98,3% Desulphurisation Efficiency – 98,3% Desulphurisation Efficiency High SO 2 Removal Performance using Limestone FGD at Tusimice Power Plant Speaker: Klaus Bärnthaler, Franz Hafner, Jan Stancl CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS Date of presentation
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
Page 4Name of presentation,
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
Page 5Name of presentation,
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 %
Page 6Name of presentation,
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 %
Page 7Name of presentation,
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
Page 8Name of presentation,
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)
Page 9Name of presentation,
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
Page 10Name of presentation,
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
Page 11Name of presentation,
TUSIMICE II
Page 12Name of presentation,
TUSIMICE II
Page 13Name of presentation,
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
Page 14Name of presentation,
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
Page 15Name of presentation,
LEDVICE
Page 16Name of presentation,
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
Page 17Name of presentation,
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)
Page 18Name of presentation,
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
Page 19Name of presentation,
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
Page 20Name of presentation,
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
Page 21Name of presentation,
CFD optimized scrubber design
CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONSAIR POLLUTION CONTROL
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
Page 23Name of presentation,
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
Page 24Name of presentation,
CFD Model FGD Tušimice - Results
Page 25Name of presentation,
Upwards velocity (m/s) at 1st and 5th spray bank
CFD Model FGD Tušimice - Results
Page 26Name of presentation,
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
• 98 nozzles / spray bank
• 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
Page 27Name of presentation,
• 118 nozzles / spray bank
• slurry/spray banks 4 x 9.800 m³/h
CFD Model FGD Prunéřov-Results
Final geometry First approach
Page 28Name of presentation,
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
Page 29Name of presentation,
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
Page 30Name of presentation,
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
Page 31Name of presentation,
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
CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONSAIR POLLUTION CONTROL
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;
Page 33Name of presentation,
Thank you for your attention