NATIONAL ENERGY TEC HNOLOGY LABORATOR Y 

# Opportunities to Improve

the Efficiency of Existing

Coal

‐ fired Power Plants

W ORKSHOP 

# R EPORT

July 15

‐ 16, 2009

Hyatt Regency O’Hare

Rosemont, Illinois

Sponsored by:

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Prepared by:

Jack Eisenhauer

Richard ScheerImproving Power Plant Efficiency ii Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009 

### CONTENTS

Executive Summary

............................................................................................ 1

Technical Workshop for Improving Power Plant Efficiency

.................................. 1

Major Findings

.................................................................................................... 2

Next Steps

.......................................................................................................... 4

Exhibit 1. Ways to Enhance the NETL Analysis

.................................................... 5

Exhibit 2. Factors Affecting CFPP Efficiency

........................................................ 5

Exhibit 3. Barriers to Achieving Higher Efficiencies in CFPPs

............................... 6

Exhibit 4. Solutions For Overcoming Barriers

...................................................... 8

Exhibit 5. Stakeholder Roles

............................................................................... 9

Exhibit 6. Technical Opportunities to Improve Efficiency in for Coal

‐ Fired Power

Plants............................................................................................... 10

Participants

....................................................................................................... 12Improving Power Plant Efficiency 1 Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009 

## Opportunities to Improve the Efficiency of

Existing Coal

‐ fired Power Plants

Executive Summary

Reducing the carbon footprint of energy production activities has emerged as one of the

defining environmental issues of the 21 st century. The U.S. energy infrastructure encompasses

an enormous investment in capital assets and systems to produce fuels and electric power for

businesses, transportation, and homes. While the long

‐ term opportunity to reshape this

infrastructure to have a low

‐ carbon profile is promising, near

‐ term opportunities to reduce

carbon emissions are very limited. Because coal

‐ fired power plants account for over 80 percent

of carbon emissions from the power sector, improving the efficiency of the existing coal

‐ fired

power plant fleet presents one of the most promising, low

‐ cost options for reducing near

‐ term

carbon emissions.

Increasing the thermal efficiency of the existing U.S. fleet of coal

‐ fired power plants by 10

percent within five years would save 150 million metric tons of carbon equivalent emissions per

year and reduce the amount of coal required to produce the current level of electric power

generation from these plants. A 10 percent increase in the thermal efficiency would raise the

overall efficiency of the coal

‐ fired power plant fleet from 32.5% to 35.8%

– about three

percentage points of efficiency gain

– and likely reduce other environmental emissions. Data

analysis conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the consensus of

selected industry experts indicate that this opportunity is technically and economically

achievable but will require leadership from power plant owners and operators and

commitments from regulators, vendors, federal agencies, and the public. Although some

technical issues exist, most barriers to improving thermal efficiency are based on regulatory

uncertainty, lack of economic incentives, business practices, plant operating practices, and

inadequate training and knowledge.

Technical Workshop for Improving Power Plant Efficiency

The U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory hosted an industry

workshop on July 15

‐ 16, 2009 in Chicago, IL to explore opportunities to improve the thermal

efficiency of existing and future coal

‐ fired power plants (CFPP). The workshop grew out of a

study conducted by NETL that analyzed the efficiency of the CFPP fleet and suggested that

improvements could be made, largely through better operating and maintenance practices. The

workshop brought together 18 leading industry experts, representing utility owners and

operators, equipment vendors, energy consultants, and power industry associations, to analyze

technical and non

‐ technical issues affecting plant efficiency and determine how they can be

addressed.

Through facilitated discussions, workshop participantsImproving Power Plant Efficiency 2 Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009  Recommended ways to enhance the NETL data analysis

 Identified barriers to achieving efficiency higher efficiencies in coal

‐ fired power plants

 Identified solutions to overcome these barriers

 Outlined the respective roles of stakeholders in implementing the solutions

 Identified the most important technical improvements that could be implemented

 Framed an overall opportunity to improve the CFPP fleet

The full workshop results are presented in Exhibits 1 through 6.

Major Findings

• The analysis of U.S. fleet of coal

‐ fired power plants shows a wide variation in efficiency

levels but the basic message is that these levels have been largely stagnant for decades

and that there is “headroom” for efficiency improvements among all plants including

those that currently operate at below average, average, and above average efficiency

levels. However, the analysis and supporting data can be improved to provide better

information about the magnitude of the potential efficiency gains. For example:

o If available, data from plant operators on design heat rates could enable analysis

of actual heat rates versus design heat rates on a plant

‐ by

‐ plant basis to

estimate the magnitude of potential efficiency improvements.

o Data on which plants have done recent testing and the length of time since

major turbine overhauls could be helpful in explaining the wide variation in plant

efficiency levels.

o Market segmentation analysis could also help explain variation, a.g., those plants

greater than 200 MW, or those that have on

‐ site performance engineers/heat

rate monitors.

o Additional in

‐ depth case studies of specific plants could be helpful in replicating

best practices from above average efficiency plants to average and below

average efficiency plants.

• To boost efficiency levels, a number of technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers

must overcome. For example:

o Making changes in plants to improve efficiency is hampered by the New Source

Review provisions of the Clean Air Act, which can trigger potentially lengthy and

costly regulatory proceedings when capital improvements and other changes in

the plant are made.

o The lack of economic incentives to address efficiency improvements due to the

presence of fuel adjustment clauses in approved electricity rates that enable

power companies to “pass

‐ through” changes in fuel costs directly to customers.

o Concerns about regulatory proceedings, combined with the lack of economic

incentives, make it difficult to get management commitment for power plant

efficiency programs that must compete for scarce corporate capital and labor

resources. At the same time, the primary aim for power plant operators is to

optimize the profitability of the units and ensure they are available to serve load.Improving Power Plant Efficiency 3 Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009 While heat rates and efficiency are important, fuel cost savings represent only a

small portion of total costs and are typically of secondary concern when

compared to needs for maintaining system reliability.

o In order to control and improve efficiency levels, power plant operators need to

know about power plant performance across a variety of systems and

subsystems including turbines, boilers, fuel handling, and air management.

Unfortunately, there is a widespread lack of measurement and instrumentation

systems in power plants across the fleet and operators lack the real time data

they need to make operational adjustments even if they had the mandate for

doing so.

o Even if power plant operators were getting the data they need to improve

efficiency levels, there is a widespread lack of on

‐ site performance engineers

who are dedicated to heat rate improvement.

• Addressing these and other barriers is essential for power plant efficiency

improvements to be made across the entire fleet. Some plants operators have the data,

personnel, and management support they need to address efficiency improvements and

are addressing the issue. In these cases the magnitude of the “headroom” for efficiency

gains will be limited. One of the key challenges will be implementing these best

practices with those operators who for a variety of reasons are not currently able to

mount efficiency program efforts. This will require regulatory agencies and power

industry executives to approve a renewed focus and efficiency and the changes in

practices, new equipment and systems, new personnel, and capital investments that will

be needed.

• There are a number of specific improvements in power plants that can be investigated

relatively quickly. These include, for example:

o Cleaning tubes and boilers

o maintaining instrumentation

o restoring seals

o removing deposits on turbine blades

o condenser maintenance programs

o decreasing excess oxygen to the boiler

o Installing variable speed drives for motors

o Pursuing opportunities for waste heat utilization for coal drying and using solar

energy for feed water heating

• While the precise magnitude of the opportunity for power plant efficiency

improvements in the existing fleet is unknown, the need for such improvements to

address global climate change and reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases is an

important national priority.Improving Power Plant Efficiency 4 Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009 Next Steps

• The NETL data analysis of the CFPP fleet to estimate the potential efficiency

improvement can be strengthened by obtaining additional data and conducting

additional studies to fine tune the estimates of the potential magnitude of carbon

savings and the costs of achieving those savings.

• The results of that analysis needs to be shared with a wider group of plant owners and

operators to help determine how NETL can assist in addressing the barriers to efficiency

gains and in building a public

‐ private partnership to leverage the resources of federal

and state government agencies, power plant owners and operators, and vendors and

suppliers.

• A plan should be developed for public outreach and stakeholder engagement to educate

key audiences about the magnitude of the opportunity for reductions in greenhouse gas

emissions to facilitate inclusion of power plant efficiency efforts in national programs to

address carbon emissions and global climate change.Improving PowerPlant Efficiency5Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009Exhibit1.WaystoEnhancetheNETLAnalysisCONSTRUCT AN ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTMENT DECISIONSEXHIBIT2.FACTORSAFFECTINGCFPPEFFICIENCY•Study year-to-year variation inthe heat rate achieved at each plant•Obtain more robust data about equipment at each plant•Estimate improvements above the performanceabove the current top 10% of power plants•Construct an analysis framework for investment decisions•Analysis of the unexplained efficiency data variation•Case studies of specific units•Normalized dollars spend for O&M•Focus on plants that have done recent testing•Years since last major turbine overhaul•Estimate best potential for each segment•Analysis the turbine cycle•Existence of a performance engineer/heat rate monitor•Examine data quality•Analysis of CFPPs above 200MW•Corporate focus on efficiency•Operating and maintenance practices•No dedicated performance engineerANALYSISVARIABLESADDITIONALFACTORS•Nameplate capacity•SCR SO2control equipment•Coal Btu content•Investor owned utility•Steam pressure•Load factor•Number of starts•Recirculated cooling•Current fuel vs. design fuel•Reheat temperature•Design heat rate (∆from design)•Excess air - data available•Corporate culture•Whether plant has been given its “death sentence” or not•Fuel cost pass through•IPP [ownership] vs. regulated utility•Are co-ops and munis different•AGC and LGC are these installed•Regulatory policies affect utility actions and interest in O&M•SO2control equipment retrofits not optimal•SCR control equipment•Plant footprint is a constraining factor•If you don’t measure it you can’t control it•Type of air heaterImproving PowerPlant Efficiency6Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009EXHIBIT3.BARRIERSTOACHIEVINGHIGHEREFFICIENCIESINCFPPS(INORDEROFIMPORTANCE)CFPPFLEETDIVERSITYQUANTIFYING ANDANALYZINGISSUESANDBENEFITSTECHNICALISSUESPUBLICPERCEPTION•Variation in power plantdesign•Wide fuel range•“No one size fits allsolution” - differentsteam tubine•models andconfigurations thatrequire R&D•Identify and quantify issues in plant–Measuring small incrementalimprovements is problematic•Difficulty in monetizing benefits•No accepted optimization equation–Cost-value trade-off analysis, CO2dollars, efficiency, fuels, etc.–New metrics for evaluating PPperformance•Obtaining “valid” process data neededfor efficiency calculations•Ability to identify cost-effectiveimprovements we have not alreadymade•Making use of models and analysis tomake improvements•Better instrumentation for measuringchanges•Knowledge of fuel chemistry andHHV in real-time•Tail end fouling acid dewpoint•Technical: global excess O2kepthigher than “optimum” to avoidfouling, corrosion•Need low temperature heatsink/utilization and or reduceinfiltration XR•Condenser performance monitoring(largest heat sink)•Waste heat utilization•Improvement longevity - turbineseals, tower repairs•Best available technology does notmeet to the ideal requirement ofobjective•Coal pricing based on HHV not LHV•Difficulty of testing/developing newtechnologies at scale•Public perception notfavorable•Environmentalism coalis a four letter word•Resources diverted torenewablesImproving PowerPlant Efficiency7Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009EXHIBIT3.BARRIERSTOACHIEVINGHIGHEREFFICIENCIESINCFPPS(CONT’D)(INORDEROFIMPORTANCE)BUSINESSPRACTICESCOST AND BUDGETINGREGULATORYSTRUCTURE•Management support for performanceimprovements•Dedicated resources for action•Lack of experiencedperformance engineersdedicated to heat rate improvement•Plant focus on heat rate vs. availability•Its cost effectiveness not efficiencyeffectiveness•Justification - competition for funds–Management decision makingprocesses•Lack of experiencedplant managers•“Utility” culture - “been doing it this way foryears”, “already optimized”•Less sharing of information among utilitiesand vendors•Ownership - some plants no Btu gain, nomaintenance•Payback uncertainty - investing in dying plants•Budget limits - efficiency vs. availability, outagecycles•Payback period cost of fix vs. recovery timecost/benefit ratio•Decrease in frequency of planned outages•ROI/PB - small units continue to justify fullturbine upgrade•Ability to borrow money at a reasonable rate -getting better•Overall utility budget - fight for share of tightbudget•No economic incentive - fuel passthrough, low fuel cost•Contradictory EPA air emissionrequirements•Ability to pass through cost of fixes•Cannot measure and justify a 100 Btuchange•Uncertain CO2price - opportunity threat•Pass through of CO2costsImproving PowerPlant Efficiency8Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009EXHIBIT4.SOLUTIONSFOROVERCOMINGBARRIERSCONTRADICTORYEPAAIREMISSIONREQUIREMENTSLACK OF EXPERIENCED PERFORMANCEENGINEERS DEDICATED TO HEAT RATEIMPROVEMENTS AND SYSTEMSLACK OFMANAGEMENTSUPPORT FORHEATRATEIMPROVEMENTS•Take a proactive approach to articulatethe contradictions•Mandate the existence of a performanceengineer in plants above xMW–Need the proper infrastructure•Create a “heat rate champion”–Tie to incentive compensation•Ensure instrument and tools exist•Initiate training program on heat rateperformance–Tie with academic institutions•Corporate sharing of lessons learned•Build performance engineering asa green job•Create incentives for plant managers andleaders•Make it a priority for corporate leaders -education needed•Leverage efficiency and CO2for good publicimage–Educate out of the sector•Federal tax incentive for CFPP efficiencyimprovement•Create a federal “prize” for CFPP efficiency•Its cost effectiveness not efficiencyeffectivenessPlant focus on heat rate vs. availabilityNEED TOIDENTIFY/QUANTIFYISSUES INPLANTSLACK OFKNOWLEDGE OFFUELCHEMISTRY ANDHHVIN REALTIMEPAYBACKUNCERTAINTY-INVESTING IN DYING PLANTSLACK OFECONOMICINCENTIVEDUE TOFUELCOSTPASSTHROUGH•Testing analytics monitoringinstrumentation•Develop/install advancedinstrumentation–Heat rate monitor•More precise measuring protocol–Better practices–Good tools/scorecard•Mandate the instrumentation andmeasurements•Prioritization guidance•Install advancedinstrumentation - nuclearscare•Need to focus on biggerissues before the real-timeHH•Focus on whole systemboiler and turbine•Reduce legislative uncertainty–Tied to NSR•Mandate efficiency alarenewables - drive dollars intoolder plants•Retire them and remove theuncertainty–Cash for clunkers(government cost support)–New license contingent onretirement•Approach PUC on concept ofpassing through efficiency cost•Convince PUC on CO2benefit ofCFPP efficiency vs. renewable•Bypass PUC - 1% utility selftaught for performanceimprovement, createsinvestment stream•Change the public will - reshapenational policy•Thermal performance - basedrate makingImproving PowerPlant Efficiency9Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009EXHIBIT5.STAKEHOLDERROLESOWNERS ANDOPERATORSSTATES ANDREGULATORSFEDERALAGENCIESVENDORS ANDSUPPLIERSPUBLIC•Manage risk•Develop innovativestrategies•Commit to the solution•Educate public•Training•Advocacy•Solve fuel cost passthrough•Create the incentives•Champion efficiency•Understand the issuesand the trade-offs•Mandates•Financial incentives•Fund research•Integrated strategies•Tax incentives•Enable/facilitate industrylearning - training,information exchange•Educate public•New technologydevelopment andcommercialization•BU (with right framework)•Shoot straight•Search for best availabletechnology•Training•Understand, support,listen•Invest•Sacrifice and lifestylechangesImproving PowerPlant Efficiency10Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009EXHIBIT6.TECHNICALOPPORTUNITIESTOIMPROVEEFFICIENCYINFORCOAL‐FIREDPOWERPLANTSSCOPE•Within the power plant•Technical actions•Operations, maintenance•Capital projectsASSUMPTIONS•“Typical” CFPP•Expectation of reasonablefunding•Management support•Regulatory support•Public supportTEAM1TEAM21. Perform equipment assessment–Generate heat balance, (design) as is–Perform cycle isolation alignment check–Determine deviations2. Improve heat exchange at back end of boiler–Duplex seals, repair casing leak, intelligent sootblowing3. Improve heat exchange at condenser and CT–Re-tube, clean tubes, maintain instruments,optimize condenser arrangement–Replace CT, fill adjust distribution of flow (L/g)–CFD tube bundle water box4. Improve heat exchange in feed water heaters–Re-tube, optimize levels of heater drain pumps5. Restore seals, remove deposits on turbine, improveturbine steam path–Install diffusers/vanes on turbine exhaust/hood6. Improve control7. Install sliding pressure control at low load8. Install boiler optimization neural network control9. Install equipment to measure and control PC flow toeach burner10.Variable speed drive for motors1. Turbine seal replacement2. Boiler leak seals3. Turbine vale maintenance4. Mill maintenance5. Water chemistry - consistency andcontinued monitoring6. Sliding pressure7. Heat rate training8. Optimization - transient ops9. Add performance engineering10. Real-time heat rate monitor11. Boiler cleaning - optimization, sonic Horn12. Upgrade air heater seals13. Better air pre-heater cleaningGame ChangerGame Changer•Waste heat utilization coal drying•High temperature O2probe at the furnace exit•Coal pile umbrella•Some device to measure in situ flame temperature ateach burner +/- 50°F•Condensing air heater, capture condensate and sulfur•Low grade waste heat recovery - OrganicRankine Cycle•Solar feed water heating•Biomass co-firingImproving PowerPlant Efficiency11Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009EXHIBIT6.TECHNICALOPPORTUNITIESTOIMPROVEEFFICIENCYINFORCOAL‐FIREDPOWERPLANTS(CONT’D)TEAM3TEAM41. Operator training/performance engineers2. Improve steam seals3. Increased frequency of maintenance4. Condenser maintenance program5. Cooling tower performance6. Dense pack steam turbines7. Tramp air management8. Decrease global excess O29. Improved heat transfer surface cleaning10. Hardened variable drive fans11. Mill air management/bypass12. Extra Regenerative air-heater13. Reduce air-heater fouling14. Replace feedwater pump drive1. Need a performance engineer2. Incentive program3. Assess and determine baseline testing4. Gap analyses5. Instrument and control6. Educational training7. Performance monitoring8. Monitoring by skilled staff9. Formal mechanic to get work done forefficiency10. Cycle optimizationGame ChangerGame Changer•Acid proof heat exchanger and ductwork•Cost benefit and analysis•Implement turbine upgrades,resurfacing, new instrument/control,water chemistry•Maintenance outage: prioritize efficiencyactivities and assure it gets doneCOMMONTHEMES•Assess•Measure and monitor•Improve controls•Plug leaks•Clean and maintain•Replace/upgradecomponents•Increase expertise•Provide incentivesImproving Power Plant Efficiency 12 Technical Workshop: July 15-16, 2009 Participants

Name Company E-mail Address

Scott Affelt Zolo Technologies, Inc. saffelt@zolotech.com

Paul Albert GE Energy Services paul.albert@ge.com

Mike Booth GE Energy mike.booth@ge.com

Thamarai Chelvan Siemens Energy, Inc. tham.chelvan@siemens.com

Wayne Counterman Ho wden Buffalo, Inc. wcounterman@howdenbuffalo.com

Phil DiPietro U.S. Department of Energy joseph.dipietro@netl.doe.gov

Jeffrey Eppink Enegis, LLC jeppink@energis.com

Robert Frank C-Lock Technology, Inc. rfrank@c-locktech.com

John Holt Nat. Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc. john.holt@nreca.coop

Sikander Khan U.S. Department of Energy sikander.khan@hq.doe.gov

Jordan Kislear U.S. Department of Energy jordan.kislear@hq.doe.gov

Sam Korellis Electric Power Research Institute skorellis@epri.com

Fred Lang Exergetic Systems, Inc. lang@exergeticsystems.com

James Laughner Allegheny Energy jlaugh1@alleghenyenergy.com

George Mues Ameren Corporation gmues@ameren.com

Joseph Nasal General Physics Corporation jnasal@gpworldwide.com

Chris Nichols U.S. Department of Energy christopher.nichols@netl.doe.gov

Charles Olsen American Electric Power cdolsen@aep.com

Paul Roediger Encotech proediger@encotech.com

Michael Smiarowski Siemens Energy, Inc. michael.smiarowski@siemens.com

G. Scott Stallard Black & Veatch stallardgs@bv.com

Joseph Taura GE Energy Services joseph.taura@ge.com

Facilitators

Richard Scheer Energetics Incorporated rscheer@energetics.com

Jack Eisenhauer Energe tics Incorporated jeisenhauer@energetics.com