Assessing investment needs and economic savings By Luca Mancuso
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?
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
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
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
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: (1) @ 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: (1) @ 6% O 2 volume dry
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
Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) 80.0 70.0 70.22 LCOE, $/MWh 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 33.47 0.54 8.47 27.74 Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital 0.0 PC base case Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, 2015
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
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 3 200 mg/nm 3 Notes: (1) @ 6% O 2 volume dry Tie-in outage timing and duration
Example of a SCR retrofit AIG and Mixers Turning Vanes Dampers Flow Rectifier Future Catalyst Initial Catalyst Charge
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
Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): +3 $/MWh (+4.3%) 80.0 70.0 70.22 73.22 72.58 73.87 LCOE, $/MWh 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 33.47 33.63 33.63 33.63 1.56 0.54 1.56 1.56 8.47 8.72 8.64 8.81 27.74 29.30 28.74 29.86 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.
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
Particulate emission reduction (IED) Item Currentdata (1) Target data (1) PM 150 mg/nm 3 20 mg/nm 3 Notes: (1) @ 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: 99-99.9% 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
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: 0.025 M$/yr
Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): +0.8 $/MWh (+1%) LCOE, $/MWh 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 70.22 71.00 70.86 71.15 33.47 33.67 33.67 33.67 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 8.47 8.57 8.55 8.59 27.74 28.23 28.10 28.35 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 $, 2015. Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital
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
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 3 200 mg/nm 3 Notes: (1) @ 6% O 2 volume dry Tie-in outage timing and duration
Typical flue gas treatment
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 $/m 3 0.1 Total: 16 k$/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
Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): +4.6 $/MWh (+6.6%) 80 74.87 73.54 76.19 70.22 70 LCOE, $/MWh 60 50 40 30 20 10 33.74 33.74 33.74 33.47 0.54 1.31 1.31 1.31 8.97 9.15 8.47 8.80 27.74 30.84 29.69 31.99 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.
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
LCOE, $/MWh This project is co-financed by the European Union and Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) - SUMMARY 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 70.22 33.47 73.22 33.63 33.67 1.56 0.54 0.54 8.47 8.72 8.57 71.00 74.87 75.69 33.74 33.94 78.75 34.11 1.31 1.32 2.36 8.97 9.08 9.34 27.74 29.30 28.23 30.84 31.35 32.94 PC base case PC + SCR PC + Fabric Filters PC + FGD PC + FF + FGD Lignite: 15 $/t ; Discount rate: 8% 80% capacity factor; Constant $, 2015. PC + SCR + FF + FGD Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital
Techno-economic assessment of an existing lignite power plant in Turkey Expected CAPEX-OPEX expenditures of retrofitted pollutant control solutions LCOE penalty due to pollutant control Expected economic savings Summary considerations Agenda
Methodology EU Commission and others use two approaches in monetizing health impacts based on the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) and Value of a Life Year (VOLY) Value of statistical life (VSL) approach where a predetermined monetary VSL is multiplied by the change in the number of deaths to arrive at a monetary valuation Value of life year (VOLY) approach, which applies a value to changes in life expectancy to arrive at a monetary valuation
Summary of LCP Project recommended Environmental Damage Costs in Turkish Lira (2015 price basis) Pollutant Recommended Damage Cost in Turkish Lira per Tonne (adjusted to 2015 prices) Low VOLY High VSL PM 10 123,550 353,000 PM 2.5 194,150 564,800 NOx 35,300 88,250 SO 2 88,250 229,450
Expected economic saving (150 MWe plant) Expected economic saving per year = avoided tonnes of pollutant per year * Damage cost per tonne of pollutant Pollutant Economic saving (VOLY) [M$/yr] Economic saving (VSL) [M$/yr] Retrofit cost [M$] Operating cost [M$/yr] Fictitious Payout time (VOLY) [yr] Fictitious Payout time (VSL) [yr] PM 10 21 59 3.3 0.025 0.159 0.056 PM 2.5 13 38 3.3 0.025 0.252 0.087 NOx 14 34 15 1.2 1.211 0.458 SOx 1539 4002 30 1 0.020 0.007
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
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
Questions?