Assessment of circulating atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion technology for utility applications

Technical Report · Fri Dec 01 04:00:00 EST 1989

OSTI ID:5203514

Hoskins, W W; Keeth, R J; Russell, P R ^[1]

---

1. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Denver, CO (USA). Stearns-Roger Div.

The primary objectives of this study was to develop a current evaluation of circulating atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion (AFBC) technology applied to a 200-MW boiler. This report presents process descriptions, drawings, and cost comparisons for 200-MW circulating AFBC and pulverized coal (PC) plants for four different coals. The circulating AFBC boil and immediate auxiliaries are based on technical and cost information obtained from two circulating AFBC suppliers. All plants were designed to meet New Source Performance Standards. In assessing the two technologies, it was found that circulating AFBC requires less plant space than PC. It was also found that for the coals evaluated, circulating AFBC has approximately the same boiler efficiency, requires more limestone (except for Wyoming coal case) and uses less water than PC with FGD. The net result of the relationships discussed above is that the levelized cost of fuel plus consumables for circulating AFBC ranges from 2.3% less (Wyom.) to 5.8% more (Ill.) than PC. The total levelized cost of the circulating AFBC cases ranged from 6.0% less to 4.6% more than the respective PC cases. Further, the circulating AFBC capital costs ranged from 8.4% less than PC to 8.6% more than PC. The overall cost differentials between all circulating AFBC and PC cases are within the accuracy of the estimate ({plus minus}25 percent). However, the conclusion can be drawn that circulating AFBC can be competitive with PC at the 200-MW size. In general terms, it was found that circulating AFBC is the most competitive (shows the greatest potential cost benefits) for high sulfur coals (Illinois and West Virginia), and exhibits less cost benefit for low sulfur coals (Wyoming and Texas).

• Research Organization: Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (USA); United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Denver, CO (USA). Stearns-Roger Div.
• Sponsoring Organization: EPRI
• OSTI ID: 5203514
• Report Number(s): EPRI-GS-6621
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT
014000 -- Coal
Lignite
& Peat-- Combustion
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS
200100* -- Fossil-Fueled Power Plants-- Power Plants & Power Generation
BOILERS
CAPITALIZED COST
CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS
CHEMICAL REACTIONS
COAL
COMBUSTION
COST
DESIGN
DOCUMENT TYPES
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
ECONOMICS
ENERGY SOURCES
FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION
FOSSIL FUELS
FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS
FUELS
HEAT RATE
MANAGEMENT
MATERIALS
OXIDATION
PERFORMANCE
POWER PLANTS
PROGRESS REPORT
STEAM GENERATORS
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
THERMAL POWER PLANTS
THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
VAPOR GENERATORS
WASTE DISPOSAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT