98,3% Desulphurisation Efficiency98,3% Desulphurisation ...e2010.drustvo-termicara.com/resources/files/presentations/barnthaler.pdf3*250 MW (Prunéřov) boiler units excl. electrical

98,3% Desulphurisation Efficiency –98,3% Desulphurisation Efficiency High SO2 Removal Performance using Limestone FGD at Tusimice Power Plant

Speaker: Klaus Bärnthaler, Franz Hafner, Jan Stancl

CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS

Date of presentation

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONSAIR POLLUTION CONTROL

CEZ Program of Complex Renewal Essentials

Horrifying status of environment in Czech Republic in the early nineties huge investment program by CEZ (FGDs, CFBs and upgrade of control system) brought immediate improvement

actual target is to meet future power consumption in Czech Republicactual target is to meet future power consumption in Czech Republic

Some of coal fired power plants at the end of life time expectancy

Fulfill stringent emission limitsFulfill stringent emission limits

Exploit and use coal reserves

Decision of CEZ to renew power plants Tusimice and Prunerov and build aDecision of CEZ to renew power plants Tusimice and Prunerov and build a new 660 MW supercritical boiler at Ledvice, at the same time to shut down old and ineffective power plants

Execution of the projects by Skoda Praha Invest (SPI) as the EPC contractor

AE&E is the turnkey supplier for the FGD plants

Page 3Name of presentation,

y pp p

Power Plants within the Program of Complex RenewalCurrent StatusCurrent Status

Tusimice II PP

PragueCurrent Installed Capacity 4 x 200 MW

COD 1974 – 1975

Czech Republic

COD 1974 1975

Desulphurization 1997

Prunerov II PP Ledvice PP

2 110 MWCurrent Installed Capacity 5 x 210 MW

COD 1981 – 1982

Current Installed Capacity2 x 110 MW

1 x 110 MW (CFB)

COD 1966-681998


Desulphurization 1996 Desulphurization 1996NA

Power Plants within the Program of Complex RenewalFuture / Designed StatusFuture / Designed Status

Tusimice II PP

PragueFuture Installed Capacity 4 x 200 MW

COD 2010 / 2011

Czech Republic

COD 2010 / 2011

Prunerov II PP Ledvice PP

1 110 MW (CFB)Future Installed Capacity 3 x 250 MW

COD 2014

Future Installed Capacity1 x 110 MW (CFB)

1 x 660 MW

COD 2013


TUSIMICE IIScope of RenewalScope of Renewal

Renewal of 4 x 200 MW Units, lignite

I l 16 kIn total 16 system packages:

Coal handling

Boiler house

Existing FGD replaced by NEW FGD

Boiler house

Machine room

Water treatment

Power feeding

Electrical + I&CWater treatment

BOPLife time expectancy 25 years

Total efficiency increase 33 % 38 %


TUSIMICE IIPower Plant Basic DataPower Plant Basic Data

Current

Gross output 4 x 200 MWe

Future

4 x 200 MWeGross output 4 x 200 MWe

Fuel brown coal (high S contents; ST

D ~ 3%)

4 x 200 MWebrown coal (high S contents; ST

D ~ 3%)Boiler efficiency 86 - 87,6%

NOx emissions 320 - 440 mg/Nm3

> 90%

< 200 mg/ Nm3

SO2 emissions 450 - 500 mg/Nm3

Fly ash emissions 60 - 100 mg/Nm3

< 200 mg/ Nm3

< 20 mg/ Nm3

Overall efficiency 33 - 34 %

Home consumption 9 %

38,67 %

8,6 %


Home consumption 9 % 8,6 %

TUSIMICE IIFGD – Main PrinciplesFGD Main Principles

Wet limestone scrubbing method (high sulfur contents in coal)

By product of desulphurization mixed withBy-product of desulphurization mixed with fly ash + slag disposed as stabilizate (mines)

Clean flue gas inducted into the cooling towers

One absorber per two boilersOne absorber per two boilers


FGD Tušimice - Scope of supply

Demolishing of existing Desulphurisation units – Chiyoda g g y

Turnkey installation of new Wet Limestone Desulphurisation unit for the 4*200 MW (Tušimice) boiler units excluding electrical and control systemcontrol system

Raw gas ducts

2 Absorbers for 4 boilers made of CS / RL incl internals (agitators2 Absorbers for 4 boilers, made of CS / RL incl. internals (agitators, spraying system, mist eliminator)

Recirculation pumps, Oxidation air blowers

Clean gas duct (into cooling tower; made of FRP)

Process water tank and emergency slurry tank

Civil work: Foundation, Pump building, Electrical Building

New gypsum dewatering system (Eng. by AE, installation by others)


Erection and Commissioning

TUSIMICE IIFGD – Basic DataFGD Basic Data

Volume of wet flue gasses exceeds 1 7 mio Nm3/hexceeds 1.7 mio Nm3/h per absorber (6% O2)

Reduction of SO2 emissions from values reaching 11,326 mg/Nm3 upstream FGD to < 200 mg/Nm3

downstream FGD (dry, 6% O2)

Emission limits [mg/Nm3]

NOx SO2 fly ash

Current 650 500 100


Future 200 200 20

TUSIMICE IIKey Milestones

Contract between SPI & AEE concluded in 2006

/Erection activities at site started in 7/2007

Units 23 + 24 (Phase I) commissioned; PAC for FGD 1.2.2010

Units 21 + 22 shut down in 10/2009, start of Phase IIUnits 21 22 shut down in 10/2009, start of Phase II

FGD ready for flue gas take over

Scheduled PAC of Phase II in 12/2011


TUSIMICE II


TUSIMICE II


LEDVICEBasic Information

1 x flue gas cooler 1 x absorber

Basic Information

New supercritical Unit 1 x 660 MW1 x flue gas cooler, 1 x absorber

Clean flue gas inducted into the cooling tower

Reduction of SO2 emissions from values

New supercritical Unit 1 x 660 MW

Reduction of SO2 emissions from values reaching 5,500 mg/Nm3 upstream FGD to <150 mg/Nm3 downstream FGD (dry, 6% O2)

By-product of desulphurization secondary used (civil industry)

Pre-arrangement for the future installation of e a a ge e o e u u e s a a o othe 1st CCS in CR

Total efficiency 42,5%

Emission limits [mg/Nm3]

NOx SO2 fly ashNew Unit 200 150 20


New Unit 200 150 20

LEDVICEBasic InformationBasic Information

Contract between SPI & AEEconcluded in 8/2008

Detail design handed overDetail design handed over

Civil work in progress,mechanical erectionwell ahead of schedule

Scheduled commissioning 6/2012

Scheduled TOC 12/2012


LEDVICE


PRUNEROV IIBasic Information

One absorber per one boiler 3 x 250 MW Units

Basic Information

One absorber per one boiler

Clean flue gas inducted into the cooling towers

3 x 250 MW Units

Reduction of SO2 emissions from values reaching 11,349 mg/Nm3 upstream FGD to <200 mg/Nm3 downstream FGD (dry 6% O )<200 mg/Nm downstream FGD (dry, 6% O2)

By-product of desulphurization secondary used (civil industry)

Emission limits [mg/Nm3]Emission limits [mg/Nm ]

NOx SO2 fly ash

Current 650 500 100


Future 200 150 10

FGD Prunéřov - Scope of supply

Demolishing of existing Desulphurisation units – MHI

Turnkey installation of new Wet Limestone Desulphurisation unit for 3*250 MW (Prunéřov) boiler units excl. electrical and control system

Raw gas ductsRaw gas ducts

3 Absorbers for EPR II made of CS / rubberlined, incl. internals (spraying system, mist eliminator, agitators, strainers)

Recirculation pumps, Oxidation air blowers

Clean gas duct (into cooling tower; made of FRP)

Process water tank and emergency slurry tank

Civil work: Foundation, Pump building, Electrical Building

Erection and Commissioning

Dewatering system (hydocyclones, vacuum belt filter)


Limestone supply system (connected to existing milling system)

PRUNEROV IIBasic InformationBasic Information

Contract between SPI & AEE concluded in 12/2008

Preparation of the FGD detail design in progress

Postponement of contract due to delay in the authority permit

Scheduled commissioning and PAC in 2015


ETU, ELE, EPRComparison of Key ParametersComparison of Key Parameters

Tusimice Prunerov Ledvice

Wet flue gas [Nm3/h] 1,690,000 1,012,000 2,003,041

SO2 in raw gas [mg/ Nm3]dry 11,650 11,800 5,850

SO2 removal efficiency > 98,3 > 98,2 > 97,2

Diameter absorber [m] 14.5 11.5 17.0

No. of spray banks 5 4 5 + 1(spare)

Nozzles per spray bank 112 118 156

Flow per spray banks [m3/h] 11,000 9,800 11,500

Flow per nozzle [m3/h] 1,637 1,384 1,230

Mist eliminator coarse / fine coarse / fine coarse / fine


ETU, ELE, EPRComparison of Key ParametersComparison of Key Parameters

Tusimice Prunerov Ledvice

Sump volume [m3] 3,900 2,500 4,600

Flow oxidation air [m3/ h] 22,000 11,000 15,600

El. consumption [kWh/h] 4,930 3,650 7,500

Water consumption [m3/ h] 160 230 101

Gypsum moisture [%] - 12 < 8

CaCO3 in gypsum < 2 < 2 < 1,5

Availability [%] 99 98,8 99


CFD optimized scrubber design


CFD Modeling Tool

solver settings and general parameters (FLUENT)P b d l t d t tPressure based solver, steady-statetwo phases, two-way-coupling, Eulerian-Lagrangian model, discrete random walk turbulence model (discrete phase)k turbulence model (continuous phase)k-ε turbulence model (continuous phase)

spray generation (Matlab)basis: measurements of the nozzle manufacturer (droplet size distributions)basis: measurements of the nozzle manufacturer (droplet size distributions)injection informations are tabulated in a list (e.g. position, mass flow, diameter, temperature)description of one nozzle by at least 17 different dropletsdescription of one nozzle by at least 17 different droplets

User-Defined-Functions (UDFs)d l t ll i t tidroplet-wall interactionevaporation and condensation SO2 chemisorption

CFD model of hollow cone nozzle


CFD Model FGD Tušimice

Design Data

• diameter ∅14.5 m

• volume flow 1.690.000 m³/hntp

SO t i l t 11 600 / 3• SO2 at inlet 11.600 mg/m3ntp,dry

Spray Bank Design:

• 5 spray banksp y

• double header concept

• 112 nozzles / spray bank

• slurry/spray bank 11.000 m³/h


CFD Model FGD Tušimice - Results


Upwards velocity (m/s) at 1st and 5th spray bank

CFD Model FGD Tušimice - Results


SO2 mass fraction [-]

CFD Model FGD Prunéřov

Design DataDesign Data

• volume flow 1.012.000 m³/hntp

• SO2 at inlet 11.350 mg/m3std,dry

Spray Bank Design - First approach

• diameter ∅11 m

4 b k• 4 spray banks


• slurry/spray banks 4 x 9.100 m³/h s u y/sp ay ba s 9 00 /

Spray Bank Design - Final geometry

• diameter ∅11.5 m

First approach Final geometry

• AE&E splash rings

• Increased height of absorption zone

118 l / b k



• slurry/spray banks 4 x 9.800 m³/h

CFD Model FGD Prunéřov-Results

Final geometry First approach


Upward velocity (m/s) at 1st and 4th spray bank

CFD Model FGD Prunéřov-Results

Final geometry First approach

f ti f SO i diff t ti


mass fraction of SO2 in different cross sections

FGD Tušimice – Operational Results

700

750

7 0

550

600

650

700

] ]

6,0

7,0

pH value

RP 5

400

450

500

FGD

[Nm

3/s,

f.]

/Nm

3 dry

, 6%

O2]

4,0

5,0

ore

FGD

[kPa

]ps

in o

pera

tion

pH

RP 5

RP 4

200

250

300

350

Flue

Gas

afte

r SO

2 out

let [

mg

2 0

3,0

Pres

urre

bef

oR

ecyc

le p

ump p

Pressure

50

100

150

200

1,0

2,0

SO2 - outlet

0

8:01-8:309:01-9:3010:01-10:3011:01-11:3012:01-12:3013:01-13:3014:01-14:3015:01-15:3016:01-16:3017:01-17:3018:01-18:3019:01-19:3020:01-20:3021:01-21:3022:01-22:3023:01-23:3000:01-00:3001:01-01:3002:01-02:3003:01-03:3004:01-04:3005:01-05:3006:01-06:3007:01-07:30

0,0


Time [8:00-7:59]

GAS FLOW SO2- OUT DP RECP pH

FGD Tušimice – Comparison Design andOperation

99,6

99,8

6.500

7.000

5 RP in operation

99,2

99,4

99,6

5.500

6.000

6.500

W]

5 RP in operationspray bank 1-5

Design point5 RP in operation

98,6

98,8

99,0

ency

[%]

4.000

4.500

5.000

Pum

ps [K

W

4 RP in operationspray bank 1 +3+4+5

98,2

98,4

98,6

oval

Effi

cie

3.000

3.500

4.000

nsum

ptio

n

4 RP i ti

4 RP in operationspray bank 1+2+3 +5

97,6

97,8

98,0

Rem

1.500

2.000

2.500

Pow

er C

o

Flue Gas Data

4 RP in operationspray bank 1+2+3+4

Design point4 RP in operation

97,2

97,4

97,6

500

1.000

1.500

SO2-Removal Efficiency [%]

Energy Consumption [KW]

Volume Flow: 1.69 Mio. m³/h (wet stc)SO2-Conc. Inlet: 7.000 mg/Nm³ dry act. O2

Fuel: Lignite Boiler Size: 2 x 200 MW


97,030,0 50,0 70,0 90,0 110,0 130,0 150,0 170,0 190,0

SO2-Cleangas Concentration [mg/Nm³] dry, 6% O2

0

Conclusions


Conclusions

ČEZ in cooperation with SKODA PRAHA invest and AE&E adopts latest technologies to improve air pollution control in Czech Republictechnologies to improve air pollution control in Czech Republic

For high and low sulfur applications different strategies were developed to reach seperation efficieny > 98% in the FGD Systems;

For high sulfur applications the number of spray banks could be reduced due to higher suspension flows in the spray bank and in the single nozzles;

Flue gas velocity in the scrubber has to be limited to values < 4 m/s to minimize bypass effects near the scrubber walls and the main headers;

A proper spray bank design (single main header vs double main header) isA proper spray bank design (single main header vs. double main header) is very important for an optimized contact between flue gas and droplets in the absorption zone;

U i t CFD d lli t l i d t t ti i th l itiUsing a strong CFD modelling tool is mandatory to optimize the nozzle position in the spray bank; Including the SO2 mass transfer in the simulation is the only way to get fully information from the simulation results;


Thank you for your attention

Documents

98,3% Desulphurisation Efficiency98,3% Desulphurisation ...e2010.drustvo-termicara.com/resources/files/presentations/barnthaler.pdf3*250 MW (Prunéřov) boiler units excl. electrical