skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Coal based electric generation comparative technologies report

Abstract

Ohio Clean Fuels, Inc., (OCF) has licensed technology that involves Co-Processing (Co-Pro) poor grade (high sulfur) coal and residual oil feedstocks to produce clean liquid fuels on a commercial scale. Stone Webster is requested to perform a comparative technologies report for grassroot plants utilizing coal as a base fuel. In the case of Co-Processing technology the plant considered is the nth plant in a series of applications. This report presents the results of an economic comparison of this technology with other power generation technologies that use coal. Technologies evaluated were:Co-Processing integrated with simple cycle combustion turbine generators, (CSC); Co-Processing integrated with combined cycle combustion turbine generators, (CCC); pulverized coal-fired boiler with flue gas desulfurization and steam turbine generator, (PC) and Circulating fluidized bed boiler and steam turbine generator, (CFB). Conceptual designs were developed. Designs were based on approximately equivalent net electrical output for each technology. A base case of 310 MWe net for each technology was established. Sensitivity analyses at other net electrical output sizes varying from 220 MWe's to 1770 MWe's were also performed. 4 figs., 9 tabs.

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Ohio Clean Fuels, Inc., Etobicoke, ON (Canada); Stone and Webster Management Consultants, Inc., Houston, TX (USA)
Sponsoring Org.:
DOE/FE
OSTI Identifier:
6266153
Report Number(s):
DOE/PC/79797-T3
ON: DE91002609
DOE Contract Number:
FC22-88PC79797
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS; COAL; COPROCESSING; NITROGEN OXIDES; EMISSION; POWER GENERATION; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; RESIDUAL FUELS; SULFUR DIOXIDE; COMBINED-CYCLE POWER PLANTS; COMBUSTION; COST; FLUIDIZED BEDS; FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS; POLLUTANTS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STEAM TURBINES; STORAGE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS; CHALCOGENIDES; CHEMICAL REACTIONS; ENERGY SOURCES; FOSSIL FUELS; FUEL OILS; FUELS; LIQUID FUELS; MACHINERY; MATERIALS; NITROGEN COMPOUNDS; OILS; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; OTHER ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; OXIDATION; OXIDES; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; PETROLEUM PRODUCTS; POWER PLANTS; PROCESSING; SULFUR COMPOUNDS; SULFUR OXIDES; THERMAL POWER PLANTS; THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES; TURBINES; TURBOMACHINERY; 200100* - Fossil-Fueled Power Plants- Power Plants & Power Generation; 200108 - Fossil-Fueled Power Plants- Fuels- (1980-); 200202 - Fossil-Fueled Power Plants- Waste Management- Noxious Gas & Particulate Emissions

Citation Formats

Not Available. Coal based electric generation comparative technologies report. United States: N. p., 1989. Web. doi:10.2172/6266153.
Copy to clipboard
Not Available. Coal based electric generation comparative technologies report. United States. doi:10.2172/6266153.
Copy to clipboard
Not Available. Thu . "Coal based electric generation comparative technologies report". United States. doi:10.2172/6266153. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6266153.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_6266153,
title = {Coal based electric generation comparative technologies report},
author = {Not Available},
abstractNote = {Ohio Clean Fuels, Inc., (OCF) has licensed technology that involves Co-Processing (Co-Pro) poor grade (high sulfur) coal and residual oil feedstocks to produce clean liquid fuels on a commercial scale. Stone Webster is requested to perform a comparative technologies report for grassroot plants utilizing coal as a base fuel. In the case of Co-Processing technology the plant considered is the nth plant in a series of applications. This report presents the results of an economic comparison of this technology with other power generation technologies that use coal. Technologies evaluated were:Co-Processing integrated with simple cycle combustion turbine generators, (CSC); Co-Processing integrated with combined cycle combustion turbine generators, (CCC); pulverized coal-fired boiler with flue gas desulfurization and steam turbine generator, (PC) and Circulating fluidized bed boiler and steam turbine generator, (CFB). Conceptual designs were developed. Designs were based on approximately equivalent net electrical output for each technology. A base case of 310 MWe net for each technology was established. Sensitivity analyses at other net electrical output sizes varying from 220 MWe's to 1770 MWe's were also performed. 4 figs., 9 tabs.},
doi = {10.2172/6266153},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Oct 26 00:00:00 EDT 1989},
month = {Thu Oct 26 00:00:00 EDT 1989}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (6.85 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/6266153
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • The SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program includes a comparative assessment. An early first step in the assessment process is the selection and characterization of alternative technologies. This document describes the cost and performance (i.e., technical and environmental) characteristics of six central station energy alternatives: (1) conventional coal-fired powerplant; (2) conventional light water reactor (LWR); (3) combined cycle powerplant with low-Btu gasifiers; (4) liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR); (5) photovoltaic system without storage; and (6) fusion reactor.

  • A major element of the SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program is the characterization and comparative analysis of future terrestrial-based alternatives to SPS. A significant portion of this effort is the selection and characterization of six terrestrial central station electric generation systems that may be viable alternatives to SPS in the year 2000 and beyond. The objective of this report is to complete and document the physical and cost characterizations of six electric generation technologies of designated capacity. The technologies selected for the detailed characterization were: (1) solar technology: (a) terrestrial photovoltaic (200 MWe); (2) coal technologies: (a) conventional highmore » sulfur coal combustion with advanced flue gas desulfurization (1250 MWe), and (b) open cycle gas turbine combined cycle plant with low Btu gasifier (1250 MWe); and (3) nuclear technologies: (a) conventional light water reactor (1250 MWe), (b) liquid metal fast breeder reactor (1250 MWe), and (c) magnetic fusion reactor (1320 MWe). A brief technical summary of each power plant design is given. (WHK)« less

  • The objectives of this report are to present: the facility description, plant layouts and additional information which define the conceptual engineering design, performance and cost estimates for the pulverized coal fired (PCF) power plant which utilizes high-sulfur coal as fuel, and a spray dryer/fabric filter flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system; an assessment of the impact of using low-sulfur coal on the results of the base case conceptual engineering studies, plant layouts and cost estimates. Following the introductory comments, the results of the study of the PCF power plant with a spray dryer/fabric filter FGD system are summarized in Section 2.more » In Section 3, the high-sulfur coal case steam cycle heat balance, a performance and operating data summary and an availability assessment are provided. Sections 4 and 5 present the high-sulfur coal case power plant and FGD system descriptive information and costs, respectively. In Section 6, an assessment of the impacts of using low-sulfur coal as fuel is presented. Appendix A is the power plant and FGD system major equipment list. The design and cost estimate classification chart referenced in Section 5 is included as Appendix B. 5 references, 18 figures, 29 tables.« less

  • The objectives of this report are to present: the facility description, plant layouts and additional information which define the conceptual engineering design, performance and cost estimates for the pulverized coal-fired (PCF) power plant which utilizes high-sulfur coal as fuel, and a CT-121 flue gas desulfurization (FGD) System; an assessment of the impact of using low-sulfur coal on the results of the base case conceptual engineering studies, plant layouts and cost estimates. Following the introductory comments, the results of the study of the PCF power plant with a CT-121 FGD system are summarized in Section 2. In Section 3, the high-sulfurmore » coal case steam cycle heat balance, a performance and operating data summary and an availability assessment are provided. Sections 4 and 5 present the high-sulfur coal case power plant and FGD system descriptive information and costs, respectively. In Section 6, an assessment of the impacts of using low-sulfur coal as fuel is presented. Appendix A is the power plant and FGD system major equipment list. The design and cost estimate classification chart referenced in Section 5 is included in Appendix B. 5 references, 18 figures, 31 tables.« less

  • The objectives of this report are to present the facility description, plant layouts and additional information which define the conceptual engineering design, and performance and cost estimates for the BGC/Lurgi Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant. Following the introductory comments, the results of the British Gas Corporation (BGC)/Lurgi IGCC power plant study are summarized in Section 2. In Secion 3, a description of plant systems and facilities is provided. Section 4 includes pertinent performance information and assessments of availability, natural resource requirements and environmental impact. Estimates of capital costs, operating and maintenance costs and cost of electricity are presentedmore » in Section 5. A Bechtel Group Inc. (BGI) assessment and comments on the designs provided by Burns and Roe-Humphreys and Glasgow Synthetic Fuels, Inc. (BRHG) are included in Section 6. The design and cost estimate reports which were prepared by BRHG for those items within their scope of responsibility are included as Appendices A and B, respectively. Apendix C is an equipment list for items within the BGI scope. The design and cost estimate classifications chart referenced in Section 5 is included as Appendix D. 8 references, 18 figures, 5 tables.« less