# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZATION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

## N UMBER 

## 11311-000

P REPARED F O R 

# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION 

# S EPTEMBER 

# 2002

P REPARED BY



### 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA

### LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Sargent & Lundy LLC 

### (Sargent & Lundy) expressly for National Lime Association. Neither Sargent & Lundy nor any person acting on its behalf (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this report or (b) assumes any liability with resp ect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this report.

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



## C ONTENTS 

## S ECTION 

## P AGE

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### i 

## 1. FLUE GAS DESULFURIZ A TION (FGD) DESCRIPTION
......................................................... 1

1.1 Process Chemistry
.......................................................................................................... .............................................. 1

1.2 Reagents and Waste Products
................................................................................................ ..................................... 1

1.3 Commercial Status
.......................................................................................................... ............................................. 2



## 2. DRY FGD PROCESS ADVANTAGES AND DI SADVANTAGES COMPARED TO WET FGD TECHNOLOGY
................................................................................................................. ............. 3

2.1 Process Advantages
......................................................................................................... ............................................. 3

2.2 Process Disadvantages
...................................................................................................... ............................................ 4



## 3. DESIGN BASIS
................................................................................................................ ................. 5
3.1 Specific Design Criteria – Dry FGD.........................................................................................
................................... 5

3.2 System Design (Subsystems)
................................................................................................. ....................................... 6 3.2.1 Reagent Handling and Preparation

......................................................................................... ............................... 7 3.2.2 SO 2 

### Rem oval

....................................................................................................................... ................................... 7 3.2.3 Baghouse.................................................................................................................

............................................... 8 3.2.4 Flue Gas System /S tack

.................................................................................................... ...................................... 8 3.2.5 W a ste Handling

........................................................................................................... .......................................... 8 3.2.6 General Support

.......................................................................................................... ........................................... 8 3.2.7 Miscellaneous

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

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



## C ONTENTS 

## S ECTION 

## P AGE

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### ii 

## 4. IDENTIFICATION OF APPL ICATION CONSTRAINTS
........................................................ 11

4.1 Unit/Absorber Siz e ......................................................................................................... ............................................ 11

4.2 Coal Sulfur Content
........................................................................................................ ........................................... 11

4.3 Performance Expectations
................................................................................................... ...................................... 11

4.4 SO 2 

### Reduction
..................................................................................................................... ........................................ 12
4.5 Reagent Utiliz ation
........................................................................................................ ............................................. 12
4.6 Waste/By-Product Quality
................................................................................................... ...................................... 13
4.7 Energy Consumption
......................................................................................................... ......................................... 13

4.8 Retrofit Versus New Units
.................................................................................................. ....................................... 13



## 5. COSTS ANALYSIS
.............................................................................................................. ........... 14
5.1 Capital Costs
.............................................................................................................. ................................................. 14

5.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs
........................................................................................... ............................... 15 5.2.1 Fixed O&M Costs

.......................................................................................................... ...................................... 15 5.2.2 Variable O&M Costs

....................................................................................................... .................................... 16

5.3 Leveliz ed Costs
............................................................................................................ ................................................ 16

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



## E X H IBITS

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### iii N UMBER 

### T ITLE 

### 5-1 Capital Cost Estim ates for New Units 5-2 Capital Cost Estim ates for Retrofit Units 5-3 Fixed and Variable O&M Cost Estim ates for New Units 5-4 Fixed and Variable O&M Cost Estim ates for Retrofit Units

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### iv R EPORT 

### P REPARED 

### , R EVIEWED 

### , AND 

### A PPROVED BY 

### S ARGENT 

### & L UNDY LLC 

### : Prepared by: Septem ber 26, 2002 R a j G a i k w a d D a t e T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r
Reviewed by: Willard L. Boward Septem ber 26, 2002 T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r D a t e

Approved by: Septem ber 26, 2002 W i l l i a m D e P r i e s t D a t e P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



# 1. F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# (FGD) D ESCRIPTION

Lim e -spray dry i ng (LSD) is a dry scrubbing process that is generally used for low-sulfur coal. LSD FGD sy stem s are ty pically located after the air preheaters, and the waste products are collected either in a baghouse or electrostatic precipitator. However, to achieve sulfer dioxide (SO 2 

### ) reduction above 80% with good reagent use, the dry scrubber is generally followed by a baghouse.

Flue gas is treated in an absorber by m i xing the gas st ream concurrently with atom ized lim e slurry droplets. The lim e slurry is atom ized through rotary cup spray atom izers or through dual fluid nozzles. Som e of the water in the spray droplets evaporates, cooling the gas at the inlet from 300 ° C or higher to 160 ° F to 180 ° F, depending on the relationship between approach to satur ation and rem oval efficiency . The droplets absorb SO 2 

### from the gas and react the SO 2 

### with the lim e in the slurry

. The desu lfurized flue gas, along with reaction products, unreacted lim e, and the fly ash passes out of the dry scrubber to the baghouse.


## 1.1 P ROCESS 

## C HEMISTRY



### The SO 2 

### absorbed in the atom ized slu rry reacts with lim e in the slurry to form calcium sulfite (CaSO 3 

### ) in the following reaction:

SO 2 

### + CaO + 1/2 H 2 

### O ⇒ CaSO 3 

### • 1/2 H 2 

### O A part of the CaSO 3 

### reacts with oxy gen in the flue gas to form calcium sulfate (CaSO 4 

### ):

CaSO 3 

### + 1⁄2O 2 

### + 2H 2 

### O ⇒ CaSO 4 

### • 2H 2 

### O


## 1.2 R EAGENTS AND 

## W ASTE 

## P RODUCTS 

### Preparation of the lim e slurry reagent involves slak ing lim e in a conventional lim e slaker with a high efficiency grit rem oval and lim e recovery sy stem . The sl aked lim e is held in an agitated tank for use. The slurry reagent is fed to the absorber to replenish lim e consum ed in the reaction, and the feed rate is ty pically controlled based on the rem oval efficiency required.
NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 1

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

The waste product contains CaSO 3 

### , CaSO 4 

### , calcium hy droxide, and ash.


## 1.3 C OMMERCIAL 

## S TATUS 

### LSD FGD sy stem s are in operation at m a ny facilities, ranging in size from less than 10 MW to 500 MW (m ultiple m odules are required for plants greater than 300 MW in capacity ). For eastern bitum i nous coals,

som e FGD vendors have proposed m odules for units sized up to 350 MW. Applications include com m e rcial units with coal sulfur as high as 2.0%. LSD sy stem s w ith rotary or dual fluid atom izers are available from a
num ber of vendors including:

• Alstom Environm ental Sy stem s
• Babcock & Wilcox

• Ham on Research Cottrell

• Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 2

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



# 2. D RY 

# FGD P ROCESS 

# A DV ANT AGES AND 

# D ISADV ANT AGES 

# C OMP ARED T O 

# W ET 

# FGD T ECHNOLOGY



## 2.1 P ROCESS 

## A DVANTAGES 

### The dry FGD process has the following advantages wh en com p ared to wet lim estone FGD technology :
1. The absorber vessel can be constructed of unlined carbon steel, as opposed to lined carbon steel or solid alloy construction for wet FGD. Ty pically , for units less than 300 MW, the capital cost is lower than for wet FGD. Ty pically , for units larger than 300 MW, m u ltiple m odule requirem e nts causes the dry FGD process to be m o re expensive than the wet FGD process. 2. Pum p ing requirem e nts and overall power consum ption are lower than for wet FGD sy stem s. 3. Waste CaSO 3 

### , CaSO 4 

### , and calcium hy droxide are produced in a dry form and can be handled with conventional pneum a tic fly ash handling equipm ent. 4. The waste is stable for landfilling purposes and can be disposed of concurrently with fly ash.
5. The dry FGD sy stem uses less equipm ent than does the wet FGD sy stem , resulting in fixed, lower operations and m a intenan ce (O&M) labor requirem e nts. 6. The pressure drop across the absorber is ty pically lower than for wet FGD.
7. High chloride levels im prove (up to a point), rather than hinder, SO 2 

### rem oval perform ance. 8. Sulfur trioxide (SO 3 

### ) in the vapor above approxim a tely 300 ° F, which condenses to liquid sulfuric acid at a lower tem p erature (below acid dew point), is rem oved efficiently with a spray dry e r-baghouse. Wet lim estone scrubbers capture less than 25% to 40% of SO 3 

### and would require the addition of a wet electrosta tic precipitator to rem ove the balance or hy drated lim e injection. The em ission of sulfuric acid m i st, if above a threshold value, m a y result in a plum e visible after the vapor plum e dissipates.
9. Flue gas following a spray dry e r is unsaturated with water (30 ° F to 50 ° F above dew point), which reduces or elim inates a visible m o isture plum e. Wet lim estone scrubbers produce flue gas that is saturated with water, which requires a gas-gas heat exchanger to reheat the flue gas to operate as dry stack. Due to the high costs asso ciated with heating the flue gas, all recent wet FGD sy stem s in the United States have used wet stack operations.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 3

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

10. Dry FGD sy stem s have the capability of capturing a high percentage of gaseous m e rcury in the flue gas if the m e rcury is in the oxidized form . Further, due to the nature of the filter cake present in the fabric filter associated with LSD , the LSD equipm ent with a fabric filter will tend to capture a higher percentage of oxidized m e rcury than would LSD equipm ent with an electrostatic precipitator. The m a jor constitu ent that will influence the oxidation level of m e rcury in the flue gas has been identified as chlorine. Considering the ty pical level of chlorine in coals in the United States, we can expect that LSD sy stem s applied to high chlorine bitum i nous coals will tend to capture a high percentage of the m e rcury present in the flue gas. Conversely , LSD sy stem s applied to low-chlorine sub-bitum i nous coals and lignite will not capture a significant am ount of the m e rcury in the flue gas.
11. There is no liquid waste from a dry FGD sy stem , while wet lim estone sy stem s produce a liquid waste stream . In som e cases, a wastewater treatm e nt plant m u st be installed to treat the liquid waste prior to disposal. The wastewater treatm e nt plant produces a sm all volum e of waste, rich in toxic m e tals (including m e rcury ) that m u st be disposed of in a landfill. A dry FGD sy stem provides an outlet for process wast ewater from other parts of the plant when processing residue for disposal. 

## 2.2 P ROCESS 

## D ISADVANTAGES 

### The dry FGD process has the following disadvantages when com p ared to lim estone wet FGD technology :
1. The largest absorber m odule used in the industry is 250 MW to300 MW. Som e suppliers of dry FGD sy stem s have proposed absorbers as large as 350 MW for eastern bitum i nous coalfired units. For units sized at 500 MW, two m odul es will be required. This will also result in large inlet and outlet ductwor k and dam p er com b inations.
2. The process uses a m o re expensive reagent ( lim e) than lim estone-based FGD sy stem s and the reagent has to be stored in a steel or concrete silo.
3. Reagent utilization is lower than for we t lim estone sy stem s to achieve com p arable SO 2 

### rem ovals. The lim e stoichiom e tric ratio is hi gher than the lim estone stoichiom e tric ratio (on the sam e basis) to achieve com p arable SO 2 

### rem ovals.
4. Dry FGD produces a large volum e of waste, which does not have m a ny uses due to its properties, i.e., perm eability , soluble products, etc. Researchers m a y y e t develop som e applications where the dry FGD waste can be used. Wet FGD can produce com m e rcial-grade gy psum
. 5. Com b ined rem oval of fly ash and waste solid s in the particulate collection sy stem precludes com m e rcial sale of fly ash if the unit is designed to rem ove FGD waste and fly ash together. In som e cases, FGD could be backfit after the ex isting electrostatic precipitator, which would allow the sale of fly ash.
NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 4

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



# 3. D ESIGN 

# B ASIS



## 3.1 S PE CI FI C 

## D ESIGN 

## C RITERIA 

## – D RY 

## FGD
Table 3.1-1 lists the specific design criteria.

T ABLE 

### 3.1-1 S PECIFIC 

### D ESIGN 

### C RITERIA 

### Unit capacity 500 MW 500 MW Heat input to boiler, MBtu/hr 5 , 0 0 0 5 , 1 8 6 Fuel Low-sulfur - Appalachian Low-sulfur - Powder River Basin Fuel analy s is, % wt.: M o i s t u r e 6

. 0 3 0

. 4 A s h 9

. 1 6

. 4 C a r b o n 7 2

. 6 4 7

. 8 Hy d r o g e n 4

. 8 3

. 4 N i t r o g e n 1

. 4 0

. 7 S u l f u r 1

. 3 0

. 6 Oxy g e n 4

. 7 1 0

. 8 C h l o r i n e 0

. 1 0

. 0 3 High heating value, Btu/lb 13,100 8,335 SO 2 

### generation, lb/Mbtu 2.0 1.44 Coal feed rate, tons/hr 191 311 Flue gas flow at FGD inlet, m acfm 1.79 1.97 Flue gas tem p erature at FGD inlet, ° F 2 8 0 2 8 0 Flue gas flow at FGD outlet, m acfm 1.60 1.75 Flue gas tem p erature at FGD outlet,

° F 1 6 0 1 6 5

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 5

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

T ABLE 

### 3.1-1 S PECIFIC 

### D ESIGN 

### C RITERIA 

### SO 2 

### reduction efficiency , % 94 93 SO 2 

### outlet, lb/MBtu 0.120 0.10 Mercury concentration in coal, ppm d 0.06-0.10 0.08-0.12

Table 3.1-2 sum m a rizes the param e ters used for the FGD com p arison.

T ABLE 

### 3.1-2 P ARAMETERS 

### U SED FOR 

### FGD C OMPARISON 

### Unit Capacity 500 MW 500 MW Heat input to boiler, MBtu/hr 5,000 5,186 Fuel Low-sulfur - Appalachian Low-sulfur - Powder River Basin SO 2 

### rem oval, % 94 93 SO 2 

### em ission, lb/MBtu 0.12 0.10 By product Dry waste Dry waste Power consum ption, % 0.65 new (without baghouse), 1.1 for retrofit 0.70 new (without baghouse), 1.2 for retrofit Reagent High calcium lim e High calcium lim e Reagent cost, $/ton 60 60 Reagent purity , % 93 93 Reagent stoichiom e try , m o les of CaO/m o le of inlet sulfur 1

. 4 1

. 1
Load factor 80 80 FGD sy stem life, y ears 30 (new)/20 (retrofit) 30 (new)/20 (retrofit) Capital cost leveling factor, % / y ear 14.5 (n ew)/15.43 (retrofit) 14.5 (new)/15.43 (retrofit) Discount rate, % 8.75 8.75 Inflation rate, % 2.5 2.5 Operating cost levelization factor 1.30/1.22 1.30/1.22



## 3.2 S YSTEM 

## D ESIGN 

## (S UBSYSTEMS 

## )
The FGD sy stem overall design consists of the following subsy s tem s :

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 6

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

3.2.1 Reagent Handling and Preparation

Lim e is received by truck (or barge) and convey e d to stor age. Lim e is stored in a 14-day capacity bulk storage lim e silo. The lim e is pneum atically convey e d to a 16-hour capacity day bin. The lim e day bin and a gravim etric feeder supplies the lim e to a 150% slaking sy stem . Th is will allow two shift operations for the unit operating continuously at 100% load. A c onventional lim e slaker with high-efficiency grit rem oval and lim e recovery
s y s t e m i s u s e d

. Two 100% capacity slurry transfer pum ps ar e used to provide high reliability to transfer the slurry to the slurry tank. The process m a keup water is added to the slaker to produce 20% solids slurry . The slurry is diluted on line, if required, prior to injection into an abso rber. The slurry is fed to the absorber by a dedicated reagent feed pum p (100% spare capacity provided).
3.2.2 SO 2 

### Rem oval Two absorbers, each treating 50% of the flue gas, are provided to achieve 93% to 94% SO 2 

### rem oval efficiency in the absorber and baghouse. The absorber is a vertical, ope n cham ber with concurrent contact between the flue gas and lim e slurry . The slurry is injected into the to wer at the top using a rotary atom izer to rem ove SO 2 

### . A spare rotary atom izer is provided. The hopper in the bottom of the carbon steel absorber also rem oves large particles that m a y

drop in the absorber. The absorber will be operated at 30 ° F adiabatic approach to saturation tem p erature. In the past, a lower approach had been proposed. However, over the y ear s, operational problem s associated with the lower adiabatic approach to saturation tem p erature, due to wetting of the walls and large deposits in the absorber, were alleviated by designs with 30 ° F adiabatic approach to saturation tem p erature.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 7

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

3.2.3 Baghouse A pulse-jet baghouse with air to cloth ratio of 3.5 ft/m in is provided. The baghouse is provided with a spare

com p artm ent for off line cleaning to m a intain the opacity at 10% or less. The waste will be pneum atically convey e d to a waste storage silo with a 3-day storage cap acity , which is in accordance with ty pical utility design.
3.2.4 Flue Gas System/Stack The flue gas from the air preheater will be sent to the ab sorbers. The gases from the ab sorber will be sent to the baghouse to collect the waste products and the fly ash. The booster fan is sized to provide an additional 16”H 2 

### O (12" w.c. operating) pressure drop through the absorber and baghouse. The existing stack will be used for the retrofit case.
3.2.5 Waste Handling The waste will be collected in the baghouse. A portion of th e waste will be stored in a recy cle storage silo, which will then be used to m i x with lim e sl urry to increase the reagent utilization. Pug m ills (2 x 100%) are provided to treat the dry FGD waste before it is loaded onto the trucks for disposal or sale.
3.2.6 General Support The general support equipm ent includes the seal water sy st em , instrum e nt air com p ressor, m a keup water sy stem , and control room

. 3.2.7 Miscellaneous Equipm ent considered as m i scellaneous includes onsite el ectrical power equipm ent, such as transform e rs and grounding, which is required to supply electrical power to the FGD sy stem

.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 8

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

Table 3.2–1 lists the equipm ent used in each subsy s tem

.

T ABLE 

### 3.2-1 E QUIPMENT 

### U SED IN 

### E ACH 

### S UBSYSTEM 

### Reagent Handling and Preparation Truck unloading sy stem Lim e bulk storage steel silo (14 day s ’ storage) Lim e live storage transport Lim e day bin (16 hours’ storage) Slaker with screen (150% capacity ) Lim e slurry tank (16 hours’ storage) Lim e slurry feed pum p (2 x 100% ) SO 2 

### Rem oval System Spray dry e r (2 x 50%) Rotary atom izer (3 x 50% -2 operating and 1 spare) Spray dry e r solid convey i ng Baghouse System Pulse jet baghouse (air to cloth ratio – 3.5 ft/m in) Baghouse inlet ductwork Baghouse outlet ductwork Waste unloading sy stem Waste storage steel silo (3 day s ’ storage) Flue Gas System Booster induced draft fans (2 x 50% ) Absorber inlet ductwork/dam p ers Absorber outlet ductwork/dam p ers

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 9

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

T ABLE 

### 3.2-1 E QUIPMENT 

### U SED IN 

### E ACH 

### S UBSYSTEM 

### Waste Handling and Recycle System Recy cle waste storage bin (16 hours’ storage) Recy cle waste convey i ng Recy cle waste slurry tank Pug m ills (2 x 100%) General Support System Slaking water tank Slaking water pum ps (2 x 100% ) Instrum e ntation/plant air com p ressors (2 x 50%) Miscellaneous Transform e rs/switchgear Electrical wiring, cables, etc.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 10

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



# 4. I DENTIFICA T ION OF 

# A PPLICA T ION 

# C ONSTRAINTS

Sum m a rized below are the application constraints that we have identified.


## 4.1 U NIT 

## /A BSORBER 

## S IZ E 

### LSD FGD sy stem s are in operation at m a ny facilities, ranging in size from less than 10 MW to 500 MW. However, m u ltiple m odules are required for plants greater than 250 MW to300 MW in capacity

. 

## 4.2 C OAL 

## S ULFUR 

## C ONTENT 

### LSD FGD sy stem s are applied m a inly to low-sulfur co al. Most of these sy stem s are applied to inlet SO 2 

### less than 2.0 lb/MBtu. These sy stem s are based on Powd er River Basin and western bitum i nous coal. The sy stem s installed on low-sulfur eastern bitum i nous coal have SO 2 

### concentrations as high as 3.0 lb/MBtu. Sargent & Lundy ’ s database of dry FGD sy stem s indicat es that these sy stem s are not installed on high-sulfur bitum i nous coals.


## 4.3 P ERFORMANCE 

## E X P ECTATIONS 

### The first generation of dry FGD sy stem s was designed to achieve 70% SO 2 

### reduction efficiencies. This was done prim arily to com p ly with the New Source Perfo rm ance Standards (NSPS) for low-sulfur coals. However, further experience with Powder River Basin co al has prom pted suppliers of dry FGD equipm ent to guarantee SO 2 

### reduction efficiencies up to 94% or 0.10 lb/MBtu, whichever is achieved first. Apply i ng this recent experience to the FGD sy stem descr ibed in Table3.1-1, with the inlet SO 2 

### from Powder River Basin fuel of 1.44 lb/MBtu, 94% reduction will result in an ou tlet em ission of 0.086 lb/MBtu. This em ission rate is less than 0.10 lb/Mbtu; hence, the SO 2 

### outlet of 0.10 lb/MBtu becom es the standard, which results in an overall SO 2 

### reduction efficiency of 93%. Figure 4.3-1 represents the m a xim u m achievable SO 2 

### reduction for

a dry FGD sy stem with baghouse as it relates to the sulfur content in the coal. Figure 4.3-1 is derived from Sargent & Lundy ’ s in-house database on the technology perform ance, as obtained from various suppliers of FGD sy stem s.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 11

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

F IGURE 

### 4.3-1 R ELATION 

### B ETWEEN 

### I NLET 

### SO 2 TO 

### D RY 

### FGD AND 

### SO 2 

### R EDUCTION 

### E FFICIENCY

F i g u r e 1: R e l a t i o n B e t w e e n I n l e t S O 2 t o D r y F G D a n d S O 2 R e d u c t i o n E f f i c i e n c y

7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 1 0 0

0 0

. 5 1 1

. 5 2 2

. 5 3 3 l b s S O 2 / m m B t u%SO2Reduction

. 5



## 4.4 SO 2 

## R EDUCTION 

### Suppliers of FGD sy stem s have guaranteed SO 2 

### reduction efficiencies up to 94% or 0.10 lb/MBtu, whichever is achieved first, with a dry scrubber- baghou se com b ination. This lim its the inlet SO 2 

### level to 1.7 lb/MBtu. Suppliers of FGD sy stem s were reluctant to provi de Sargent & Lundy with higher rem oval guarantees, prim arily due to the absence of any database.


## 4.5 R EAGENT 

## U TILIZ A TION 

### The reagent utilization is lim ited due to the m ass transf er lim itations. Suppliers of FGD sy stem s are using alkalinity in the waste by recy cling the waste along with the active reagent. The alkalinity of Powder River Basin ash has resulted in good reagent utilization com p ared to acidic fly ashes from eastern bitum i nous coal. For exam ple, to achieve a reduction efficiency of 90% SO 2 

### , a stoichiom e tric ratio of 1.1 could be used

com p ared to 1.4 stoichiom e tric ratio for bitum i nous coal s with waste recy cling. The stoichiom e tric ratio for dry FGD is based on the inlet SO 2 

### concentration.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 12

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



## 4.6 W ASTE 

## /B Y 

## -P RODUCT 

## Q UALITY 

### The waste product contains CaSO3, CaSO4, calcium hy droxi de, and ash. This m a terial cannot be used in the

cem ent industry or wallboard; however, there is poten tial for use as agricultural soil conditioning and for preparation of bricks or aggregates by m i xing with other waste com ponents such as fly ash. If there is currently significant incom e from the sale of fly ash , it m a y be prudent to install the dry FGD/baghouse

com b ination after the existing particulate collector, such that the fly ash is segregated from the LSD waste and can continue to be sold.


## 4.7 E NERGY 

## C ONSUMPTION



### The m a jor energy consum ption is due to the pressure drop across the dry scrubber. Alm o st 60% to 70% of the energy required for FGD operation is due to an increase in draft (6-8” w.c., including inlet and outlet ductwork) and 25% to 35% of the energy required is for the atom izers.


## 4.8 R ETROF IT 

## V ERSUS 

## N EW 

## U NITS 

### The LSD sy stem is installed between the air heater outle t and particulate collector. Most existing units have very short ductwork between the air heater outlet and el ectrostatic precipitator inlet. This m a kes it very difficult to take the gas from the air heater outlet to the LSD equipm ent and return it to the electrostatic precipitator inlet. Also, m o st existing electrosta tic precipitators are not designed to handle increased particulate loading resulting from the LSD waste products

. This will require m odifications to the existing electrostatic precipitator to accom m odate collection of the additional particulate from the LSD. In addition, the electrostatic precipitator will captu re only a sm all percentage of the SO 2 

### (5% to 10% ), placing a high burden on the LSD for SO 2 

### rem oval. An added benefit of this LSD/FF com b ination is that the existing electrostatic precipitator can rem a in in service w ith the collected fly ash available for sale. Considering these issues associated with using an exis ting electrostatic precipitator for particulate and SO 2 

### capture downstream of a retrofit LSD, em ploy ing a ne w fabric filter that can achieve 15% to 20% SO 2 

### capture and that can accom m odate the LSD particulate load ing, m a y be a m o r e a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e
.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 13

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION



# 5. C OSTS 

# A NAL YSIS



## 5.1 C APITAL 

## C OSTS



### Estim ated capital costs for the dry FGD sy stem were determ ined for new and retrofit applications, which includes the equipm ent, m a terials, structural, a nd electrical com ponents associated with the retrofit installation of these technologies. The costs were developed using Sargent & L undy ’ s database as well as price quotes obtained from

m a nufacturers for the equipm ent/work needed. The capital cost estim ates provided herein are essentially “total plant cost,” and include the following:

• Equipm ent and m a terial

• Direct field labor

• Indirect field costs and engineering

• Contingency

• Owner's cost

• Allowance for funds during construction (AFUDC)

• Initial inventory and Spare parts (1% of the process capital)

• Startup and com m i ssioning Finally , the capital cost estim ates provided do not include taxes and property tax. License fees and roy a lties are not expected for the proposed control strategies. Salient features of each capital cost estim at e prepared for FGD installations include:

• Dem o lition of existing ductwork to provide access to the flue gas from the air heater outlet

• Inlet and outlet ductwork to absorber and baghouse

• 2 x 50% absorbers

• Baghouse
NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 14

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

• Induced draft fan m odifications for retrofit application

• Auxiliary power sy stem upgrade (for retrofit) No range estim ate was perform ed to assess the relativ e accuracy of this budgetary estim ate. Based on experience, it is believed that the rela tive accuracy of the estim ate is ±20%. Additionally , the underly i ng assum p tion, unless specifically stated otherwise, is that the contracting arrangem e nt for the project is large, m u ltiple lum p sum work packages. If the clie nt expects to execute the project on an engineer, procure, construct or turnkey b asis, a separate risk allocation should be added to the estim ate of 5% to 20% (1.05 or 1.2 m u ltiplier) for this m e thod of construction, with actual value dependent on the relative risk of labor, construction difficulty , etc. Exhibit 5–1 and Exhibit 5–2 present the capital costs for new units and retrofit units, respectively

. 

## 5.2 O PERATIONS AND 

## M AINTENANCE 

## C OSTS



### Exhibit 5–3 and Exhibit 5–4 present the estim ated opera tions and m a intenance (O&M) expenses associated with dry FGD sy stem s. These costs include both fixe d and variable operating costs, defined as follows:

5.2.1 Fixed O& M Costs

The fixed O&M costs determ ined for this study consist of sulfur oxides (SO X 

### ) em ission control technology , O&M labor, m a intenance m a terial, and adm i nistrative labor.

For purposes of this study , the installation of the FGD sy stem has been anticipated to add an additional five operators to the current pool of operating labor for new un its and eight operators for the retrofit application. It is assum e d the plant lay out for the retrofit applicati on is not optim ized, which w ould require m o re operating labor than for the new unit.

Maintenance m a terial and labor costs shown herein have been estim ated based on technology operating experience in the United States and Europe. The m a inte nance cost includes periodic replacem ent of atom izers and m a intenance m a terial for various subsy s tem s , a nd the labor required to perform the m a intenance.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 15

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

5.2.2 Variable O& M Costs

Variable O&M costs determ ined for each technology incl ude the cost of lim e, waste disposal, bags and cages replacem ent, water, and power requirem e nts. The cost of fly ash is not included in this study as it is assum e d that even if the fly ash is currently disposed of or sold, the proposed configuration will not affect the current operation. For new unit operations, if the fly ash sale creates significant revenue, an electrostatic precipitator can be installed upstream of the dry FGD. This analy s is assum es that the ash will be disposed of along with FGD waste for the new unit application and thus the only differential cost will be applicable to FGD waste. No added penalty for lost production has been included due to forced downtim e to m a intain the FGD sy stem s because the availability (m easure of random outage rates) of FGD sy stem s is expected to be greater than 99%.

Auxiliary power costs reflect the additional power requi rem e nts associated with the operation of the existing induced draft fans as well as the estim ated power cons um ption for atom izers, com p ressor for baghouse, lim e preparation sy stem , and various electrical and control users ty pically needed for FGD operations. The owner will be responsible for the power cost of $30/MWH if the power is purchased from the open grid. This cost includes the replacem ent energy and capacity charges.

Exhibit 5–3 and Exhibit 5–4 present the fixed and variab le O&M costs for new and retrofit applications, respectively

. 

## 5.3 L EVELIZ E D 

## C OSTS 

### Levelized costs, also referred to as “life cy cle costs, ” take into account the im pacts of capital costs and O&M costs during the operation of a plant over the period of an aly s is. The levelized fixed charge rate (im p act due to capital cost) was calculated based on an assum p tion th at a ty pical custom er is a regulated utility . The levelized fixed charge rate includes depreciation of the property , return on capital (50% debt and 50% equity ), incom e tax, property tax, and insurance. Based on 8.75% discount rate and 30-y ear or 20-y ear life expectancy for new or retrofit facilities, respectively , the levelized fixed charge rates are 14.50% (30-y ear

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 16

### P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

life) and 15.43% (20-y ears life). The levelized cost an aly s is was perform ed based on current dollars, as m o st regulated utilities base their analy s is on current dollars.

The levelized O&M cost factor takes into account the discount rate, escalation rate, and annuity rate. The levelized O&M cost factors were 1.30 for the 30-y ear period and 1.22 for the 20-y ear analy s is.

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### 17

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

# E X H IBIT 

# 5-1
C APITAL 

# C OST 

# E STIMATES FOR 

# N EW 

# U NITS 

# U SING 

# PRB AND 

# A PPALACHIAN 

# L OW 

# S ULFUR 

# C OALS

DR Y FGD PRB Coa l A p p a l ac hi an Low S u l f u r S ubs y s tems Cost, US$ $ /k W C os t, U S $ $ /kW

Re ag en t Fe ed S y s t em 3 , 81 0 , 0 0 0 7

. 6 4, 38 5, 00 0 8 .8 SO 2 R e m o val Sy s t em 11, 7 00, 00 0 2 3

. 4 1 1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 22. 8 Bagh ou s e Sy s t em 16, 0 00, 00 0 3 2

. 0 1 5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 31. 0 F l u e G a s Sy s t em 6, 5 50, 00 0 1 3

. 1 6 ,3 00 ,0 00 12. 6 W a s t e Ha nd ling and r e c y c l e s y s t em 2, 6 00, 00 0 5 .2 2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 4

. 4 G e ne r a l Supp or t Equ i pm en t 5 50, 00 0 1 .1 5 50, 0 0 0 1

. 1 Mis c e llane ou s Eq uip m e n t 1, 2 50, 00 0 2 .5 1 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 2

. 5
T O T A L PROCE SS CAP I T A L (T PC) 4 2 , 46 0 , 0 0 0 8 5 4 1, 58 5, 00 0 8 3

G e ne ra l Fa c i li ti e s (5 % of T P C) 2 , 12 3 , 0 0 0 4

. 2 2, 07 9, 00 0 4 .2 Eng i ne er in g an d C ons t r uc t i on Ma nag em ent 4, 2 46, 00 0 8 .5 4 , 1 5 9 , 0 0 0 8

. 3 Pr oj e c t C ont in ge nc y ( 1 5 % ) 7 , 3 24, 00 0 1 4

. 6 7 ,1 73 ,0 00 14. 3
T O T A L PLAN T C O ST ( T PC ) 56, 1 53, 00 0 112 .3 54 ,9 96 ,0 00 1 10. 0
Allow a nc e f o r F u n d s ( A F U D C - 3. 2% of T P C ) 1, 7 97, 00 0 3 .6 1 , 7 6 0 , 0 0 0 3

. 5 O w ne r ' s C o s t ( 5 % of T P C ) 2, 8 08, 00 0 6 .0 2 , 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 5

. 0
T O T A L PLAN T IN VEST MEN T ( T PI ) 60, 7 58, 00 0 121 .9 59 ,5 06 ,0 00 1 18. 5

I n v e nt or y C apita l ( S p a r e , 1% o f T P I) 6 08, 00 0 1 .2 5 95, 0 0 0 1

. 2 I n itial C h e m ic als an d C o m m is s i on ing ( 2 % of T P I ) 1, 21 5, 00 0 2

. 4 1 ,1 90, 00 0 2

. 4 Roy a l t i e s 0 0 0 0
T O T A L C A PI T A L R E Q U IR EM EN T ( T C R ) 62, 5 81, 00 0 126 61 ,2 91 ,0 00 1 2 2
Notes : 1. 0 Ac c u r a c y of Es tim a t e +- 20 % 2. 0 L a b o r c o s t ba s e d on r e g u lar s h if t ope r a t i o n 3. 0 I D f a n and e l ec t r ic al c o s t is dif f er ent ia l

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

# E X H IBIT 

# 5-2 C APITAL 

# C OST 

# E STIMATES FOR 

# R ETROFIT 

# U NITS 

# U SING 

# PRB AND 

# A PPALACHIAN 

# L OW 

# S ULFUR 

# C OALS

DR Y FG D P R B Coa l A p p alachian L o w Su lf ur Subsy s tems Cost, US $ $ / k W C ost, US $ $ / k W
Reagent Feed Sy s t em 4,645,000 9.3 5 ,338,000 10.7 SO2 Rem o val Sy s t em 15,100,000 30.2 14,500,000 29.0 Baghous e Sy s t em 19,000,000 38.0 17,000,000 34.0 Flue Gas Sy s t em 8,690,000 17.4 8 ,350,000 16.7 W a s t e Handling and r e c y c l e s y s t em 3,400,000 6.8 2 ,800,000 5.6 Gener al Suppor t Equipm ent 550,000 1.1 550,000 1.1 Mis c ell aneous Equipm ent ( A dditional 4,250,000 8.5 4 ,250,000 8.5 T r a n s f or m e r , Sw itc hgear ) T O T A L PRO C ESS C APIT A L ( T PC) 55,635,000 111 52,788,000 106

G ener al F a c ilities ( 5 % of T P C ) 2,782,000 5.6 2 ,639,000 5.3 Engineer ing and C ons tr uc tio n Managem ent 5,564,000 11.1 5 ,279,000 10.6 Pr oj ec t C ontingenc y ( 15% ) 9 ,597,000 19.2 9 ,106,000 18.2
T O T A L PLANT CO ST ( T PC) 73,578,000 147.2 69,812,000 139.6
Allow anc e f o r Funds ( A FU DC - 3.2% ) 2 ,354,000 4.7 2 ,233,984 4.5 O w ner 's C o s t ( 5 % of T P C) 3,679,000 7.0 3 ,491,000 7.0
T O T A L PLANT IN VEST ME NT (T P I ) 79,611, 000 158.9 75, 536,984 151. 1

Inv entor y C apital ( S par e, s a m e as new ) 608,000 1.2 595,000 1.2 Initial Chem ic als and C o m m is s i oning ( s am e as new ) 1,215,000 2.4 1 ,190,000 2. 4 R o y a lti e s 0 0 0 0
T O T A L C A PIT A L R E QU IR EM ENT ( T CR ) 81,434,000 163 77,321,984 155
Not es: 1.0 Ac c u r a c y of Es tim a te +- 20% 2.0 Labor c o s t bas ed on r egular s h if t operation 3.0 ID f an and elec tr ic al c o s t is f o r adequat e m odif i c a tions to ID f an/m o tor, ad ditional tranf or m e r s and s w itc hgear s 4.0 Medium Retrof it Dif f ic ulty as s u m e d

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

# E X H IBIT 

# 5-3

F IXED AND 

# V ARIABLE 

# O&M C OST 

# /L EVELIZED 

# C OSTS 

# (N EW 

# U NITS 

# )

D R Y F G D I n p u t fo r O & M C o s t s P R B E a s t e r n Low S 1 N u m ber of O per a t o r s ( 40 hr s / w k ) 5 5 2 O per a t i n g l abor C o s t , $/ h r 5 0 5 0 3 R eag ent P u r i t y , % 9 3 9 3 4 R eag ent S t o i c h i o m e t r y 1

. 1 1 . 4 5 R eag ent C o s t , $/ t o n 6 0 6 0 6 R eag ent R e q u i r e m ent , t / h 3 . 2 2 6 . 5 9 7 S O 2 R e m o v a l E f f i c i e n c y , % 9 3 9 4 8 S O 2 R e m o v ed, t / h 2 . 8 9 4 . 7 0 9 W a s t e G ener a t ed - dr y , t / h ( w / o f l y as h ) 7 . 0 1 12. 7 4 1 0 W a s t e di s pos a l c o s t , $/ t o n 1 2 1 2 1 1 W a t e r R e q u i r e m ent , g p m 402 324 1 2 W a t e r C o s t , $/ 1000 g a l 0

. 7 5 0

. 7 5 1 3 B a g Li f e , y ear s 3 3 1 4 B a g C o s t , $/ bag 8 0 8 0 1 5 C a g e Li f e , y ear s 1 2 1 2 1 6 C a g e C o s t , $/ c a g e 2 0 2 0 1 7 A u x

. P o w e r R e q u i r e m ent , M W 6 . 0 5

. 5 1 8 A u x

. P o w e r C o s t, $ / M W H 3 0 3 0 1 9 Load F a c t o r , % 8 0 8 0
P R B E a s t e r n Low S u l f u r F i xed O & M C o s t s 1 . O per a t i n g Labor C o s t ( $ / y r ) $520, 000 $520, 000
2 . M a i n t enanc e M a t e r i a l s C o s t ( $ / y r ) $1, 019, 000 $998, 000
3 . M a i n t enanc e La bor C o s t ( $ / y r ) $679, 000 $665, 000
4 . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and S uppor t Labor = $360, 000 $356, 000
T o t a l Y e a r ly F i x e d O & M C o s t = $2, 578, 000 $2, 539, 000
V a r i a b l e O p e r a t i n g C o s t s
1 . R eag ent C o s t s = $1, 354, 000 $2, 769, 000
2 . W a s t e D i s pos a l C o s t f o r F G D S y s t e m = $589, 000 $1, 071, 000 (D ry b a s i s ) 3 . C r edi t f o r B y p r oduc t = $ 0 $ 0
4 . B a g r epl a c e m ent = $375, 000 $341, 000
5 . C a g e r epl a c e m e n t = $23, 000 $21, 000
6 . W a t e r C o s t = $127, 000 $102, 000
7 . A ddi t i onal P o w e r C o s t s * = $1, 261, 000 $1, 156, 000
T o t a l Y e a r ly V a r i a b le O & M C o s t = 3 , 729, 000 5 , 460, 000
T O TAL Y E A R L Y FI X E D A N D V A R I A B L E O & M C O S 6 , 307, 000 7 , 999, 000

* I n c l udes t he pow e r r e q u i r e m ent f o r r eag ent pr epar a t i on and handl i n g s y s t e m , I D f an f o r 12 " w

. c

. pr e s s u r e dr op, pow e r f o r S O 2 C ont r o l S y s t e m ( r o t a r y at o m i z e r ) , and p o w e r r e q u i r e m ent f o r bag hous e

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### Lev e liz ed C o sts I nputs for L e vel i z ed Costs PR B E aster n Low S 1 F GD Sy s t em Lif e , y e ar s 3 0 3 0 2 C apital Cost Lev el iz ati o n Facto r 14 .5 14.5 3 D i scou n t r a te, %/y r 8.75 8.75 4 I nf lation R a te, % 2 .5 2.5 5 O per a t ing C o st L e v e li z a tion F a ctor 1.30 1.30

T o tal Capital Cost, M $ 62 .6 61.3
Lev e liz ed capit al C o st , M M $ /y r 9 .07 8

. 8 9 Lev e lized O& M C o st , M M $/y r 8.20 10.40 Tot al Lev e lize d C o st , MM $/y r 17.27 19.29 Tot al ce n t s / kW - h r 0 .49 0 .55

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

# E X H IBIT 

# 5-4 F IXED AND 

# V ARIABLE 

# O&M C OST 

# /L EVELIZED 

# C OSTS 

# (R ETROFIT 

# U NITS 

# )

DRY F G D I n p u t fo r O & M C o s t s P R B E a s t e r n Low S 1 N u m ber o f O p e r a t o r s ( 40 h r s / w k ) 8 8 2 O p e r a t i n g l a bor C o s t , $/ h r 5 0 5 0 3 R e a g ent P u r i t y , % 9 3 9 3 4 R e a g ent S t o i c h i o m e t r y 1

. 1 1 . 4 5 R e a g ent C o s t , $/ t o n 6 0 6 0 6 R e a g ent R e q u i r e m ent , t / h 3

. 2 2 6 . 5 9 7 S O 2 R e m o v a l E f f i c i e n c y , % 9 3 9 4 8 S O 2 R e m o v e d , t/ h 2 .8 9 4

. 7 0 9 W a s t e G e n e r a t e d

- d r y , t / h ( w / o f l y a s h ) 7 . 0 1 1 2

. 7 4 1 0 W a s t e di s p o s a l c o s t , $ / t o n 1 2 1 2 1 1 W a t e r R e q u i r e m e n t , g p m 4 0 2 3 2 4 1 2 W a t e r C o s t , $ / 1 000 g a l 0

. 7 5 0

. 7 5 1 3 B a g Li f e , y e a r s 3 3 1 4 B a g C o s t , $/ bag 8 0 8 0 1 5 C age Li f e , y e a r s 1 2 1 2 1 6 C age C o s t , $/ c a g e 2 0 2 0 1 7 A u x

. P o w e r R equi r e m e n t , M W 6

. 0 5

. 5 1 8 A u x

. Po w e r C o s t , $ / M W H 3 0 3 0 1 9 L o ad F a c t o r , % 8 0 8 0
P R B E a s t e r n Lo w S u l f u r F i x e d O & M C o s t s 1 . O p e r a t i n g Lab o r C o s t ( $ / y r ) $ 8 32, 0 0 0 $ 832 , 0 0 0
2 . M a i n t e n anc e M a t e r i a l s C o s t ( $ / y r ) $ 1 , 0 19, 0 0 0 $ 998 , 0 0 0
3 . M a i n t e n anc e Lab o r C o s t ( $ / y r ) $ 6 79, 0 0 0 $ 665 , 0 0 0
4 . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e an d S u ppo r t La bor = $ 4 53, 0 0 0 $ 449 , 0 0 0
Tot a l Y e a r l y Fi x e d O & M C o s t = $ 2 , 9 83, 0 0 0 $ 2 , 944 , 0 0 0
V a r i a b l e O p e r a t i n g C o s t s
1 . R eag e n t C o s t s = $ 1 , 3 54, 0 0 0 $ 2 , 769 , 0 0 0
2 . W a s t e D i s p o s a l C o s t f o r F G D S y s t e m = $ 5 89, 0 0 0 $ 1 , 071 , 0 0 0 (D ry b a s i s ) 3 . C r edi t f o r B y p r odu c t = $ 0 $ 0
4 . B a g r e p l a c e m e n t = $ 3 75, 0 0 0 $ 341 , 0 0 0
5 . C a g e r epl a c e m e n t = $ 23, 0 0 0 $21 , 0 0 0
6 . W a t e r C o s t = $ 1 27, 0 0 0 $ 102 , 0 0 0
7 . A d d i t i o n a l P o w e r C o s t s * = $ 1 , 2 61, 0 0 0 $ 1 , 156 , 0 0 0
T o t a l Y ear l y V a r i a b l e O & M C o s t = 3 , 7 29, 0 0 0 5 , 4 6 0 , 0 0 0
T O T A L Y E A R L Y FI X E D A N D V A R I A B L E O & M C O S 6 , 7 12, 0 0 0 8 , 4 0 4 , 0 0 0

* I n c l ude s t h e pow e r r e q u i r e m ent f o r r e a g ent p r e p a r a t i on a n d han d l i n g s y s t e m , I D f a n f o r 12" w

. c

. p r e s s u r e d r o p , p o w e r f o r S O 2 C ont r o l S y s t e m ( r o t a r y at o m i z e r ) , a nd po w e r r e q u i r e m e n t f o r bag h o u s e

# D RY 

# F LUE 

# G AS 

# D ESULFURIZ A TION 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# E VALUATION P ROJECT 

### N UMBER 

### 11311-000 S EPTEMBER 

### 26, 2002



# N ATIONAL 

# L IME 

# A SSOCIATION

NLA-DryFGD Pr oject Num b er 11311- 000 

### Lev e liz ed C o sts I nputs for L e vel i z ed Costs PR B E aster n Low S 1 F GD Sy s t em Lif e , y e ar s 2 0 2 0 2 C apital Cost Lev el iz ati o n Facto r 15.43 15.43 3 D i scou n t r a te, %/y r 8.75 8.75 4 I nf lation R a te, % 2 .5 2.5 5 O per a t ing C o st L e v e li z a tion F a ctor 1.22 1.22

T o tal Capital Cost, M $ 81 .4 77.3
Lev e lized capit al C o st , M M $ /y r 12.57 11.93 Lev e lized O& M C o st , M M $/y r 8.19 10.25 Tot al Lev e lize d C o st , MM $/y r 20.75 22.18 Tot al ce n t s / kW - h r 0 .59 0 .63