cost effective flue gas desulfurization for boilers < 300...
TRANSCRIPT
Cost effective flue gas desulfurization
for boilers < 300 MWfor boilers < 300 MW
SOx NOx – 201912–13 September 2019,Vivanta - Dwarka, New Delhi
Content
Cost effective flue gas desulfurization for boilers < 300 MW
1 Who we are, what we do
2 Our view of Indian FGD needs
3 LIFAC FGD
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization2
5 Bonus: low temperature NOx control combined with FGD
4 Case example of 210 MW coal fired unit FGD
About ValmetAbout Valmet
From cloth making to high-tech processes
Progress built on 220 years of industrial history
2015MetsoProcess Automation
Systemsto Valmet
1951Valmet
1968–1996Several M&As:1986 KMW
1987 Wärtsilä paper finishing machinery
1992 Tampella Papertech
1999Metso created through merger of Valmet and Rauma
Acquisitions2000 Beloit Technology
2006 Kvaerner Pulping Kvaerner Power
2009 Tamfelt
End of 2013Demerger to Valmet and Metso
1797 Tampereen Verkatehdas
1841 Götaverken
1856 Tampella
1858 Beloit
1860 KMW
1868 Sunds Defibrator
1942Rauma-Raahe
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization4
Key figures in 2018
Orders received by business lineOrders receivedEUR 3,722 million
Net sales EUR 3,325 million
Comparable EBITAEUR 257 million
35%
29%
20%
13%
14%
10%
Orders received by area
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization5
EUR 257 million
Comparable EBITA margin7.7%
Employees (on Dec 31, 2017)
12,528
9%27%
Services
Automation
Pulp and Energy
Paper
13%
43%
North America
South America
EMEA
China
Asia-Pacific
Over 100 service centers, 85 sales offices, 35 production units, 16 R&D centers
Strong, global presence is a good platform for growth
North America
1,202
• 17 service centers• 7 production units
• 8 sales offices
China
1,752
• 6 service centers• 5 production units
• 6 sales offices
Employees on December 31, 2018March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization6
Asia-Pacific
761
• 12 service centers• 12 sales offices
EMEA
8,303
• 16 R&D centers• 63 service centers
• 21 production units• 54 sales offices
South America
510
• 3 service centers• 2 production units
• 5 sales offices
Valmet energy generation offering
Renewables to energy Multifuel to energy Industrial boilers
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization7
Biomass to energy
• Boiler plants
• Modular power plants
• Heat plants
• Gasification plants
Waste to energy
• Boiler plants
• Modular power plants
• Gasification plants
• Boiler plants
• Coal-fired boiler plants
• Repowering
• Process Gas Boiler plants
• O&G boiler plants
• Heat recovery boiler plants
Rebuilds & Conversions
Air pollution control
Automation
Facts about Valmet’s air emission control business
70
350Advanced process
control installations
170
150Scrubber and FGD
installations for
boilers
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization8
70Electrostatic
precipitator andfabric filter
installations
170NOx control
systems
110 Marine scrubbers
for 60 ships
� World class technology and know-how
� Over 45 years of experience in air emission
control
Valmet air emission control solutions
� Over 200 in-house air emission control experts
at your service
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization9
Complete emission control with heat and water recovery
Valmet flue gas cleaning technologies
Dry
NOx control
• Flue gas scrubber
• Wet DeNOx
• ESP
• Bag house filter
• DSI
• Primary methods
• SNCR
• SCR
• Wet DeNO
Wet
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization10
• Wet DeNOx
• FGD
• Heat and water recovery
• DSI
• LIFAC FGD
• Wet DeNOx
Our view of Indian FGD needs– focus on < 300 MW units – focus on < 300 MW units
New regulations on emissions
Date of installation
PM SO2 NOx Mercury (Hg)
Before 31-12- 2003 100 mg/Nm3 600 mg/Nm3 for < 500 MW200 mg/Nm3 for > = 500 MW
600 mg/Nm3 0.03 mg/Nm3
for > = 500 MW
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization12
200 mg/Nm for > = 500 MW for > = 500 MW
After 01-01-2003& Upto 31-12-2016
50 mg/Nm3 600 mg/Nm3 for < 500 MW200 mg/Nm3 for > = 500 MW
300 mg/Nm3 0.03 mg/Nm3
On or after01-01-2017
30 mg/Nm3 100 mg/Nm3 100 mg/Nm3 0.03 mg/Nm3
Focus on < 300 MW units
Boiler type CFBC BFB Pulverized coal
Fuel Petcoke Coal Petcoke Coal Domestic Import
Present emission level, 400* 6 000 100– 200* 700–3 000 2 000* 6 000 300–700* 700–1 700 700–1 700 700–3 000
Need of desulfurization
emission level, mg/Nm3
400* 6 000 100– 200* 700–3 000 2 000* 6 000 300–700* 700–1 700 700–1 700 700–3 000
Emission limitNew units installed since 2017 – 100 mg/Nm3
Older units – 600 mg/Nm3
SO2 removal% required
0–25 90–98 0–50 14–97 70–95 90–98 0–86 14–94 14–94 14–97
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization13
* with limestone injection to furnace
LIFAC FGDLIFAC FGD
Water injection
Activation
reactor
FurnaceLimestone
injection
(Limestone Injection into Furnace and Activation of unreacted lime)
� Inexpensive reagent (limestone)
� CAPEX less than half of wet FGD
� Small footprint
� Up to 90% SO2 removal
LIFAC
Air preheating Recycle
Electostatic
precipitator
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization15
Step-by-step investment
Flexible technology
SO2 removal after each step
Step 1.
Furnace injection
25
Step 2.
Activation and recycle
70
Step 3.
Slurry ash recycle
90
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization16
~ 25% ~ 70% ~ 90%
Flue gas desulphurization Inkoo Power Station, Finland
Inkoo Power Station 4 x 250 MWe
Finland
Main data
Boiler• Coal fired unit No. 4
• 250 MWe
Coal
• Lower heating value 24.5 MJ/kg
• Analysis (as received, weight %)
S 1.0
Cl 0.2
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization17
Cl 0.2
H2O 8.7
Ash 17.4
Flue gas desulphurization
• Limestone injection and humidification for 100%
of flue gas
• Two reactors
• Flue gas amount through one reactor 450 000 Nm³/h
• SO2 emission 230 mg/MJ
• SO2 reduction 70%
Commissioning 1988 and 1989
Flue gas desulphurization Shand Power Station Saskatchewan, Canada
Shand Power Station Saskatchewan, Canada
Main data
Boiler• Lignite fire unit
• 300 MWe
Coal
• Calorific heating value 14.2 MJ/kg
• Analysis (as received, weight %)
C 39.9 N2 0.6
H 2.4 H O 32.6
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization18
CoalH2 2.4 H2O 32.6
O2 9.8 Ash 17.3
S 0.5
Flue gas desulphurization
• Limestone injection for 100% of flue gas
• Humidification for 50% of flue gas
• Flue gas amount through one reactor 600 000 Nm³/h
• SO2 emission after reactor 95 mg/MJ
Commissioning June 1992
Flue gas desulphurization Richmond Power&Light White Water Valley Power Station, Indiana, USA
Richmond Power&Light White Water Valley Power Station, Indiana, USA
Main data
Boiler• Coal fired unit No. 2
• 60 MWe
Coal
• Bituminous coal
• Lower heating value 26.1 MJ/kg
• Analysis (as received, weight %)
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization19
Coal• Analysis (as received, weight %)
C 60.1 N2 0.9
H2 4.4 S 2.3–2.9
O2 8.0 H2O 12.3
Flue gas desulphurization
• Limestone injection and humidification for 100%
of flue gas
• Flue gas amount through the reactor 306 000 Nm³/h
• SO2 reduction 75%
Commissioning 1992
LIFAC flue gas desulphurization system Nanjing Xiaguan Power Plant, China
Nanjing Xiaguan Power PlantChina
Main data
Unit # 1 and #3
Steam amount 2 x 420 t/h
Electric power 2 x 125 MWe
Fuel Bituminous coal
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization20
Coal amount 63.7 t/h
Coal sulfur content 0.92%
LHV 20.4 MJ/kg
SO2 removal rate 75%
SO2 emission < 460 mg/m3n
Commissioning 1998–1999
LIFAC flue gas desulphurization system Qianqing power plant, China
Qianqing power plantChina
Main data
Unit # 1
Steam amount 420 t/h
Electric power 125 MWe
Fuel Bituminous coal
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization21
Coal amount 60 t/h
Coal sulfur content 0.9–1.2%
LHV 21.7 MJ/kg
SO2 removal rate >80%
SO2 emission < 500 mg/m3n
Commissioning 1999
LIFAC flue gas desulphurization system Shandong Zhanhua power plant, China
Shandong Zhanhua power plant,China
Main data
Unit # 3 and # 4
Steam amount 2 x 480 t/h
Electric power 2 x 150 MWe
Fuel Bituminous coal
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization22
Coal amount 68.8 t/h
Coal sulfur content 0.44%
LHV 21.3 MJ/kg
SO2 removal rate 80–85%
SO2 emission < 240 mg/m3n
Commissioning 2005
Summary
� Low CAPEX and OPEX
� Well proven dry FGD technology
� SO2 removal up to 90%
� Step-by-step investment possible
LIFAC dry FGD
� Works with existing ESP
� Operates with limestone
� Small footprint
Positive impact on environment and economy
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization23
Bonus:
Low temperature NO control Low temperature NOx control combined with FGD
Solution for meeting tighter NOx emission limit
Plant data
Boiler 60 MWfuel
Existing flue gas cleaning ESP, wet scrubber
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization25
Existing flue gas cleaning equipment
ESP, wet scrubber
Pre-BAT NOx emission limit value 400 mg/Nm3
BAT emission limit value max. 225 mg/Nm3
Can’t meet emission limit
Uncontrolled NOx emission
300
350
400
450
500
Initial NOx (mg/Nm3)
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization26
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time
Emission limit 225 mg/Nm3
Not always meeting emission limit
Optimized combustion and SNCR
300
350
400
450
500
NOx after Combustion manager and SNCR (mg/Nm3)
Initial NOx (mg/Nm3)
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization27
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time
Emission limit 225 mg/Nm3
On-demand use of oxidant – additional NOx as needed
Optimized NOx control
300
350
400
450
500
NOx after Combustion manager and SNCR (mg/Nm3)
Initial NOx (mg/Nm3)
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization28
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time
Oxidant consumption
Emission limit = emission 225 mg/Nm3
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
Comparison of technologiesComparison of technologies
FGD technology alternatives – Valmet has the offering
Each technology has its merits
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) Wet FGDLIFAC(Limestone Injection into Furnace and Activation
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization30
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) Wet FGD(Limestone Injection into Furnace and Activation
of unreacted carbon)
� Low investment
� High operating cost
� Best suited for waste-to-energy
� Low investment
� Low operating cost
� Best suited for smaller coal or petcoke fired boilers
� High investment
� Best suited for larger coal fired
boilers
210 MWe unit burning domestic coal, SO2 limit 600 mg/Nm3, 60% SO2 reduction
Reagent cost comparison
Wet FGD LIFAC DSI
Reagent Limestone Limestone Sodium bicarbonate
Reagent price INR 2 300 2 300 30 000
Stoichiometry 1.03* 2 1.4
* ) Per removed SO2
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization31
Reagent t/h 1.4 4.5 3
Reagent cost INR/h 3 220 10 350 90 000
Annual equivalent full load operating hours
7 000 7 000 7 000
Annual reagent cost INR
22 540 000 72 450 000 630 000 000
General comparison
Wet FGD LIFAC DSI
Reagent cost
Capex
Footprint
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization32
Fly ash utilization
By-product (gypsum)
Soil pollution
Auxiliary power
consumption
Delivery time
� Over 45 years of experience in air emission control
� Global service network
� Net sales over 3 billion euro
� 12,000 people around the world
We take your performance forward
� 12,000 people around the world
� 250 people in India
March 21, 2019 © Valmet | Cost effective flue gas desulfurization33