Efficiency Rate MW
kJ/kWh
239 1962
239 1962
Orange Gulf States
Sabine County, Utilities 8,517 40.7% 8,846 473 1962
TX Company 592 1974
507 1979
Ventura Southern 218 1959
Mandalay County, California 1,261 37.1% 9,710
218 1959
CA Edison
66 1948
69 1948
66 1949
Los
Southern 69 1949
Redondo Angeles
California 2,861,770 36.8% 9,773
Beach County, 156 1954
Edison
CA
156 1957
495 1967
495 1967
Monterey Pacific Gas 812 1967
Moss
County, and Electric 3,826,020 36.4% 9,899
Landing 812 1968
CA Co.
7 1948
Leflore City of 5 1952
Wright County, Greenwood 2,316 36.2% 9,938
5 1955
MS Utilities
35 1936
Hood Texas
Decordova County, Utilities 3,985,954 36.0% 9,998 799 1975
TX Electric Co.

Version
Table 5.2: Natural Gas Combined Cycle Power Plants in North America
kJ/kWh
204 1994
7,069,403 49.5% 7,274
Florida 204 1994
Martin
Martin Power and
County, FL 863 1980
Light
2,277,650 34.0% 10,574
863 1981
New Castle Delmarva 104 1989

Hay Road County, Power & 2,177,719 43.4% 8,297 1991
DE Light 160 1993
Florida 185 1993
Broward
Lauderdale Power and 4,461,004 44.8% 8,043
County, FL 151 1958
Light
Power 108 1994
Suffolk
Richard Authority
County, 601,452 44.5% 8,097 56 1994
Flynn of State of
NY
New York
Tom Green West 25 1965
San Angelo County, Texas 533,825 43.4% 8,300
85 1966
TX Utilities
Table 5.3: Natural Gas Combustion Turbine Plants in North America

kJ/kWh
Modesto
Stanslaus
Woodland Irrigation 48,288 35.8% 10,054 56 1993
County CA
District
Hutch Mcleod City of 59,430 32.6% 11,045 25 1977
Plant 2 County, Hutchison
MN
16 1966
41 1988
New 156,754 30.6% 11,771 41 1996

Connecticut
Haven 41 1996
Devon Light and
County,
Power 41 1996
CT
103 1956
520,356 31.7% 11,372
103 1958
119 1994
333,355 30.2% 11,935
119 1994
Palo Pinto Brazos
R W Miller County, Electric Power 66 1968
TX Cooperative 100 1972
1,539,902 29.9% 12,049
200 1975
Washington 83 1995
Kootenai
Rathdrum Water Power 286,008 29.9% 12,049
County, ID 83 1995
Co.
The thermal efficiencies and heat rates have been quoted by Radian on a lower
heating value basis (LHV) which is common practice for gas fired generation. To
adjust these to a higher heating value basis (HHV) for comparison with other data
Version
reported elsewhere in this report it is necessary to adjust the figures as follows for a
typical gas composition:
¨ Thermal efficiency × 0.9

¨ Heat rate ÷ 0.9
It should also be noted that the efficiencies and heat rates given in these tables are
operational and not design or full load tested values.
5.2.2 Data Analysis

The gas fired steam power plants identified were built in the period 1948 to 1975 as
this was the appropriate technology for larger scale utility generation at that time.
Since then combined cycle power generation has taken over as the most thermally
efficient and cost effective technology. The highest efficiency plant, Haynes
Generation Station, reports an efficiency of 37.7% (HHV). The last unit at Haynes
was built in 1965 and is of the 250MW class. This plant has a similar efficiency to
Australian gas fired power plants.
The highest reported combined cycle power plant efficiency is 49.5% (LHV) or
44.6% (HHV) for the Martin County plant placed in service by Florida Light and
Power in 1994. This efficiency is reasonable for a plant designed in the early 90’s
but is not indicative of current international best practice for combined cycle
generation which is now above 50% (HHV basis).
The open cycle gas turbine efficiencies are less than expected with the highest
efficiency of 35.8% (LHV) or 32.2% (HHV) being reported at the Woodland Plant
in Stranslaus County, CA. The explanation for this could be in the duty cycle as
Woodland Plant has a very low load factor of 10% which suggests it is a utility
peaking plant where operational efficiency would be much lower than at continuous
full load rating.
5.3 Japanese Black Coal Fired Power Plants (EPDC)
Sinclair Knight Merz has obtained some Japanese plant performance data from the
Electric Power Development Co. Ltd (EPDC) in Japan covering all of their black
coal fired power plants. The data provided is summarised in Table 5.4 : Japanese
Black Coal Plant Efficiencies (EPDC) below which gives plant technical
specifications and operational efficiencies for the most recent years operation.

Version
Table 5.4: Japanese Black Coal Power Plant Efficiencies (EPDC)
Name of Unit Thermal Steam Cooling System Flue Gas
Plants (MW) Efficiency % Temperature at Clean-up
(EPDC) (Net Sent Out) Turbine Inlet (oC) Technology
Isogo 2 x 265 33.84 566/566 Once through EP, FGD
Takasago 2 x 250 35.31 566/538 Once through EP,FGD
Takehara 1 x 250 35.87 566/538 Once through EP, FGD, SCR
1 x 350 566/538 EP, SCR
1 x 700 538/538 EP, FGD, SCR
Matsushima 2 x 500 34.68 538/538 Once through EP, FGD
Ishikawa 2 x 156 36.33 566/566 Once through EP. FGD
Matsuura 2 x 1,000 37.87 538/566 Once through EP, FGD, SCR
593/593
Average _ 36.16 _ _
Source: Electric Power Development Co. Ltd, Japan

Notes: EP = Electrostatic Precipitator; FGD = Flue Gas Desulphurisation,
SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction
Thermal efficiency is operational net (HHV basis)
It is interesting to note that the Matsuura 2 x 1000MW supercritical plant has high
steam temperatures but the operational efficiency reported is only marginally better
than that of the best black coal 660MW units in Australia. This may be due to the
duty cycle and higher FGD and SCR auxiliary losses.
5.4 Other International Coal Experience
The technologies that are available for improving the efficiency of generation for
both black and brown coal firing include:
¨ conventional cycles with advanced steam conditions;

¨ integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and
¨ pressurised fluidised bed combustor (PFBC).
In the last 5-10 years new higher efficiency technologies for power generation have
been developed (overseas) in sizes up to 250 MW but to date these new technologies
have generally only been used for demonstration plants and have not been adopted
on a commercial basis. On the other hand significant advances have been made with
conventional technology and plants of this type have been adopted on a commercial
basis.
The latter two technologies have been developed for black coal operation but could
also be developed for brown coal with some modifications.

Version
5.4.1 Conventional Advanced Cycles
The efficiency of the power station is mainly determined by the efficiency of the
turbine steam cycle, the boiler efficiency and the station auxiliary energy usage.
Typical values that apply to subcritical black coal fired plant installed in the last few
decades are 44% efficiency for the turbo-generator (TG) cycle, just under 90% for
the boiler efficiency and 5% auxiliary losses, giving a full load sent-out efficiency of
around 37%. These figures indicate where the greatest heat loss occurs, namely the
TG cycle and hence this represents the area of maximum potential for improvement
in efficiency. However much of this loss goes to low grade heat rejection in the
condenser with limited potential for recovery and utilisation.
In the fifteen years after the second world war significant gains were made in the
efficiency of utility power stations through the use of higher pressure and
temperature steam conditions, in the introduction of the reheat cycle and the
additional gains due to the use of larger turbine sizes. These changes became
possible due to the commercial availability of improved materials suitable for high
temperature operation. For the following 20-30 years little increase in average
steam conditions occurred although some developments in new materials and
welding techniques were spurred on by the oil crisis in the1970’s.
The general trend in pressures and temperatures are shown in Figures 5.7:
Development of Thermal Efficiency of Black Coal Power Plants for installations
mainly in Germany. The trends shown here are generally in line with those which
have occurred in countries with advanced technologies and where the fuel cost is
high or where there is a high level of environmental awareness.

Version
Figure 5.7: Development of Thermal Efficiency of Black Coal Power Plants
55
η th % high-temperature steam process

with topping GT
50
high-temperature steam process

45
2
40 27MPa / 540°C / 600°C
1
25MPa / 540°C / 560°C
based on HHV
35
30
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Note: ηth – net plant thermal efficiency HHV basis – sent out
Over the past 8 years a new generation of conventional coal fired stations has been
built, mainly in Europe and Japan. These show a significant improvement in
efficiency compared to those built in the previous three decades. The factors which
have influenced this trend to higher efficiency are:
¨ advancement in materials technology which has enabled higher steam

temperatures and pressures to be used
¨ advances in turbine blade design which has improved the internal efficiencies of
turbines
¨ competition from the new power generation technologies which are offering the
prospect of higher efficiency (although commercially competitive plants have not
yet been installed)
¨ the influence of concerns over the greenhouse effect.
¨ the higher cost of coal in the countries where these developments have occurred
compared with coal-rich countries such as the USA and Australia.
Coal fired plants with steam cycle conditions of 25 MPa, 560/560oC giving a sent-
out efficiency of over 45% LHV basis, (43% HHV basis), are already in service. A
double reheat plant with steam conditions of 28.5 MPa, 580/580/580oC giving an
efficiency of over 47% LHV basis, (45% HHV basis) is already nearing completion.
Table 5.5: International Black Coal Power Plants lists some of the highest
efficiency plants in the world.

Version
Table 5.5: International Black Coal Power Plant Efficiencies – sent out
Name of Plant Year Unit Design Steam Cooling System,
Commissioned (MW) Thermal Temperature Condenser Pressure kPA
Efficiency % s (oC)
Staudinger 5 1992 550 41.1%# 540/560 Cooling Tower,3.5/5.2kPa
Rostock 1994 550 42% 540/560 Cooling Tower
#
Esbjerg 1992 400 43.2% 558/560 Sea Water, 2.3 kPa
Nordjylland- 1998 400 44.9% 580/580/580* Sea water, 2.35 kPa
svaerket
Lubeck ~1998 440 43.6% 580/600 Cooling Tower, 2.8 kPa
Bexbach II ~2002 750 44.2% 575/595 Cooling Tower, 3/4 kPa
Notes: * Double reheat cycle

#
Design efficiencies known to be confirmed by tests.
The high efficiencies in overseas plants have been achieved through the use of low
condenser pressures, high steam pressures and temperatures, double reheat cycles,
up to 10 stages of feed heating and other changes to station parameters and
configuration of equipment. The decisions to use such advanced conditions have
been made mainly on the basis of economics but have at least in part been justified
on the basis of minimising greenhouse gas and other emissions.
5.4.2 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

There are a number of large scale demonstration plants using the IGCC technology,
in Europe and in USA. These are all designed to burn black coal but the design
could be modified to operate on brown coal.
The technical issues associated with IGCC are being overcome with the consequent
lowering of operating costs. However there is still some way to go before the cost of
generation from such a plant is demonstrated to be comparable with alternative
plants. In addition the flexibility of the plant to meet the requirements of the
electrical system have yet to be demonstrated.
The efficiency of such plants is around 42% (HHV basis) on black coal with the
potential to move to 49% when higher efficiency gas turbines become available.
The above efficiencies have been quoted as design efficiencies when at maximum
continuous rated output. With reduced load the efficiency reduces. For conventional
plant the reduction of efficiency is around 3% at 50% load but for an IGCC plant
the reduction is around 13%. Hence for an IGCC plant, the operational efficiency
will be below the full load efficiency to a greater extent than for a plant using a
conventional cycle.
5.4.3 Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustor

Combustors of the size 70-80 MW have been in operation for a number of years. A
larger 350 MW combustor is under construction in Japan. The expected efficiency
is 41% (HHV) on black coal with the potential to improve efficiency up to 43% in

Version
future plants. As for the IGCC process PFBC has not been demonstrated to be
economic compared to plants using the conventional cycle. With load reduction to
50% of rated output the efficiency is estimated to reduce by 9%.
5.5 Worlds Best Practice Station Efficiency
Because of continuing technical developments in both the conventional power cycle

and in new technologies, best practice efficiency is continually improving any target
as advances in technology are made. It will be necessary to review and revise for
best practice efficiency from time to time. We recommend that the best practice
efficiencies should be reviewed at least at 3 yearly time intervals to ensure that they
keep pace with technology improvements.
5.5.1 Black Coal

There is a range of efficiency achieved in the most modern high efficiency plants,
some of which use more advanced and more costly technology than others for
reasons such as particularly high fuel costs or a more general desire to advance the
technology. To date the double reheat cycle has not generally been adopted, with
only perhaps one in ten or twenty plants employing this technology. Its adoption
became more economic with the wider adoption of the supercritical pressure cycle
fleet in the 1960s. The double reheat cycle has been stated to add 6% to the capital
cost of the power plant (VGB Kraftwerkstechnik (1993). One of the most advanced
single reheat plants has a design efficiency of 45.7% (LHV), 43.6% HHV, with a
condenser pressure of 2.8 kPa. and steam conditions of 25 MPa, 580oC/ 600oC.
(Lubeck, refer Table 5.5). Adjusting the efficiency for a condenser pressure
applicable to an Australian inland site, 8 kPa, best practice Australian efficiency for
black coal firing becomes 41.7% (HHV). This ‘best practice’efficiency needs to be
adjusted where different cooling water conditions apply and in some cases for coal
quality. This compares with best Australian design efficiency in an operating plant
of 37%. Targeting such an improvement would produce an 9% reduction in CO2
emissions.
5.5.2 Brown Coal

For brown coal fired stations the best practice efficiency is 43%LHV, 36.9% HHV,
with steam conditions of 26 MPa 580oC/600oC and a condenser pressure of 3.4 kPa.
This applies to a European station which is due to be put into operation in the year
2002. The best efficiency from a currently operating station is 40.6%(LHV)
(33.8%HHV) at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany with steam conditions of 25MPa,
544oC/562oC and a condenser pressure of 4 kPa. Adjusting for Australian cooling
water conditions the efficiency becomes 32.9% (HHV).
The high efficiency has been achieved through the incorporation of a number of
efficiency improvement measures some of which are related to the DeSOx
equipment required on the German stations. In particular a closed cycle heat
exchange system between the flue gas and the condensate is used involving very low
temperature differentials and corrosion resistant material. This is a system which
would not be economic on the lower cost brown coal which is available in

Version
Australia. Putting this feature aside and adjusting down the efficiency accordingly
the best practice Australian efficiency becomes 32.6%.
This benchmark applies to the quality of the coal as fired at Schwarze Pumpe,
namely 53.5% moisture and a LHV of 8.8 MJ/kg, HHV of 10.5 MJ/kg. This
benchmark efficiency will need to be corrected for coal moisture content and where
other cooling water conditions apply. When fired with coal of a Latrobe Valley
quality with moisture content over 60% the efficiency reduces to 31.4%. This
efficiency would have an emission intensity 9% lower than the best Latrobe Valley
stations.
5.5.3 Natural Gas

For natural gas the energy conversion technology facilitates the combustion of the
fuel, the capture of the heat energy released, and the conversion of the heat energy
into electrical energy. These can be described as “engines” which differ in the
working fluids used and whether combustion is external or internal. Two principal
types of “engine” used in Australia are:
¨ The Rankine cycle “engine” is an external combustion engine using steam as its
working fluid. The fuel is burned in air, in the combustion chamber (or, furnace)
of a boiler (or, steam generator) and the heat released is transferred to the steam
through the boiler heat exchange surfaces. The resulting high temperature steam
is used to drive a steam turbine, which, in turn, drives an electricity generator.
¨ The Brayton (or, gas turbine or, combustion turbine) cycle “engine” is an internal
combustion engine using air as the working fluid. The fuel is burned in air, in the
combustion chamber of a gas turbine and the heat released is transferred directly
to the air. The resulting high temperature air is used to drive a gas turbine,
which, in turn, drives an electricity generator.
Both “engines” have in common the concept of raising the pressure and temperature
of the working fluid and using an axial flow turbine to convert the heat energy in the
working fluid into useful “shaft power” which, in turn, drives the electricity
generator. Also common and fundamental to both “engines” is the direct
relationship between the highest temperature of the working fluid and the conversion
efficiency. This feature effectively caps the maximum conversion efficiency that can
be attained by these engines because of the availability of materials to handle fluids
at high temperatures and pressures, as follows.
For the Rankine cycle “engine” the temperature limit relates to the containment of
steam at high pressure and temperature. Conventional practice has been to limit
steam conditions to around 165 bar and 540°C, with a corresponding efficiency
limit of approximately 40%. Advances in materials technology have enabled “super
critical” steam conditions of 300 bar & 600°C to be used, lifting the efficiency limit
to approximately 45%. Research in Europe aims to demonstrate an efficiency of
55% by the year 2010 based on steam conditions of 375 bar and 700°C [OECD
Coal-fired Power Generation – Trends in the 1990’s, April 1997]. As with all

Version
technical options, there is a trade-off between the costs involved (both capital and
operating), the risk element in decision, and the amount of additional energy
recovered by the efficiency gain.
For the Brayton cycle “engine” the temperature limit relates to the strength and
durability of the gas turbine’s first stage blading at high temperatures. These
turbine blades are immediately downstream of the combustion chamber and in the
1950’s gas temperatures were limited to 650°C or less, with a corresponding
efficiency limit of 27%. The availability of high temperature materials and
improved cooling methods have resulted in the first stage turbine blades of modern
gas turbines working at around 980-1030°C, with inlet gas temperatures of 1100-
1450°C, with a corresponding efficiency limit of 40%.
Also common to both “engines” is the relationship between the lowest temperature
of the working fluid, or the temperature at which unused heat energy is dissipated to
the environment, and efficiency, as follows:
For the Rankine cycle “engine” the lower temperature limit relates to the availability
of a cooling medium or heat sink. This may be seawater, river water, ambient air,
or some type of evaporate cooling device.
For the Brayton cycle “engine” the lower temperature limit relates to the exhaust
pressure of the gas turbine, which is normally ambient air pressure. As a result, gas
turbine, exhaust temperatures are usually around 350-600°C. This feature of the
gas turbine “engine” gives rise to a third “engine” type.
A third type of “engine” combines the Rankine and Brayton cycle “engines” and is
hence known as “Combined Cycle” plant or Gas Turbine Combined Cycle (GTCC).
In this technology, the gas turbine exhaust provides a substitute “external
combustion” heat energy source for an adjacent Rankine cycle and the Rankine cycle
recovers heat energy from the gas turbine that would otherwise be dissipated into the
environment. Efficiencies exceeding 55% (LHV basis) are now achievable with
combined cycle plant.
A fourth “engine” type is Otto cycle with its 2-Stroke and Diesel counterparts,
commonly referred to as reciprocating engines. These well known internal
combustion engines differ from the gas turbine in that the heat is added to the
working fluid (air) at constant volume whereas in the gas turbine it is added at
constant pressure. The resulting high temperature air drives the reciprocating
engine, which, in turn, drives an electrical generator. There are only a limited
number of reciprocating engine plants in Australia that fall within the bounds of this
study. Reciprocating engines can also be used in a combined cycle configuration.

Version
Natural gas fuelled gas turbine combined cycle plant is the most efficient fossil
fuelled thermal power generation technology commercially available today. It makes
use of mature, proven technology and has been successfully used for almost 30
years. However, it is only in the last decade that the technology has proven itself for
the widespread production of electricity. Recent combined cycle plants firing
natural gas currently achieve efficiencies of over 50% depending on the type of gas
turbine used and are expected to reach 60% by the turn of the century.
5.6 International Best Practice for Brown Coal (HRL)
5.6.1 Background
HRL carried out a literature search of new technologies for brown coal suitable for
large scale power generation. Brown coal efficiencies and CO2 emission rates were
considered separately because of the effect of the high moisture content which has a
significant impact on the energy conversion process.
The most prospective countries were judged to be Germany and the USA as these
are highly developed countries with access to advanced power generation
technology. Germany was of particular relevance as it has large brown coal
resources and has been constructing new large scale power station over the last
decade. The German coals are also similar to the Victorian coals, typically with
over 50% moisture, and all of the Victorian stations have used German technology.
The USA has large resources of lignite in Texas and North Dakota and the coal is
most similar to South Australian coal with moisture content of around 35%. Few
lignite plants have however been constructed in recent years but there are some in
Texas that employ supercritical steam conditions.
The new generation of plant and technologies emerging for brown coal are:
¨ Pulverised fuel fired boiler with steam turbine cycle (pf-boiler/turbine). Unit
sizes up to 775MW (net) operating and 965MW (net) under construction for
brown coal in Germany.
¨ Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with combustion turbine and

steam turbine cycles. Unit sizes up to 250MW (net) have been demonstrated on
black coal only.
¨ Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustor (PFBC) with combustion turbine and

steam turbine cycles. Unit sizes of 71 to 85MW (gross) have been demonstrated
and one 250MW units is under construction. Fuels have included lignite but not
high moisture brown coal.
No other brown coal based power generation technologies have been demonstrated
at larger than pilot scale and hence cannot be considered to be commercially
available.

Version
5.6.2 PF – Boiler/Turbine Technology
The unit size and efficiency of pf – boiler/turbine generating units has steadily
increased over the last 50 years. The higher cost of black coal relative to brown
coal has lead to efficiency improvements for black coal which have been adopted for
brown coal.
The performance of recent German brown coal power stations is indicated in Table
5.7: Data on Recent German Brown Coal Power Stations. It should be noted
that:
¨ Latrobe Valley coal generally has higher moisture content than the German coal
which reduces efficiency.
¨ Condenser temperatures are higher in the Latrobe Valley than in Germany which
leads to lower turbine efficiency.
¨ The efficiencies given are based on lower heating value (LHV).
Table 5.6: Recent German Brown Coal Power Stations

Plant/Date Neurath Schkopau Schwarze Lippendorf Niederaussem
E. 1976 A 1996 Pumpe 97 1999 2002
Gross MWe 640 451 756/815* 933 1012
Net MWe 602 410/448* 715/775* 870 965
Efficy, Net % LHV 35.5 40.0 40.0/40.6* 42.3 45.2`
CO2 kg /MWh 1136 1008 1008/993* 953 892
Emission net
Steam t/h 1800 1360 2298 2420 2620
Supply
HP Steam MPa 16.5 26.5 26.0 26.7` 26.9
Pressure
o
Temp C 525 545 547 554 580
RH Steam MPa 3.1 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.9
pressure
o
Temperature C 525 560 565 583 600
Condenser kPa 6.6 5.5 3.6/4.8* 3.8 2.8/3.4
Pressure
o
Final Feed C 235 270 270 270 295
Water
Temperature
Flue Gas air air air air air
Heat preheater preheater preheater/flue preheater/flue preheater/air
Utilisation gas heat gas heat heater bypass
exchanger exchanger economiser/flu
e gas heat
exchanger
Source: HRL * - Allowing for district heating and/or process steam supply.

Version
The design changes that have lead to these improvements are indicated below in
Table 5.8 Measures Taken to Improve Unit Performance.
Table 5.7: Measures Taken to Improve Unit Performance

Plant Sector Measures Taken Efficiency Increase % Units
Own consumption Optimisation of in station plant load 1.5
Process optimisation 10 – stage feed water heating and 1.6
other changes
Steam parameters Raise pressure and temperature 1.6
Steam turbine 3D blade design and larger exhaust 2.3
cross section
Condenser pressure Design for lower pressure 1.4
Exhaust gas heat utilisation Air preheater bypass economiser 1.3
and exhaust gas heat exchangers for
air preheating using heat carrier
circuit
Total Efficiency Increase 9.7
HRL believe that it is feasible that all of the above measures could be applied to new
brown coal fired power stations in Australia to achieve a similar result. However
the economic cost would be significant. Some of these measures could be applied to
a limited extent to existing power stations but the cost of this would be relatively
high.
5.7 Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle (IGCC)
There are four IGCC plants operating in the 250MW class that could be considered
to be commercially viable:
¨ Shell Process at Beggenam, Netherlands

¨ Texaco Process at Tampa, Florida
¨ Dynery (was Destec) at Wabash River, Indiana
These plants are all designed to use black coal and are not suitable for operation on
brown coal. It is possible that they could be adapted for brown coal if the coal was
dried before feeding to the gasifier. HRL has developed the IDGCC process that
includes integrated drying for operation on brown coal. Another option is drying in
a steam fluidised bed (SFBD). Table 5.9: IGCC Overall Efficiency and CO2
Emissions compares the overall efficiency of the next generation of these plants
based on Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the European
Commission’s Joule III study.

Version
Table 5.8: IGCC Overall Efficiency and CO2 Emissions
Parameter Units EPRI Study Joule III Study
IGCC plant net output MWe 568 - 610 446
Net efficiency on black coal % HHV 41.5 49.1
Net efficiency on black coal % LHV 43.4 51.5
CO2 emission on black coal kg/MWh sent out 759 622
CO2 emission on raw Latrobe Valley coal kg/MWh sent out 964 814
Power used by stand-alone SFBD to dry Latrobe % IGCC net 5.44 4.56
Valley raw coal to 20% wb. output
Net efficiency on dried Latrobe Valley coal % LHV of raw 46.7 55.9 *
using stand-alone SFBD coal feed to SFBD.
CO2 emission on dried Latrobe Valley coal kg/MWh sent out 887 854
using stand-alone SFBD
Note: The plants indicated have not been built and are indicative.
* Includes recovery of heat from moisture in fuel.
HRL predicts that IGCC using Latrobe Valley coal could deliver a thermal
efficiency of 55.9% (LHV) and a CO2 emission rate of 854 kg/MWh. The main
drawback is the relatively high cost of the drying process but HRL believes that
their IDGCC variant of the normal IGCC process could ultimately overcome this
barrier but it has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale and is not
expected to be widely commercially available before the 2008-2012 potential Kyoto
commitment period.
5.8 Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC)
PFBC has been demonstrated by ABB in the 80MW class and by Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries (MHI). A 350MW plant is under construction in Japan and is scheduled
to start operation in 2000. Most PFBC plants fire black coal but one is understood
to use high ash lignite.
It is unlikely that PFBC could be used to fire raw brown coal due to difficulty in
maintaining combustion in the bed but it is possible that it could fire dried brown
coal.
Table 5.10 PFBC Efficiency and CO2 Emissions below illustrates the overall
efficiency and CO2 emission rates for black and brown coal (HRL estimate) based
on the ABB P800 PFBC plant.

Version
Table 5.9: PFBC Overall Efficiency and CO2 Emissions
Parameter Units Value
PFBC plant net output MWe 325
Net efficiency on black coal % HHV 38.2
Net efficiency on black coal % LHV 39.9
CO2 emission on black coal kg/MWh sent out 826
CO2 emission on raw Latrobe coal (60%wb moisture kg/MWh sent out 1048
content)
Power used by stand-alone SFBD to dry Latrobe raw coal % of PFBC net output 5.88
to 20% wb.
Net efficiency on dried Latrobe coal using stand-alone % LHV of raw coal feed to 42.7
SFBD SFBD.
CO2 emission on dried Latrobe coal using stand-alone kg/MWh sent out 969
SFBD
HRL’s analysis above indicates that SFBD/IGCC or the latest PF – boilers/turbine

design can deliver a performance that is better than SFBD/PFBC. The larger PFBC
have also not yet been commercially demonstrated.

Version
6. Financial and Economic Analysis
6.1 Evaluation Techniques
The overall purpose of the assignment is to derive thermal efficiency standards for
the range of electricity generating plants in Australia, so that in implementing these
new standards, greenhouse emission intensity is reduced.
The potential reductions in greenhouse emissions in the fossil fuel based electricity
generating sector have been estimated by:
¨ analysing existing plants on a plant by plant basis, so that existing emission

levels are determined and maximum potential reductions are estimated by
implementation of efficiency measures and fuel switching where appropriate.
¨ analysing world’s best practice to determine the appropriate standards for new
(or recommissioned) plants.
Although the objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emission intensity to assist in

meeting Australia’s international commitments, the actual reductions achieved will
be determined via applied efficiency measures and standards, which themselves are
determined from a “bottom-up” plant by plant process. In other words, an overall
“top-down” reduction target (eg Kyoto) is not the determining factor in the overall
reduction required.
This has implications for the assessment of economic implications of the efficiency
measures which has been undertaken:
¨ Plants will be able to achieve plant specific reductions, depending on the

improved technologies which can be cost effectively applied to that plant.
¨ It may be worth concentrating cost expenditure on plants where the benefits are
relatively greatest i.e. there may be economic benefit in one plant reducing
emissions by say 5%, but the same cost may not generate any appreciable benefit
at other plants.
The economic and financial aspects of the study are necessarily confined to a broad
generic assessment of the measures. The study does not include a detailed economic
and financial evaluation at the plant level. This would involve a more extensive
assessment of a range of costs and benefits of alternative approaches.
At the outset, the aim of the economic analysis was to compare the benefits of the
efficiency improvements for each fossil fuel group, as identified by the technical
component of this study, with the capital and recurrent costs of specifically meeting
those standards.
In recent years, much work has been undertaken to develop quantifiable economic
measures of greenhouse gas emissions. The first stage of the analysis was to review

Version
available international literature to ascertain the available data on monetised values
for reductions in GHG emissions .
There is extensive publicly available literature that considers the question of

determining a value for carbon dioxide emissions. Much of this literature has been
developed in response to the Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol established
emissions targets for Annex I (mostly developed) countries. Under the Kyoto
Protocol agreed in December 1997, developed nations have undertaken to reduce
their emissions of the six major greenhouse gases by at least 5% over 1990 levels
between 2008 and 2012. Individual country targets range from -8% to +10%, with
Australia’s target set at +8%.
It is very difficult to measure the true benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
This would require a detailed understanding of the impact of individual carbon
dioxide emissions on both natural and built environments. The Greenhouse Effect is
forecast to increase world temperatures which could impact on human, animal and
fauna environments. The temperature change may alter weather patterns, raise ocean
temperatures and thus levels.
The potential impacts are however very uncertain both in timing and magnitude. The
scientific analysis is far from conclusive ranging from potentially catastrophic for
certain regions of the world to minimal impacts, depending on the scale of the global
warming impact.
Due to this very high degree of uncertainty, direct measurement of international

societies’willingness to pay to avoid such impacts (a contingent valuation benefit
measure) is therefore effectively impossible.
Therefore, the main focus of the economic analysis in this report is at the level of
least cost, or cost effectiveness analysis, rather than a cost benefit analysis.
6.2 Options for Analysis
Under a cost effectiveness methodology, two broad approaches can be used:
¨ Method 1: the cost required to gain the maximum reduction in emissions

technically achievable through efficiency improvement
¨ Method 2: the least cost to achieve a given aggregate reduction in greenhouse

emissions.
Method 1 analyses the technical efficiency improvements that can be implemented.
Method 2 implies the need for data which allows a cost-emission function to be
derived i.e. how costs increase with emission reductions. This could have
implications for the early replacement of existing plants. It also implies that cost
inefficient emission reductions can be excluded if the given target can be achieved
via concentrating on more cost efficient reductions.
Version
We have compared the implementation of the identified efficiency improvements at
the plants against a base case of the existing situation (in terms of generated output
and GHG emissions).
It is important to note the following caveat applies to the analysis:
¨ For the efficiency improvements at each plant, the associated capital costs and
emission reductions, we have been reliant on the data provided by the separate
source fuel consultancies.
6.3 Existing Technologies and Change Technologies
We have focussed our analysis on the identified efficiency improvements using

current technologies at existing plants. Through the consultancy, a number of
potential improvements were identified at some plants involving technological
changes to power generation at the plants (eg co-generation, conversion of open
cycle gas fired plants to closed cycle plants, and use of coal seam methane from
mines as a fuel source).
These technology change improvements have been excluded from the economic
analysis on the basis there is insufficient data to undertake a similar assessment as
undertaken for existing technologies (in terms of net cost of emissions reductions).
The high capital cost of these major plant alterations needs to be offset against
revenue streams (from additional power generation) to provide a true picture of the
cost of emission reductions. Data for these revenue streams is not yet available.
It should be noted that such technology changes are likely however, to represent
significant, further potential to reduce GHG emissions above that shown for
existing plants, and this potential requires further investigation in the context of
moving towards Kyoto targets. The information collected on these improvements is
provided in Appendix F – Plants with Major Techonology Changes.
6.4 Existing Plants with Current Technology Efficiency Improvements
6.4.1 Impacts
For each plant the data collected has been used to identify:
¨ the technologies applicable to each plant and associated incremental capital and
operation costs
¨ emissions that are achieved at each plant will be estimated under the new
operating conditions for that plant (in effect the lowest technically achievable
emissions for that plant, given the efficiency measures introduced).
Impacts valued in monetary terms

Version
¨ Capital cost. This is the estimated cost of capital expenditure required to
implement the efficiency measures.
¨ Incremental operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. For most of the

efficiency measures identified, there is expected to be little difference between the
existing O&M costs and those that will occur once the efficiency measures are
introduced. Incremental O&M costs have only been currently identified for one
efficiency measure on some black coal fired plants – that is modifications to
plant controls to reduce auxiliary energy.
¨ Fuel savings. The reduction in fuel required for a given level of output, through
the efficiency measures, leads to the reduction in GHG emissions. In addition
there is financial benefit to the operators, from the fuel savings which result from
the implementation of the efficiency measures. The physical quantity of fuel
saved has been valued using average price data for the relevant fuels, as follows:
− Black Coal – ranging from $25 to $35 per tonne depending on the plant
− Brown Coal - $4 per tonne
− Other Fuels – ranging from $4.90 to $6.00 per gigajoule depending on the
plant and fuel type.
Sensitivity tests have been undertaken on the impact of the fuel price on the
results. Fuel prices have been increased by 10% and decreased by 10%,
compared with the levels shown above.
Impacts quantified in physical terms

¨ Reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions in tonnes per annum. This represents
the wider economic benefit to the community, which as discussed is difficult to
measure in monetary terms.
The analysis measures the net present value of the costs, less fuel savings, of the
reduction in GHG emissions (on a per tonnage basis) and then uses threshold
analysis to determine whether the net cost is likely to be acceptable in terms of what
additional benefits would need to accrue to the community for the net costs to be
covered (eg. in terms of a trading permit price or on terms of in additional costs to
consumers of generated power).
It should be noted that the analysis undertaken has standardised the treatment of the
efficiency measures so that all are expressed in terms of the fuel savings achieved
and therefore the GHG emission reductions achieved. In many cases the measures
will actually allow a higher output to be achieved for a given level of fuel input and
resultant GHG emissions. The standardised measure we have used is at a given
level of output for each plant (as under the base case and equivalent to existing
output levels).

Version
Other assumptions made are:
¨ Net present values – these are required to convert the stream of costs and
benefits (fuel savings) to present day values, and are calculated at the following
assumed discount rates:
− 7% - standard central rate used in public sector appraisals (NSW Treasury
Guidelines)
− 10% and 15% rates chosen to reflect possible required rates of return in
commercial environments.
¨ Cost effectiveness ranking – improvements have been ranked according to the

lowest cost per unit of emissions saved. This may not be the same order of how
demand is actually met, but allows the broad level economic analysis to focus on
the lowest cost methods of achieving various levels of emission reductions.
The impacts have been appraised across a 25 year period. The range of capital
works occur during the first five years of the period (according to the time scales
provided for each efficiency measure from the data survey). The operational
parameters (annual incremental operating and maintenance costs and fuel savings)
are then phased in depending on the timing of capital works and extended to the end
of the period – allowing a 20 year period of operation under the new conditions.
A discounted cash flow analysis is then undertaken to convert all values to a net
present value (costs less fuel cost savings). For each plant this allows calculation of
a unit (per tonne) net present value cost of emission reductions.
Excluded impacts
Disruption costs during capital works implementation. At this stage we do not

have sufficient information from which to estimate the potential loss in generation
from additional outage periods which may occur during the implementation of the
capital works involved. It would be expected that such periods would be kept to a
minimum by:
¨ combining the work periods with existing maintenance and overhaul periods
¨ using any flexibility in the generation system to cover additional periods of

outage.
Without estimating these potential incremental disruption costs, the analysis

presented effectively assumes that these costs are non existent.

Version
Residual values
Residual values for the increased value of the plants, consequent on the efficiency
improvements undertaken, have not been incorporated into the economic analysis for
the following reason:
¨ Existing plants: the valuation period spans 28 years and it is uncertain as to the
changes in technology which may eventuate during that period. The life of
upgraded existing plants is therefore highly uncertain. We have assumed that the
evaluation period is long enough to discount any residual values for existing
plants.
6.4.2 Method 1: Efficiency Improvements – Results

Broad summary results by fuel type are shown in Table 6.1. As mentioned these
include all identified efficiency improvements which have an impact on greenhouse
emissions.
Detailed results by plant are shown in Appendix E – Economic and Financial

Analysis, which also provides the spreadsheets for the discounted impact valuation
analysis under different discount rates.
Table 6.1: Summary Results By Fuel Type – All Identified Efficiency Improvements
Fuel type Output GHG reduction Capital Fuel saving NPV NPV per NPV per
(SO) Expenditure @ 10% tonne MWh
d-rate emissions
saved
GWh Tonnes % $M PJ $M $M $ $
pa 000’s (1999) pa (1999)
pa
Black Coal 96,231 1,787 2.0% 148.8 23.7 27.7 77.4 +$6 +$0.08
Brown Coal 44,260 2,027 3.4% 171.7 18.1 9.0 -64.5 -$5 -$0.14
Gas 9,600 72 1.2% 177.3 1.4 4.9 -99.0 -$205 -$1.01
Other Fuels 632 49 5.1% 54.6 0.7 3.7 -19.5 -$47 -$3.01
TOTAL 150,723 3,935 2.5% 552.4 43.9 45.3 -105.6 -$4 -$0.07
The results at this broad level should be interpreted with care since the plant level
data on which they aggregate shows a high degree of variability. The main results,
with caveats where necessary, are:
¨ Implementation of the identified capital improvements results in a reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions of 3.9 million tonnes (CO2 equivalent) per annum.
This represents an estimated 2.5% of current emissions from these plants. The
shares for each fuel type are:
− Black Coal (64% of generation) accounts for 45% of GHG reduction

− Brown Coal (29% of generation) accounts for 52% of GHG reduction
− Gas (6% of generation) accounts for 2% of GHG reduction

Version
− Other fuels (1% of generation) accounts for 1% of GHG reduction.
¨ The identified capital and incremental operating costs associated with these
efficiency improvements have a current cost of $552 million, which is equivalent
to a present value of $424 million dollars, at a 10% discount rate.
¨ Fuel savings of 43.9 petajoules per annum are associated with the efficiency
measures. Using the stated price assumptions these are valued at $45.3 million
per annum. Once the benefit of fuel savings are incorporated, the net present
value of the efficiency measures over the evaluation period at a10% discount rate
is a net cost of $106 million.
¨ At a 10% discount rate, the efficiency improvements result in net present values
for each fuel source (taken as a whole) as follows:
− for Black Coal the fuel savings over the period more than pay for the capital
cost, at the 10% discount rate. i.e. a “no regrets” position
− for Brown Coal Plants a cost of $5 per tonne of emissions saved.
− a high cost for the improvements at the gas fired power stations of around
$200 per tonne of emissions saved. These existing technology improvements
have a high capital cost (totalling $177 million) and a relatively small
improvement in GHG emissions (totalling 72,000 tonnes per annum). As
contrast capital expenditure on Black Coal plant improvements is slightly less
than that for Gas plants, but the emission savings for Black Coal are almost
25 times the magnitude).
− For the Other Fuels category the net cost result is around $47 per tonne of
emissions saved.
These results are sensitive to the discount rate used (in effect the required rate of
return) as shown in Table 6.2, but the general thrust of the results is not altered by
the different rates.
Table 6.2: Identified Efficiency Improvements

Net Present Values at Different Discount Rates
Fuel type NPV NPV NPV
@ 7% IRR @ 10% IRR @ 15% IRR
$ million $ million $ mn(1999)
Black Coal 141.5 77.4 18.7
Brown Coal -54.1 -64.5 -68.8
Gas -97.5 -99.0 -96.1
Other Fuels -10.7 -19.5 -27.6
TOTAL -20.7 -105.6 -173.8
At all these levels of discount rates the fuel savings for Black Coal plants taken as a
whole across the evaluation period are greater than the capital and operational costs
and therefore a net benefit is achieved for this fuel source.

Version
6.4.3 Method 2: Most Cost Effective Efficiency Gains
The analysis presented above estimates the net costs of undertaking the efficiency
measures identified at each plant. It can therefore be considered as the maximum
attainable efficiency increase, and consequent GHG reduction, within the limits of
measures that have been identified.
The next stage of analysis is to consider which are the most cost effective efficiency
measures to undertake and what that implies in terms of GHG emission savings
achieved.
Appendix E – Plant Data Spreadsheet presents the results at a plant level ranked
by the cost effectiveness of the efficiency measures for each plant (each plant is
taken as a whole - it is not, for this analysis, sub divided below the plant level).
The cost effectiveness of the efficiency measures varies widely, ranging from, (at a
10% discount rate):
¨ Black Coal plants: from a net measured benefit of $13 per tonne of emissions
saved to a net cost of $10 per tonne.
¨ Brown Coal plants: from a net benefit of $4 per tonne to a net cost of $9 per
tonne.
¨ Other Fuels plants: from a net benefit of $18 per tonne to a net cost of $185 per
tonne.
¨ Gas plants: net cost of $31 to over $2,000 per tonne. At the higher end of the
range, this indicates that these efficiency measures are not likely to be
economically or financially viable, even allowing for any additional benefit
measure for GHG savings to be incorporated.
Of particular interest, implementing the efficiency measures in order of cost

effectiveness (i.e. cost per tonne of emissions saved), Table 6.3 shows the
breakdown of cumulative costs and emission savings.
Table 6.3: Cost Effectiveness of Efficiency Improvements

Number of plants Emission savings Emission savings Cumulative Net Cost per tonne
(cumulative) (cumulative) Cost saved
Cumulative 000 tonnes p.a. % of total % $ NPV (range)
14 2,124 54% 26% $0 or positive(a)
20 3,838 98% 59% $1 to $10
26 3,902 99% 77% $11 to $110
39 3,935 100% 100% $110 to $2,100
Note: (a) $0 or positive band refers to improvements that cost $0 or less to implement (i.e no regrets
position).

Version
The net costs bands have been chosen on the basis of natural breaks in the result
data. Given the estimated nature of the data we do not feel it is appropriate to group
the data into narrower bands. The robustness of the data is such that policy
implications should not be based on narrower cost bands than those shown.
Key results:
¨ For the 39 plants for which data has been provided and analysed, these results
show that, of the maximum identified GHG emission savings (3.9 million tonnes
p.a.), about 2.1 million tonnes per annum (54%) can be achieved on a “no regrets
basis”. Black Coal plants dominate this area (results are using a 10% discount
rate).
¨ A level of net cost of $10 per tonne of CO2 would imply that 3.8 million tonnes
of GHG emission reduction could be achieved in this sector (98% of total
emission savings identified). This saving can be achieved for 59% of the total
cost of all the identified improvements. All the Black and Brown Coal Plants
analysed fall into this band, plus one plant in the Other Fuels Group.
¨ 41 % of the capital cost is accounted for by the 19 least cost efficient plant
improvements, and these only account for 2% of the emission reductions
identified (these plants are either in the Gas Group or the Other Fuels Group).
6.4.4 Threshold Analysis

Table 6.4 shows the key result parameters from the analysis expressed in terms of:
¨ net costs per tonne of GHG emissions saved
¨ net costs per MWh of existing production
¨ average simple payback periods. This is the number of years by which time the
cumulative fuel savings, at prices assumed in the report, have covered the capital
costs. (Note: the simple payback period does not include the impacts of
discounting).
These figures allow threshold analysis to be undertaken to determine:
¨ whether the costs associated with the maximum efficiency gains / new standards
can be borne by the industry/consumers
¨ whether the emission reductions achievable should be constrained in order to
limit the additional costs to a certain level.

Version
Table 6.4: NPV of Improvements Per Unit Of GHG Saved and Output
and Average Payback periods
NPV after fuel savings NPV after fuel savings Average Simple
Payback period
$ / tonne GHG saved $ per MWh (SO) Years
Black Coal +$6 +$0.08 5
Brown Coal -$5 -$0.14 19
Gas -$205 -$1.01 36
Other Fuels -$47 -$3.01 15
TOTAL -$4 -$0.07 12
Broad findings are:
¨ In terms of valuation of the reduction in emissions for all the improvements

analysed here, the overall net cost is estimated (at 10% discount rate) at $4 per
tonne of GHG saved (but it should be noted that this is the average across a very
wide range - from a net benefit of $18 per tonne to a net cost of over $2,000 per
tonne). This average increases to $10 per tonne at a 15% discount rate).
¨ In terms of the costs per unit of generated output, the net costs for fuel groups
can be compared against the average unit prices for generated output to
determine whether the price increases which would be required to cover the net
costs are sustainable. For this threshold analysis of the potential impact on
electricity prices we have considered three scenarios for the improvements:
− All improvements undertaken
− $10 per tonne limit on net cost of improvements undertaken
− No Regrets – i.e improvements undertaken up to zero net cost position.
Assuming a full flow though of costs and benefits to prices, and if an assumed
average pool price of $30 per MWh is taken, the percentage change in prices
required to reach break even levels under these scenarios are:
All improvements Scenario – Threshold Price Changes

¨ 0.3% reduction for Black Coal generated electricity
¨ 0.5% increase for Brown Coal generated electricity
¨ 3.4% price increase for Gas generated electricity
¨ 10% price increase for Other Fuels generated electricity
¨ overall, a 0.2% price increase.
$10 net cost limit Scenario – Threshold Price Changes

¨ 0.5% increase for Brown Coal generated electricity
¨ 2.6% reduction for Other Fuels generated electricity
¨ overall, a zero price change.

Version
No Regrets Scenario– Threshold Price Increases
¨ 0.1% reduction for Brown Coal generated electricity
¨ 2.6% price reduction for Other Fuels generated electricity
¨ overall, a 0.3% price reduction.
Caveat: These overall thresholds are merely given to indicate the scale of price
changes required, but these will vary considerably between plants and the plant
specific impact on producer costs need also be investigated.
¨ The simple payback period, given the fuel price assumptions, averages 12 years
for all improvements taken together, but this varies significantly between fuel
groups (see Table 6.4) and by individual plant.
¨ For the “no regrets” scenario the simple payback period is estimated at an
average of 5 years.
¨ For the “$10 net cost limit” scenario the simple payback period is estimated at
an average 9 years.
6.5 Sensitivity Tests on Fuel Savings
We have run the following sensitivity tests on the impact of assumptions in regard to
fuel prices (and the valuation of fuel savings):
¨ Prices 10 % higher for all fuels compared to base price assumptions (as given in
section 6.4.1)
¨ Prices 10 % lower for all fuels compared to base price assumptions (as given is
section 6.4.1)
Table 6.5 summarises the results of the sensitivity tests. Detailed results by plant
are given in Appendix E.
Table 6.5: Sensitivity Tests on Fuel Prices

@ 10% discount rates Base Results 10% higher 10% lower
All plants average / total fuel prices fuel prices
Full year fuel savings $ million 45.3 49.8 40.8
Net cost per tonne of emissions saved -$4 -$3 -$5
Emissions savings (000 tonnes p.a)
“No regrets” (0 or positive NPV)
Net cost of $10 per tonne 2,124 2,695 2,047
3,838 3,838 3,764
As can be seen, the change in fuel prices by 10% in either direction does not have
significant impacts on the overall results.

Version
7. Approach to Standards
7.1 Operational vs Design Efficiency
The design efficiencies for the boiler and turbine, or for the plant as a whole, are
usually specified to apply at a set of standard operational conditions in order to
limit the number of variables and hence maximise the ‘tightness’of the contractual
guarantees. Some of these conditions are somewhat artificial in terms of normal
plant operation. This results in the operating efficiency of the station being normally
below that obtained under test conditions. Operational factors which affect actual
efficiencies relative to the design efficiencies are:
¨ non achievement of guaranteed efficiency on test

¨ sootblowing
¨ blowdown
¨ variation in steam temperature and pressures due to load variations
¨ variations in flue gas oxygen content due to changing load or changing coal
quality- this will affect dry flue gas loss
¨ off-design steam conditions due to the normal inaccuracies in the commercial
instrumentation.
¨ less than optimum operation of the primary and secondary air heaters.
¨ operation at less than full load.
¨ losses during start-up and shut down
¨ off design superheater (and reheater) attemperating spray water flow rates.
Changes in plant condition over time will adversely affect the station efficiency in
the following areas:
¨ Air in-leakage to the boiler gas enclosure will affect the dry flue gas loss and will
affect the auxiliary energy usage due to the higher power consumption of the
induced draft (ID) fans.
¨ Fouling on the boiler heating surfaces will tend to raise the final flue gas
temperature and increase the dry flue gas loss.
¨ Ash deposition on the boiler heating surface areas will lead to higher draft losses
and hence to higher ID fan power.
¨ Air heater leakage and any air leakage into the gas system downstream of the
airheater will mainly affect the power consumption of the air fans and ID fan.
¨ Deterioration of turbine steam path condition. This may be due to deposits on
the blades, blade erosion, increases in internal steam leakage and bypassing due
to increase in clearances.
¨ Condenser pressure will be affected by the extent of plugged tubes, the condenser
cleanliness, the air tightness and the efficacy of the air extraction system.
¨ Temporary outages on ancillary plant for repair, eg feed water heaters, condenser
passes.
¨ Steam and water leaks from drains and vents due deterioration of valves.
The magnitude of these effects will vary due to many different variables:
¨ Coal quality will affect the degree of fouling

Version
¨ Water quality may affect the condenser cleanliness
¨ The rate of deterioration of the turbine can depend on the design details of the
turbine.
¨ The extent to which the plant operates at less than full load.
¨ The frequency of start-ups.
The widespread nature of the conditions that affect station efficiency means that it is
not practical nor economic to maintain the plant in an ‘as-new’condition to avoid
the off-design effects. Good management practice would involve the monitoring of
plant conditions such that the location of deterioration can be determined and, where
economic, repairs, refurbishment or changes to the operational approach which can
be undertaken as appropriate. Many of the remedial actions can only be undertaken
at major overhauls which occur every 4-8 years.
The extent to which the operational efficiency deviates from the design efficiency
will depend on factors such as the plant design, type of coal, site conditions and
operational variables such as output factor. Therefore because of the diversity of
factors that will apply to each of the new plants there is likely to be some difficulty
in mandating operational efficiencies for new plants. For new plant it would seem
that it would only be practical to mandate efficiencies on a new design basis with
economic drivers associated with the cost of fuel serving to maximise the operational
efficiency.
For black coal fired base load plant where the operational factor is high and there is
minimal requirement for sootblowing the operational efficiency in the new condition
will not vary greatly from the design efficiency. Typically a 3% difference may
apply.
For brown coal plant where the coal ash adheres to the heating surface and causes a
rise in the final flue gas temperature and where a high complement of sootblowers is
required, the operational efficiency may be some 5% worse than design.
7.2 Algorithms
Corrections For Site Specific Conditions
The Best Australian Practice station efficiency for each fuel group will vary
depending on the fuel quality and the site conditions. Corrections in the form of an
algorithm have been developed to account for the major influencing factors.
7.2.1 Effect of Coal Quality on Station Efficiency

The impact of the range of variables on the boiler efficiency is best examined by
considerations of all the heat losses which are involved. The losses which influence
the boiler efficiency are:
¨ Losses due to the heat loss in the dry flue gas leaving the boiler. The main
variables which affect the magnitude of the loss are the excess air level and the

Version
difference between the final flue gas temperature and the ambient air
temperature.
¨ Losses due to the moisture from combustion of hydrogen in the fuel and the
moisture in the fuel. This loss is marginally affected by the final flue gas
temperature and the extent of the unburnt carbon.
¨ Losses due to the heat loss from the exterior surface area of the boiler. The
magnitude of this loss is under 0.5% for utility sized boilers. The percentage loss
is a function of the boiler capacity and extent of auxiliary equipment on the
boiler. Losses from a boiler firing brown coal using flue gas as the drying
medium has the highest loss followed by black coal firing and then oil and gas
fired boilers. The variation of this loss is considered to be sufficiently small to
not warrant a specific correction factor.
¨ Unburnt losses can either be gaseous, CO and CH4, or in solid form as unburnt
carbon. These unburnt losses are practically zero for liquid and gaseous fuels,
but are of the order of 1% for coal. Unburnt losses have little effect on the
emission of CO2.
¨ Losses due to the heat loss in the ash and solid unburnts leaving the boiler. This
only applies to coal fired boilers where the loss is directly proportional to the ash
content and to the temperatures that apply at the points of extraction.
The coal quality factors that have the most significant effect on the station efficiency
are the coal moisture, the ash content and the low temperature fouling and corrosion
potential of the flue gases. If there is a significant range in the carbon to hydrogen
ratio then this variable can also be of relevance.
In addition to the heat losses associated with the boiler the power used for the drives
for the auxiliaries also contributes to the station inefficiency. The higher fluid flows
associated with a brown coal boiler make auxiliary power consumption high with
black coal and gas/oil fired boilers consuming a lower amount.
7.2.2 Black Coal

The coal moisture content affects the efficiency mainly due to the loss of latent heat
in the flue gas. The loss in efficiency is approximately 0.15% per 1% change in coal
moisture content. A change in the carbon hydrogen ratio will also have an influence
on the losses due to the moisture in the flue gas.
The ash content in the coal affects the efficiency in the way that it raises the coal
moisture content per MJ of heat in the coal and because of the heat loss in the ash
when the ash is removed. Typically for a 1% change in ash content there is a change
in station efficiency of about 0.025%.
The low temperature fouling properties of the fly ash in the flue gas may limit the
minimum operational temperature at the outlet of the airheater. In addition,
depending on the corrosion potential of the flue gas there may be a need to maintain
Version
the flue gas temperature at a given level in order to keep the corrosion rate on the
airheater and the downstream ductwork to an acceptable level. In this case the final
flue gas temperature will need to be above that which would provide the Australian
Best Practice efficiency. These limitations cannot be easily addressed in terms of a
corrective algorithm and therefore must be dealt with on a case by case basis. For
black coal the efficiency changes by approximately 0.5% for a 10oC change in final
flue gas temperature.
7.2.3 Brown Coal

Brown coals having a higher moisture content than black coals, and naturally have a
much higher loss due to the heat loss in the moisture in the flue gas. Typically for
black coal the heat loss due to coal moisture is around 1% whereas for high moisture
brown coal such as Latrobe Valley coal with 62% moisture the loss is
approximately 17% of the heat input.
The high flue gas flow resulting from the high moisture content in the coal means
that a technical limit is approached as to the extraction of heat from the gas in the
air heater. This technical limit is due to the approach of the hot air temperature at
the outlet of the airheater to the inlet gas temperature, ie, the ‘pinch point’effect. In
addition the combination of high moisture content in the flue gas, SO2 and Cl content
results in a high acid dew point, necessitating high metal temperatures if corrosion
rates are to be manageable. As a result the final flue gas temperatures for brown
coal boilers are significantly above those for black coal fired boilers.
Hence there are two effects of the high moisture content in coal-
¨ greater heat loss due to the added mass flow and particularly the latent heat
involved and
¨ additional heat loss in both the dry flue gas and the vapour due to the necessarily
higher final flue gas temperature that brown coal boilers must operate at.
The ash content of most brown coals is lower than that of black coals and hence the
heat loss due to the ash is negligible. Only on some South Australian coal is the heat
loss of minor significance.
7.2.4 Natural Gas

The natural gas supplied to Australian generators is normally of a consistent dry
clean quality with some limited variation in the methane (CH4) content in mixture
with other heavier hydrocarbons and inert gases. The carbon to hydrogen ratio is
fairly constant and the CO2 generated per unit of energy combusted is therefore
reasonably constant. Some typical CO2 intensities are given in Table 7.1: CO2
Emission Intensities for Natural Gas.

Version
Table 7.1: CO2 Emission Intensities for Natural Gas
Source CH4 MJ/m3 kgCO2/GJ
Longford 91.1% 38.7 50.9
Moomba 88.0% 38.8 51.6
Roma 88.3% 39.3 50.8
Denison 90.2% 38.7 50.4
Dampier 84.5% 40.7 52.4
Dongarra 90.9% 37.8 51.7
Amadeus 77.1% 40.9 50.1
Source: AGO/NGGIC Workbook 1.1, 1998
The most significant impact on efficiency in burning gas arises through the loss of
the latent heat of vaporisation of the moisture formed in the combustion reaction.
This heat is lost to the flue gas and typically represents about 9-10% of the heat
energy value of the fuel. The heating value, including the latent heat of vaporisation,
is often called the higher heating value (HHV) and after the loss is called the lower
heating value (LHV).
Any free moisture in the fuel is generally removed before combustion in knock out
chambers. The only particulate matter that can arise is in the form of soot from the
incomplete combustion of the gas due to poor air to fuel conditions. There is
negligible ash and the problems of slagging and fouling do not arise.
7.2.5 Site Temperatures and Humidity

Site temperatures and humidity have an influence on both the boiler and the turbine
efficiency. The main effect is in respect of the cooling water for the condenser
where there is a direct relationship between the cooling water temperature and the
condenser pressure.
With respect to the boiler efficiency the moisture in the air that is used for
combustion is heated in the boiler and exhausted at a higher temperature than at the
inlet. This loss of heat is a function of the humidity in the ambient air and the final
flue gas temperature. This loss is usually in the range of 0.05 to 0.1% and is of
sufficiently small magnitude to not warrant a correction to be applied.
The heat loss in the boiler stack due to the sensible heat in the dry flue gas and in the
moisture is a function of difference between the final flue gas temperature and
ambient dry bulb temperature. In the design of the boiler plant this difference varies
little for a range of site temperature conditions. Average dry bulb temperatures of
most of the likely plant sites in Australia range from 13oC to 22oC and within this
range there will be little change in the difference between ambient and flue gas
temperature when the plant is designed for the appropriate conditions. Under the
colder conditions the limitations on lowering the gas temperature due to corrosion
considerations may make the maintenance of efficiency under cold conditions more
difficult. However because of the very site-specific nature of the corrosion potential,

Version
ie, the coal source, no general algorithm can be developed to take account of the
effect of the coal quality on the minimum final flue gas temperature from corrosion
considerations. Hence where these type of limitations apply they must be considered
on a case by case basis.
The type of condenser cooling has a significant effect on the achievable condenser
pressure. Seawater, estuary water, natural or artificial cooling lake, evaporative or
dry cooling towers or air cooled condensers are the sources of cooling that may be
used depending on the site and the economics. The water temperatures available
from these cooling sources will depend on the location and the atmospheric
conditions.
7.2.6 Correction Algorithms

¨ Fuels
The moisture content in the fuel represents the correction of most significance with
regard to brown coal.
The heat loss due to coal moisture and moisture of formation expressed as a
percentage of the gross heat input from the coal is:
[M+8.94H2][cpv (Tg-25)+hfg +cpw(25-Ta)]/HHV/1000
Where
M moisture content of the as-fired coal, %
H2 hydrogen content of the as-fired coal, %
cpv specific heat of vapour kJ/kg K,
Tg final flue gas temperature, oC
hfg latent heat of vapour, kJ/kg,
Ta air inlet temperature, oC
cpw specific heat of water, kJ/kg K and
HHV gross specific energy or higher heating value of the fuel as fired, MJ/kg.
Values to be applied are:
cpv =1.88 kJ/kg

cpw = 4.2 kJ/kg
hfg= 2442 kJ/kg at the standard saturation temperature of 25oC1.
The dominant term in the above equation is the latent heat, and therefore the loss and
the efficiency is very closely a linear function of coal moisture plus moisture of
formation divided by the heating value of the fuel.
Brown Coal
1
Values as given in British Standard BS2885.
Version
For brown coal boilers with a final flue gas temperature of 170oC, ambient
temperature of 15oC the variation in boiler efficiency with coal moisture content
becomes:
-2.757 [M+8.94H2]/HHV percentage points change
Since as discussed above the optimum final flue gas temperature increases with an
increase in moisture content, when a correction is made for this effect the equation
becomes:
-2.880 M[M+8.94H2]/HHV percentage points change.
The efficiency of brown coal boilers operated with 15% excess air with 1% unburnts
loss can be written as:
ηb = -2.880[M+8.94H2]/HHV+93.32
This is applicable to boiler plant firing coals with moisture contents which range
form those 60-70% moistures to those which fire coal at around 31% moisture.
Minor approximations have been made in order to minimise the order of the
equation.
The best Australian Practice Efficiency based on ∼ 60% moisture Latrobe Valley
coal as determined from world wide experience has been assessed to be 31.4% with
a base-line condenser pressure of 8 kPa. The station efficiency for all Australian
brown coal fired plants can be determined from the following equation:
Station Effy ηs = 31.4{-0.0407[M+8.94H2]/HHV+1.3176} %
Table 7.2 shows for some typical brown coals the effect of coal quality on the
Australian Best Practice design efficiencies.
Table 7.2: Coal Quality

Coal Moisture Boiler Efficiency Station Efficiency
Victorian Coals 62 to 66% 66.5 to 71% 29.5 to 31.5%
South Australian Coals 31% 83.5% 37%

Version
Black Coal
In a similar manner to that developed for brown coal a correction factor for the
effect of coal moisture and hydrogen content in the coal on efficiency has been
developed. In this case because the ratio of total moisture formed to heating value is
small the overall effect of the moisture on boiler efficiency is significantly reduced
compared to that on brown coal fired plant.
ηb = -2.642[M+8.94H2]/HHV+94.24
The station efficiency for all Australian black fired coals can be determined from the
following equation:
Station Effy ηs = 41.7{-0.0295[M+8.94H2]/HHV+1.0526} %
The effect of differing ash-in-coal contents on the boiler efficiency will also have a
minor effect. Within the variation of ashes experienced the effect on the plant will
only be of the order of 0.1 percentage point and thus no correction factors are
proposed on this account.
Table 7.3 shows for some typical black coals the effect of coal quality on the
Australian Best Practice design efficiencies.
Table 7.3: Coal Quality

Coal Moisture Boiler Efficiency Station Efficiency
NSW/Queensland 8% 90.0% 42.0%
West Australian Coal 27% 87% 40.5%
The effect of variation in the quality of NSW and Queensland black coals will be
significantly smaller than that for brown coals.
Natural Gas
Correction factors for Australian natural gas quality parameters are not necessary
due to the consistency in gas quality and negligible impact on thermal efficiency.
¨ Output Factor
The above station efficiencies apply when the station operates at its full rated
output. When operating at reduced load the efficiency will be lower due to the
natural characteristic of the steam cycle, the boiler operation and the change in the
proportion of power used for auxiliary drives. The reduction in efficiency will
depend on, amongst other factors, the design of the turbine, the efficiency
characteristics of the auxiliary drives and the mode of operation of the steam cycle
with respect to pressure, ie, fixed or sliding pressure.

Version
Typical reductions in efficiency due to reduced load for black and brown coal
boilers are 3.5% to 4% load and 8% to 10% at 50% load. Specific figures for each
plant would need to be determined based on the specific design detail and the mode
of operation selected.
Note: The above mentioned reductions in efficiency are true percentage reductions
and are not percentage points reductions.
¨ Cooling Water Temperature

Correction to the turbine heat rate (reciprocal of efficiency) is required depending on
the condenser pressure that is attainable. The condenser pressure will depend
mainly on the cooling water inlet temperature. Two types of cooling water systems
have been considered, wet cooling towers and open cycle (once-through) systems.
The steam cycle efficiency correction for changes to the condenser pressure was
based on the curve indicated in Figure 7.1: Heat Rate vs Condenser Pressure
derived fro a typical sub-critical steam cycle. The curve was compared to a high
pressure cycle with 10 stages of regenerative feed heating. The difference is small
for condenser pressures in the normal expected operating range of 6 to 12kPa.
Figure 7.1: Heat Rate Versus Condenser Pressure
10%
8%
6%
Heat Rate Correction
4%
16 MPa Cycle
26 MPa Cycle
2%
Poly. (16 MPa Cycle)
Poly. (26 MPa Cycle)
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2%
-4%
-6%
Condenser Pressure (kPa.abs) y = -9.795E-05x 2 + 7.985E-03x - 5.971E-02
A base condenser pressure of 8kPa was assumed. This is achievable on power plant
operating on natural draught towers in the south-eastern coastal areas of Australia.
For example La Trobe Valley power plant achieves around 8 to 8.5kPa with average
ambient air temperature and humidity. A slightly larger cooling tower and/or
condenser and/or an increase in CW flow would be required for the plant to fall
under the 8kPa limit with average conditions.
Version
A mathematical model of a CW system and condenser was used to develop the
relationship between atmospheric conditions and the achievable condenser pressure
for a natural draft tower and open cycle CW system. The performance parameters
of the cooling tower were taken to be slightly higher than those of the towers
currently in operation. Condenser pressure was corrected for changes in heat
transfer coefficient, inlet water temperature based on Heat Exchanger Institute
Standards, and also for changes in heat load as condenser pressure varies.
The resulting heat rate corrections are indicated in Figure 7.2: Heat Rate
Variation with Ambient Conditions. Also shown is the correction curve for the
cooling water inlet temperature associated with an open cycle CW system.
Figure 7.2: Heat Rate Variation with Ambient Conditions
The annual average ambient air temperatures that apply to the normal sites for
major coal fired power stations range from around 13oC to 22oC. Typical correction
factors to be applied to standard best practice heat rate for stations with wet cooling
towers will typically be less than ±1%.
With respect to open cycle cooling system using sea water the correction factors to
be applied to standard best practice heat rate are likely to be in the range –2% to –
4%, ie, an improvement in efficiency.
7.3 Gas Turbines
7.3.1 Open Cycle Gas Turbines

The quality of commercial natural gas is reasonably constant and does not have any
appreciable impact on the efficiency of the gas turbine (Brayton Cycle). The only
Version
site specific variables affecting the efficiency of a gas turbine in open cycle are the
ambient temperature (dry bulb) and relative humidity (RH). These ambient
conditions impact the density of air at inlet to the compressor stage of the gas
turbine and the moisture content of the air gives rise to latent heat of vaporisation
losses in the flue gas exiting the power turbine stages.
These impacts on efficiency are indicated in Figure 7.3: Gas Turbine Heat Rate
Versus Ambient Conditions (Open Cycle).
Figure 7.3: Gas Turbine Heat Rate Versus Ambient Conditions (Open Cycle)
1.06
1.04
Heat rate correction
1.02
RH 20%
1.00
RH 40%
RH 60%
0.98 RH 80%
RH 100%
0.96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
o
Dry bulb temp C
It is noted that the impact of temperature is much more significant than humidity
with a +4% correction between the ISO 15oC base rating and an inlet temperature of
35oC. The efficiency of a gas turbine decreases with increasing inlet temperature in
inverse proportion to heat rate.
The impact of relative humidity is less pronounced and most noticeable in its effect
at higher ambient temperatures (+1% correction between 20 and 100% RH at 35oC).
These curves generally vary only marginally between one machine and another but
some more significant differences arise with some aero-derivative gas turbines where
the curves can change slope either side of an optimum performance point.

Version
We therefore recommend the application of the manufacturers correction curves
rather than generic curves such as presented in Figure 7.3 above. The curves are
also available in a number of gas turbine software packages produced either by the
suppliers or by independent software houses.
Combined Cycle Gas Turbines

The thermal efficiency of combined cycle gas turbine plant is relatively unaffected
by changes in the ambient air conditions (temperature and humidity). This is
because losses in the gas turbine take the form of exhaust gas temperature rises
which are recovered in the combined heat recovery steam generation and steam
turbine cycle.
Correction to the turbine heat rate (reciprocal of efficiency) is however required

depending on the condenser pressure attainable as described in earlier Section 7.2.6.
A typical correction curve for a gas turbine combined cycle plant is given in Figure
7.4: Heat Rate Versus Condenser Pressure (Typical Combined Cycle Plant).

Version
Figure 7.4: Heat Rate Versus Condenser Pressure (Typical Combined Cycle
Plant)
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Condenser pressure kPa
The variation in heat rate is only approximately 2% through a typical range of

condenser pressure of 6 to 12 kPaa.
The above curve is reasonably typical for combined cycle plants but we recommend
reference also be made to actual manufacturers performance documentation.
7.4 Cogeneration
There are several methods available to determine the thermal efficiency of

cogeneration. Some of these are based purely on the thermodynamics of
cogeneration and others have been developed for regulatory purposes (eg PURPA
and Eml).
In this report we have adopted the definition of cogeneration efficiency as described

in Section 3.1 as this brings to full account the overall efficiency benefit derived
from all useful heat output. It is also directly applicable to steam and gas turbine
cycles and allows comparison of thermal efficiency across technology classes.
However, for the purposes of calculating emission rates for setting standards we
recommend the adoption of the fuel chargeable to power methodology as described
below:

Version
Fuel chargeable to power (FCP) = Total fuel input less the fuel
that would have otherwise been used to generate the useful heat
output without cogeneration (eg steam raising in a conventional
boiler).
The concept of FCP is illustrated in the case of a gas turbine/heat recovery steam
generation plant in Figure 7.5: Fuel Chargeable to Power (FCP).
Figure 7.5: Fuel Chargeable to Power (FCP)
Fuel Chargeable to Power (FCP)
Plant Supplying Plant Supplying

Heat Only Power and Heat
Fuel (2)
kW (2)
Process Steam Steam
Fuel (1) HRSG
Aux Power (1) Aux Power (2)
Fuel (2) - Fuel (1)

FCP =
kW (2) - Aux Power (2) + Aux Power (1)
The FCP efficiency is calculated as follows:
Fuel Energy Ch arg eable To Power

FCP Efficiency = (%)
Net Plant Electrical Energy Output
To determine the emission rates we recommend that the fuel energy chargeable to
power be converted to CO2 equivalent emission rates as for conventional generation.
The benefit of this approach is that the emission rates per MWh of electricity
generated in the cogeneration plant can be directly compared to emission rates for
conventional power generation technologies within each fuel class. A separate set of
cogeneration standards is therefore not required.

Version
Some typical efficiencies and CO2 emission rates for various natural gas fired
cogeneration plant configurations are set out in Table 7.2: Efficiencies and CO2
Emission Rates for Typical Cogeneration Plant.
Table 7.4: Efficiencies and CO2 Emission Rates for Typical Cogeneration Plant
Plant Type Cogen Efficy (%) FCP Effcy (%) Emission Rate (FCP)
kgCO2/MWh
GT/HRSG 75 60 300
CCGT 60 55 325
POT 35 28 650
BPT 85 83 215
RECIP 70 60 300
Note: Emission rates are based on natural gas fuel.

GT/HRSG – gas turbine/heat recovery steam generator
CCGT – combined cycle gas turbine/extraction steam to process
POT – pass out steam turbine, steam to process
BPT – back pressure turbine, steam to process
RECIP – reciprocating engine, jacket water and exhaust, heat to process

Version
Appendix A - Integrating Consultancy Terms of Reference
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC A-1

Version
Appendix B - Benchmarking Database - Australian Fossil Fuel Generators
CONFIDENTIAL
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC B-1

Version
Appendix C - Benchmarking Database - North American Fossil-Fuel Generators
CONFIDENTIAL
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC C-1

Version
Appendix D - Plant Modifications to Improve Efficiency
The following commentary discusses the scope that exists for improving the
efficiency of a station once the station has been designed and constructed.
The overall efficiency of the power station is determined by the three components
consisting of the steam cycle efficiency (ie the turbine steam conditions), the boiler
efficiency and the used-in-station-energy. There are other miscellaneous losses
which play only a minor role. Typical values for a recently installed a black coal
fired station in Australia for cycle and boiler efficiency and UISE are 45%, just
under 90% (HHV) and 5% respectively for a station using steam driven boiler feed
pumps. These figures indicate where the maximum loss occurs and hence the area
of maximum potential for any improvement in efficiency, namely the turbine cycle
efficiency. These figures give a overall set-out efficiency of 38% when at full load.
For brown coal fired boiler the boiler efficiency is much a lower and varies
significantly with coal moisture content. Typical values for a boiler operating on
Latrobe Valley brown coal is 70%. (HHV)
D1.1 Steam Cycle Efficiency
The prime variables which determine the efficiency of a steam cycle are, in
approximate order of significance:
¨ the use of one (or two) steam reheat processes

¨ main steam and reheat steam temperature
¨ the main steam pressure
¨ the turbine condenser back pressure
¨ feed heating arrangement and
¨ the turbine internal efficiency
Once the steam conditions and steam cycle are selected the design of the plant
components is tailored to suit those conditions. The material and component
strengths are selected to just match the selected pressure and temperature conditions.
Little or no margins are provided in the tube and pipe wall thicknesses or the type of
material selected which would allow the plant to operate at higher than the design
steam conditions. To provide a significant design margin between operating and
design conditions would add unnecessary capital costs.
The plant components which are affected by the steam cycle pressure and
temperature make up a major portion of the station. The major components
involved are:
¨ the high and intermediate pressure turbine rotor and casing

¨ the steam piping from boiler to turbine.
¨ all pressure components in the boiler, furnace water walls, superheaters,
reheaters and economisers.
¨ boiler feed pumps
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC D-1

Version
¨ high pressure feed heaters.
In turn many of these components impact on other components in the station, eg, the
weight of the boiler pressure parts will affect the steel work necessary for their
support.
As will be appreciated once a station has been built there is no possibility to upgrade
the steam conditions without undertaking a rebuild of a major portion of the station,
perhaps accounting for half its original cost and requiring a shutdown period of 2 to
3 years.
However there are some other changes which can be made to an existing station to
achieve some small increases in the efficiency of the steam cycle.
¨ In recent years improvements have been made to the shape of the turbine blading
through the use of improved computational techniques and from advances in
aerodynamics. In older turbines the installation of this new design of blading can
increase the cycle efficiency by up to 2 percentage points, eg from 45% to 47%.
¨ The cycle efficiency can also be improved by reducing the condenser back
pressure. This can be achieved through the replacement of the condenser with a
larger size or an improved design, or by improving the performance of cooling
towers or cooling ponds such that lower temperature cooling water is returned to
the condenser.
The economics of the modifications or replacements such as indicated above would

have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If because of deterioration of
condenser or of blading, replacements are necessary, the economics of installing a
component of a new design giving an improved efficiency is more likely to be
justified than if the replacements had to be justified on efficiency improvement
alone.
D1.2 Boiler Efficiency
The prime variables which determine the efficiency of a boiler are, in approximate
order of significance:
¨ the final flue gas temperature

¨ the excess air level
¨ the unburnts, both CO and carbon in ash
¨ the heat loss in the ash
¨ the heat loss from the boiler external surface to the atmosphere (called radiation
loss)
Although unburnts impact on the boiler efficiency they have little effect on the CO2
emissions as portion of the carbon in the coal is not converted to CO2. The unburnts
typically account for 0.5 to 1% of the heat in the fuel supplied.

Version
The efficiency of black coal fired boilers is normally around 90%. Most of the
losses are due to the heat rejected in the flue gas. The loss in the dry flue gas
amounts to some 4.5% and that due to the latent heat in moisture in the flue gas
some 5%. This latter figure mainly arises from the formation of moisture from the
hydrogen in the fuel with a small effect from the moisture in the fuel.
The 5% loss due to moisture in the flue gas is mainly due to the latent heat of
vaporisation of the moisture and hence is not a controllable loss. The loss in the
sensible heat in the vapour will be influenced by the final flue gas temperature but
since this represents only 10% of the loss due to the moisture the impact of the final
flue gas temperature on the moisture loss is very small.
The 4.5% loss in the dry flue gas is a function of both the final flue gas temperature
and the level of excess air used. This is the loss where some gains can be made.
The final flue gas exit temperature can be adjusted by the inclusion of extra heating
surface area in the boiler, usually in the airheater. The limit to the lowest level of
the final flue gas temperature may be the corrosion of air heater or downstream
ductwork components or increasing fouling levels in the airheater causing draft
restrictions. For every 10oC change in the final flue gas temperature approximately
half of one percentage point change in boiler efficiency is achieved when firing black
coal. When firing brown coal a 10oC provides a 0.6 percentage point gain in
efficiency.(HHV basis)
For each case an economic assessment would need to be undertaken to determine the
economics of increasing the surface area of the airheater.
For a number of stations the current operational excess air levels are below the
original design levels. The reductions have been made for the purposes of increasing
boiler efficiency. Typically the black coal fired stations were designed with excess
air levels of 20%, and the brown coal fired stations with between 25 and 35%.
Reduced levels of excess air have the effect of lowering the mass flow of gas leaving
the boiler and hence lowering the heat losses up the stack. Lower excess air will
also lower the final flue gas temperature. The lower limit on excess air is the point
at which an increase in unburnts occurs, either CO or carbon in ash or both. At the
theoretical (stoichiometric) limit of zero excess air an improvement of around 1% in
boiler efficiency would occur for black coal firing. The practical limit would only
allow a fraction of this change, perhaps around 0.25%.
The degree of unburnts in the ash, although of significance with respect to station
efficiency is virtually irrelevant with respect to CO2 emissions.
D1.3 Turbine Plant Improvements
The turbine steam cycle efficiency can be improved without any change to the steam
temperatures or pressures by increasing the internal efficiency of the turbine. Over
the past 30 years there have been advancements in the design of blading and gland

Version
sealing systems and the use of the new designs will enable an increase in station
efficiency of from 3 to 5%.
In order to maximise the gain in efficiency replacement high pressure and

intermediate pressure cylinders and rotors are required together with replacement LP
rotors and fixed blades.
One station in Germany has replaced the internals of the 7 turbines within the station
and has improved the efficiency by just over 5%. The output increased from 2700
MW to 2840 MW.
Modifications to condensers, cooling water systems and cooling towers are possible
which will lower the condenser back pressure. The changes to condensers are
restricted by the physical limitations of the turbine house layout. Some gain may be
possible by an improvement in the performance of the cooling tower.
For those stations where HP heaters have been removed from service due to
unreliability the replacement with new heaters will restore the lost efficiency. A gain
of between 1.5 to 2% in station efficiency would be expected. The economics of this
will depend on the cost of the fuel.
Improvement in boiler efficiency can be made by the increase in Increase in

Airheater size. This is an option which can readily be invoked where provision for
the later increase in airheater size was allowed for in the original design. Some
stations have already taken up this margin and this initiative may have been part of
the GH Challenge process for some stations- ie. For some stations this option may
not be available. (The status of the airheater modification sat each station needs to
be identified)
The option would increase the station efficiency by the order of 0.5 to 1% (not
percentage points). Since the existing airheater elements are a replaceable item the
cost of an increase in area would be very variable depending on when the elements
are due to be replaced as the extra area can be incorporated into the replacements
elements. The cost may be in the range of $1- 2M per 500 MW unit with the cost
being variable with unit size.

Version
D1.4 Used-In- Station Auxiliary Energy
Most of the used in station auxiliary energy is required for the movement of the
fluids, water, air and flue gas, in the power station systems. The major power users
are:
¨ Induced draft fan

¨ Forced draft fans
¨ Primary air fans
¨ Coal Pulverising mills
¨ Condensate extraction pumps
¨ Circulating water pumps
¨ Lighting and heating
¨ Electrostatic dust precipitators (where required)
¨ Electrically driven feed pumps (where fitted)
The feed pumps can either steam turbine driven or electric motor driven depending
on the design philosophy of the station. The station efficiency is marginally higher
with the use of steam driven feed pumps.
Power consumption can be reduced by either a reduction in the fluid quantities to be

handled, by an improvement in fan and pump efficiencies, introduction of variable
speed drives or by a reduction in the number of auxiliaries that are in operation
when at lower loads.
The quantities of the fluids to be handled is reduced by:
¨ an improvement in the boiler or turbine efficiency,

¨ a reduction in the quantity of leakage air (tramp air) into the flue gas stream, or
¨ a reduction in air and gas flows by lowering excess air.
Because of the relationship between the fluid flow and power consumption the
potential for significant reductions in UISE is small. Also, since the UISE only
amounts to around 5% of the generated power in stations with steam turbine feed
pumps and up to 8% if electrically driven feed pumps are used, the scope for any
significant change in the station efficiency due to a change in UISE is limited.
In some stations variable speed drives have been applied to fans, mills and pumps.
This enhances the efficiency of the auxiliaries particularly when the plant operates at
reduced load. Variable speed fluid couplings or variable frequency drives can be
used to achieve the variable speed. Variable speed drives are usually shown to be
economically justified only if the station operates for long periods at substantially
reduced load.

Version
Appendix E - Economic and Financial Analysis - Spreadsheets
CONFIDENTIAL
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC E-1

Version
Appendix F - Addendum: Plants With Major Technology Changes
CONFIDENTIAL
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC F-1

Version

Unclassified: January 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unclassified: January 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unclassified

Sinclair Knight Merz Pty. Ltd.

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this

4. Survey Analysis and Database 26

6. Financial and Economic Analysis 70

Appendix A - Integrating Consultancy Terms of Reference A-1

Appendix B - Benchmarking Database - Australian Fossil Fuel Generators B-1

Appendix C - Benchmarking Database - North American Fossil-Fuel

Appendix E - Economic and Financial Analysis - Spreadsheets E-1

Appendix F - Addendum: Plants With Major Technology Changes F-1

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC iii

Issue Rev. Issued To Qty Date Reviewed Approved

Printed: 25 January 2000 11:18 A1/P1

Project Manager: Ian Maitland

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC iv

Age The number of years the unit(s) has been in

Available State in which a unit is capable of providing service

Base Load Continuous load at or near rated capacity normally

Capacity The power output measured in MW or kW, for

Capacity Factor Ratio of the energy production of a generating plant

Total Generation ( MWh ) x 100

Demand The instantaneous requirement for electric power

Dispatch The order in which generating units are brought on-

FCP Efficiency Fuel Energy Ch arg eable To Power

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC v

Gross Output Factor (GOF) [GAG/(SH x GMC)] x 100 (%)

Net Actual Generation (MWh) Actual number of electrical megawatthours generated

Net Capacity Factor (NCF) [NAG/(PH x NMC)] x 100 (%)

Net Output Factor (NOF) [NAG/(SH x NMC)] x 100 (%)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC vi

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC vii

1.1 Background and Terms of Reference

This Integrating Consultancy has been commissioned by the Australian Greenhouse

An Efficiency Standards Working Group (ESWG) has been established with

¨ identify current international best practice from commercially operated power

¨ identify constraints and variables that impinge on the achievement of

¨ determine and recommend appropriate emission standards for existing Australian

¨ determine and recommend appropriate emission standards for new Australian

The Terms of Reference for the Integrating Consultancy were to:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC 1

¨ assess the economic implications of the measure.

1.2 The Benchmarking Framework

Of particular technical significance were parameters that influenced thermal

Of significance to the economic assessment were:

¨ potential opportunities for improvement

1.3 The Survey Process

1.4 The Benchmarking Findings

Fossil fuelled generation, in Australia, was found to contribute an aggregate of 162

Figure 1.1: CO2 Equivalent Contribution of each Fuel Class

Brown coal: 37% Natural gas: 4%

Black coal: 57%

Table 1.1: Australian Current Best Performance for Fuel Class

OCGT – Open cycle gas turbine.

This graphical representation indicates that:

¨ Australian sub-critical best practice is only marginally behind world’s best

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC 4

Figure 1.2: CO2 Emission Rate Versus Efficiency

500 WBP black coal

0 WBP brown coal

Notes: ABP - Australian Current Best Practice

1.5 Comparison with International Best Practice

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ Unclassified HA00316.0: R51IRMDMU.DOC 5

Gas Open Cycle