Assessing investment needs and economic savings

Ebat: px

Şu sayfadan göstermeyi başlat:

Download "Assessing investment needs and economic savings"

Hakan Kıraç
10 yıl önce
İzleme sayısı:

1 Assessing investment needs and economic savings By Luca Mancuso

2 Background Electricity demand in Turkey is expected to double between 2013 and 2023, while the overall power capacity is 65 GW (2013) In 2013, Turkey generated about 239 TWh of electricity: 44% from gas, 25% from coal and lignite, 24% from hydro A shift of Turkish energy mix to favour both domestically-sourced and imported coal would allow Turkey to be less dependent on gas imports With the possibility of Turkey joining the European Union, do the potential costs to comply with major environmental policies (IED) represent a burden for the coal-based plants?

to favour both domestically-sourced and imported coal would allow Turkey to be less dependent on gas imports With the possibility of Turkey

3 Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Agenda

retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to

4 Agenda Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations

5 Site location: Turkey, w/o specific constraints for retrofit modifications Lignite (Turkey-specific) coal LHV: 4.6 MJ/kg (AR) Sulphur: 1% Key Design Bases Subcritical Pulverised coal power station Thermal input ~ 430 MWth Net power output ~ 150 MWe

6 MJ/kg (AR) Sulphur: 1% Key Design Bases Subcritical

6 Current overall gaseous emissions Item Data (1) NOx 400 mg/nm 3 SOx 9260 mg/nm 3 (i.e. no FGD) PM 150 mg/nm 3 Notes: 6% O 2 volume dry Key Design Bases Targeted overall gaseous emissions (IED) Item Data (1) NOx 200 mg/nm 3 SOx 200 mg/nm 3 PM 20 mg/nm 3 Notes: 6% O 2 volume dry

no FGD) PM 150 mg/nm 3 Notes: (1) @ 6% O 2 volume dry Key Design Bases

7 Macro economic assumptions Item Unit Data Lignite cost $/t 15 Discount Rate % 8 Plant life years 25 Financial leverage % debt 100 Maintenance cost % of TIC 2% Load factor % 80 CO 2 emission cost $/t 0 Inflation Rate % constant

leverage % debt 100 Maintenance cost % of TIC 2% Load

8 Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) LCOE, $/MWh Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 0.0 PC base case Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, 2015

54 8.47 27.74 Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 0.

9 Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations SCR

Temperature and ammonia mixing requirements Cost and schedule NOx emission reduction (IED) Item

10 Retrofit of SCR (key factors) Constructability: site congestion, space, soil conditions, access roads, seismic and wind requirements Available fan capacity Allowable pressure drop Flow distribution Temperature and ammonia mixing requirements Cost and schedule NOx emission reduction (IED) Item Currentdata (1) Target data (1) NOx 400 mg/nm mg/nm 3 Notes: 6% O 2 volume dry Tie-in outage timing and duration

11 Example of a SCR retrofit AIG and Mixers Turning Vanes Dampers Flow Rectifier Future Catalyst Initial Catalyst Charge

12 Expected Techno-economic impacts Item Unit Data Remarks CAPEX (EPC cost) $/kwe 100 (1) Total: 15 M$ Lossof Power Production kwe 730 Additional 6 inch w.g. flue gas pressure drop Anhydrous Ammonia cost $/t 600 Total: 510 k$/yr Catalyst cost $/m 3 5,000 Total: 560 k$/yr (20,000 hours of life) Maintenance cost % TIC/yr 1 Total: 110 k$/yr (1) Considering no major constructability contraints TOTAL CAPEX: 15 M$ TOTAL O&M cost: 1.2 M$/yr

flue gas pressure drop Anhydrous Ammonia cost $/t 600 Total: 510 k$/yr Catalyst cost $/m 3 5,000 Total: 560

13 Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): +3 $/MWh (+4.3%) LCOE, $/MWh Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 0.0 PC base case PC + SCR PC + SCR -40% CAPEX PC + SCR +40% CAPEX Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, 2015.

72 8.64 8.81 27.74 29.30 28.74 29.86 Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 0.

14 Introduction This project is co-financed by the European Union and Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Filter Manifold pipes Tubesheet Filter bags and cages Split-gas baffle Pulse header and pulse valves Clean gas outlet Dirty gas inlet

LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Filter Manifold pipes

15 Particulate emission reduction (IED) Item Currentdata (1) Target data (1) PM 150 mg/nm 3 20 mg/nm 3 Notes: 6% O 2 volume dry Fabric Filter (key features) Pulse cleaning equipment Manifold pipes Tubesheet High degree of customization to meet project and customer needs Shop-Assembled and Modular Designs Filter bags and cages Captures: % for PM down to sub µm size, Split-gas baffle vapor Phase SO 2, SO 3, HCl, Hf, Hg, dependent on ash composition and operating conditions Pulse header and pulse valves Clean gas outlet Dirty gas inlet

needs Shop-Assembled and Modular Designs Filter bags and cages Captures: 99-99.

16 Expected Techno-economic impacts Item Unit Data Remark CAPEX (EPC cost) $/CFM 6.5 (1) Total: 3.3 M$ Lossof Power Production kwe 880 Additional flue gas pressure drop Other operating costs - - Negligible Maintenance cost % TIC/yr 1 Total: 25 k$/yr (1) Considering no major constructability contraints TOTAL CAPEX: 3.3 M$ TOTAL O&M cost: M$/yr

3 M$ Lossof Power Production kwe 880 Additional flue gas pressure drop Other operating

17 Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): +0.8 $/MWh (+1%) LCOE, $/MWh PC base case PC + Fabric FiltersPC + Fabric Filters PC + Fabric Filters -40% CAPEX +40% CAPEX Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital

18 Introduction This project is co-financed by the European Union and Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Flue Gas Out Mist Eliminators Multiple Spray Headers Dual Flow Tray Recycle Tank Agitators FGD Oxidation Air 18 Recycle Pumps Flue Gas In

LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Flue Gas Out Mist

19 Retrofit of FGD (key factors) Constructability: site congestion, space, soil conditions, access roads, seismic Fuel composition Available fan capacity Existing site auxiliary and support facilities Cost and schedule SOx emission reduction (IED) Item Currentdata (1) Target data (1) SOx 9260 mg/nm mg/nm 3 Notes: 6% O 2 volume dry Tie-in outage timing and duration

support facilities Cost and schedule SOx emission reduction (IED) Item Currentdata (1) Target

20 Typical flue gas treatment

21 Item Unit Data Remark CAPEX (EPC cost) $/kwe 200 (1) Total: 30 M$ Lossof Power Production Expected Techno-economic impacts kwe 1200 Additional 6 inch w.g. flue gas pressure drop, air fan for FGD, raw water pump consumption Limestone cost $/t 10 Total: 0.8 M$/yr Watercost $/m Total: 16 k$/yr Maintenance cost % TIC/yr 1 Total: 225 k$/yr (1) Considering no particular constructability contraints TOTAL CAPEX: 30 M$ TOTAL O&M cost: 1 M$/yr

22 Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): +4.6 $/MWh (+6.6%) LCOE, $/MWh Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 0 PC base case PC + FGD PC + FGD -40% CAPEX PC + FGD +40% CAPEX Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, 2015.

23 Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Agenda

24 LCOE, $/MWh This project is co-financed by the European Union and Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) - SUMMARY PC base case PC + SCR PC + Fabric Filters PC + FGD PC + FF + FGD Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, PC + SCR + FF + FGD Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital

25 Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Agenda

26 Methodology EU Commission and others use two approaches in monetizing health impacts based on the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) and Value of a Life Year (VOLY) Value of statistical life (VSL) approach where a predetermined monetary VSL is multiplied by the change in the number of deaths to arrive at a monetary valuation Value of life year (VOLY) approach, which applies a value to changes in life expectancy to arrive at a monetary valuation

27 Summary of LCP Project recommended Environmental Damage Costs in Turkish Lira (2015 price basis) Pollutant Recommended Damage Cost in Turkish Lira per Tonne (adjusted to 2015 prices) Low VOLY High VSL PM , ,000 PM , ,800 NOx 35,300 88,250 SO 2 88, ,450

28 Expected economic saving (150 MWe plant) Expected economic saving per year = avoided tonnes of pollutant per year * Damage cost per tonne of pollutant Pollutant Economic saving (VOLY) [M$/yr] Economic saving (VSL) [M$/yr] Retrofit cost [M$] Operating cost [M$/yr] Fictitious Payout time (VOLY) [yr] Fictitious Payout time (VSL) [yr] PM PM NOx SOx

29 Introduction Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Agenda

30 Summary findings Technical solutions are available for retrofitting coal-fired power plants in Turkey to comply with major EU environmental policies (IED) Pollutant abatement technologies result in higher capital and operating costs, leading to an increase of the LCOE (e.g. 4% SCR, 1% Filter, 6.6% FGD) Expected economic savings due to the avoided pollutant emissions compensate retrofit cost of existing coal power plants

31 Questions?

Benzer belgeler

Technical Requirements for Large Combustion Plants (LCPs)

Technical Requirements for Large Combustion Plants (LCPs) By Pat Swords Content of the Presentation Goals and Principles Control Technologies for NOx Control Technologies for SO 2 Control Technologies