Post on 04-Jan-2016
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants – Volume 1
Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity
Revision 2 – November 2010Revision 1 – August 2007
Original – May 2007
U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
2
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Disclaimer
This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
3
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Objective
• Determine cost and performance estimates of near-term commercial offerings for power plants both with and without current technology for CO2 capture– Consistent design requirements– Up-to-date performance and capital cost
estimates– Technologies built now and deployed in the near
term• Provides baseline costs and performance
– Compare existing technologies– Guide R&D for advancing technologies within the
FE Program
4
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Study Matrix
PlantType
ST Cond.(psig/°F/°F)
GTGasifier/
Boiler
Acid Gas Removal/CO2 Separation / Sulfur
Recovery
CO2
Cap
IGCC
1800/1050/1050 (non-CO2
capture cases)
1800/1000/1000
(CO2 capture cases)
F Class
GEESelexol / - / Claus
Selexol / Selexol / Claus 90%
CoPE-Gas
MDEA / - / Claus
Selexol / Selexol / Claus 90%
ShellSulfinol-M / - / Claus
Selexol / Selexol / Claus 90%
PC
2400/1050/1050
SubcriticalWet FGD / - / Gypsum
Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum 90%
3500/1100/1100Supercritica
l
Wet FGD / - / Gypsum
Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum 90%
NGCC2400/1050/105
0F
ClassHRSG
- / Econamine / - 90%
GEE – GE EnergyCoP – Conoco Phillips
5
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Design Basis: Coal Type
Illinois #6 Coal Ultimate Analysis (weight %)As Rec’d Dry
Moisture 11.12 0
Carbon 63.75 71.72
Hydrogen 4.50 5.06
Nitrogen 1.25 1.41
Chlorine 0.29 0.33
Sulfur 2.51 2.82
Ash 9.70 10.91
Oxygen (by difference) 6.88 7.75
100.0 100.0
HHV (Btu/lb) 11,666 13,126
6
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Environmental Targets
PollutantIGCC1 PC2 NGCC3
SO20.0128
lb/MMBtu0.085
lb/MMBtu< 0.6 gr S /100
scf
NOx15 ppmv (dry)
@ 15% O2
0.07 lb/MMBtu
2.5 ppmv @ 15% O2
PM 0.0071 lb/MMBtu
0.013lb/MMBtu
Negligible
Hg > 90% capture1.14 lb/TBtu
Negligible
1 Based on EPRI’s CoalFleet User Design Basis Specification for Coal-Based IGCC Power Plants2 Based on BACT analysis, exceeding new NSPS requirements3 Based on EPA pipeline natural gas specification and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK
7
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Economic AssumptionsFirst Year of Capital Expenditure 2007
Effective Levelization Period (Years) 35 (PC & IGCC)
33 (NGCC)
Dollars 2007
Coal ($/MM Btu) 1.64
Natural Gas ($/MM Btu) 6.55
Capacity Factor
IGCC 80
PC/NGCC 85
5 Year Construction Period 3 Year Construction Period
High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk
Capital Charge Factor 12.4% 11.6% 11.1% 10.5%
8
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
III
III
STUDY CATEGORY
Order of Magnitude Estimate (+/- >50% Accuracy)• Very little project-specific definition• Rough scaling of previous related but dissimilar analyses• “Back-of-the-envelope” analyses
Concept Screening (+/- 50% Accuracy)• Preliminary mass and energy balances • Modeling and simulation of major unit operations• Factored estimate based on previous similar analyses
Budget Estimate (+30% / -15% Accuracy)• Thorough mass and energy balances • Detailed process and economic modeling• Estimate based on vendor quotes, third-party EPC firms
Technical ApproachSystems Analyses Categorization
9
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Technical Approach
1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN) All major chemical processes and equipment are simulated Detailed mass and energy balances Performance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)
1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN) All major chemical processes and equipment are simulated Detailed mass and energy balances Performance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)
2. Cost Estimation Inputs from process simulation
(Flow Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)
Sources for cost estimation WorleyParsons Vendor sources where available Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines
2. Cost Estimation Inputs from process simulation
(Flow Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)
Sources for cost estimation WorleyParsons Vendor sources where available Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines
10
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Study Assumptions
• Capacity Factor assumed to equal Availability– IGCC capacity factor = 80% w/ no spare gasifier– PC and NGCC capacity factor = 85%
• GE gasifier operated in radiant/quench mode• Shell gasifier with CO2 capture used water injection for
cooling (instead of syngas cooler)• Nitrogen dilution was used to the maximum extent possible
in all IGCC cases and syngas humidification/steam injection were used only if necessary to achieve approximately 120 Btu/scf syngas LHV
• In CO2 capture cases, CO2 was compressed to 2200 psig, transported 50 miles, sequestered in a saline formation at a depth of 4,000 feet and monitored for 80 years
• CO2 transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs were included in the levelized cost of electricity (COE)
11
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
IGCC Power Plant
Current State-of-the-Art
12
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
CoalOxygen
Gasifier*GE/Texaco*CoP/E-Gas
*Shell
Combined Cycle Power
Island
Cryogenic ASU
Syngas Cooler
Steam ClausPlant
Sulfur
Reheat/Humid.
Fuel Gas
Syngas Cooler/Quench
ParticulateRemoval
H2S Removal*Selexol*MDEA
*Sulfinol
Hg RemovalCarbon Bed
Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant without CO2 Capture
Emission Controls:PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.0071 lb/MMBtu NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2
SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery
Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1050°F/1050°F
Emission Controls:PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.0071 lb/MMBtu NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2
SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery
Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1050°F/1050°F
13
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
ConocoPhillipsE-Gas
ShellSCGP
Slag
Fuel Gas
Dry Coal
O2
HP Steam
GEE Texaco Gasifier
Gasifiers
14
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
IGCC Power Plant
With CO2 Capture
15
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
CoalOxygen
Gasifier*GE/Texaco*CoP/E-Gas
*Shell
Water Gas Shift
Combined Cycle Power
Island
Cryogenic ASU
Syngas Cooler
Steam
2-Stage Selexol
ClausPlant
Sulfur
CO2
Comp.
CO2
Steam
Reheat/Humid.
Fuel Gas
Syngas Cooler/Quench
ParticulateRemoval
Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant with CO2 Capture
Emission Controls:PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.007 lb/MMBtu NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2
SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 6 ppmv H2S in syngasClaus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall sulfur recovery
Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F
Emission Controls:PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.007 lb/MMBtu NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2
SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 6 ppmv H2S in syngasClaus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall sulfur recovery
Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F
16
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Water-Gas Shift Reactor SystemDesign: Sulfur Tolerant Catalyst Up to 98.5% CO Conversion 2 stages for GE and Shell, 3 stages for E-Gas H2O/CO = 1.8 – 2.25 (to achieve 90% CO2 capture)
H2O/CO Ratio
1.8 – 2.25
700-870oF 400oF
Steam as % of Main Steam Enthalpy1
22 – 40
Steam Steam
H2O + CO CO2 + H2
1 Recovered from Heat Integration
800psia550oF
17
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
IGCC Performance Results
GE Energy
CO2 Capture NO YES
Gross Power (MW) 748 734
Auxiliary Power (MW)
Base Plant Load 25 26
Air Separation Unit 98 115
Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 3 19
CO2 Compression - 31
Total Aux. Power (MW) 126 191
Net Power (MW) 622 543
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,756 10,458
Efficiency (HHV) 39.0 32.6
Energy Penalty1 - 6.4
1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture
h in ASU air comp. load w/o CT integration
Steam for Selexol
Includes H2S/CO2 Removal in Selexol
Solvent
18
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
IGCC Performance Results
GE Energy E-Gas Shell
CO2 Capture NO YES NO YES NO YES
Gross Power (MW) 748 734 738 704 737 673
Auxiliary Power (MW)
Base Plant Load 25 26 24 28 22 25
Air Separation Unit 98 115 86 111 85 103
Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 3 19 3 20 1 19
CO2 Compression - 31 - 31 - 30
Total Aux. Power (MW) 126 191 113 190 108 177
Net Power (MW) 622 543 625 514 629 497
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,756 10,458 8,585 10,998 8,099 10,924
Efficiency (HHV) 39.0 32.6 39.7 31.0 42.1 31.2
Energy Penalty1 - 6.4 - 8.7 - 10.9
1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture
19
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
IGCC Economic ResultsGE Energy E-Gas Shell
CO2 Capture NO YES NO YES NO YES
Total Plant Cost, $/kWe (2007$)1
Base Plant 1,426 1,708 1,423 1,804 1,719 2,164
Air Separation Unit 312 429 281 437 285 421
Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture
249 503 209 500 213 521
CO2 Compression - 71 - 76 - 75
Total 1,987 2,711 1,913 2,817 2,217 3,181
COE , $/MWh (2007$)
Capital 43.4 59.1 41.7 61.5 48.2 69.2
Fixed 11.3 14.8 11.1 15.5 12.1 16.7
Variable 7.3 9.3 7.2 9.8 7.8 9.9
Fuel 14.3 17.1 14.0 18.0 13.3 17.9
CO2 TS&M 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.7
Total2 76.3 105.7 74.0 110.4 81.3 119.5
CO2 Avoided, $/tonne (2007$)
Same technology - 43 - 54 - 61
Compared to SCPC - 66 - 73 - 86
1Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner’s costs)280% Capacity Factor
20
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Comparison to PC and NGCC
Current State-of-the-Art
21
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Current TechnologyPulverized Coal Power Plant*
CO22,200 Psig
Coal
Air PC Boiler(With SCR)
Steam
Bag Filter
WetLimestone
FGD
Scru
bber
Reg
ener
ator
Flue Gas
Ash
ID Fans
Steam
Steam toEconamine FG+
Power
PM Control: Baghouse to achieve 0.013 lb/MMBtu (99.8% removal)
SOx Control: FGD to achieve 0.085 lb/MMBtu (98% removal)NOx Control: LNB + OFA + SCR to maintain 0.07 lb/MMBtuMercury Control: Co-benefit capture ~90% removalSteam Conditions (Sub): 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°FSteam Conditions (SC): 3500 psig/1100°F/1100°F
PM Control: Baghouse to achieve 0.013 lb/MMBtu (99.8% removal)
SOx Control: FGD to achieve 0.085 lb/MMBtu (98% removal)NOx Control: LNB + OFA + SCR to maintain 0.07 lb/MMBtuMercury Control: Co-benefit capture ~90% removalSteam Conditions (Sub): 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°FSteam Conditions (SC): 3500 psig/1100°F/1100°F
*Orange Blocks Indicate Unit Operations Added for CO2 Capture Case
22
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Current TechnologyNatural Gas Combined Cycle*
NOx Control: LNB + SCR to maintain 2.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2
Steam Conditions: 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°F
NOx Control: LNB + SCR to maintain 2.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2
Steam Conditions: 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°F
*Orange Blocks Indicate Unit Operations Added for CO2 Capture Case
HRSG
MEA
Combustion Turbine
CO2 Compressor
Stack
Direct ContactCooler
Blower
Natural Gas
Air Cooling WaterStack Gas
CO2
2200 psig
Reboiler Steam
Condensate Return
23
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
PC and NGCC Performance Results
Subcritical Supercritical NGCC
CO2 Capture NO YES NO YES NO YES
Gross Power (MW) 583 673 580 663 565 511
Base Plant Load 28 45 25 41 10 12
Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 5 29 5 27 0 10
CO2 Compression - 49 - 45 - 15
Total Aux. Power (MW) 33 123 30 113 10 37
Net Power (MW) 550 550 550 550 555 474
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 9,277 13,046 8,687 12,002 6,798 7,968
Efficiency (HHV) 36.8 26.2 39.3 28.4 50.2 42.8
Energy Penalty1 - 10.6 - 10.9 - 7.4
1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture
24
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
PC and NGCC Economic ResultsSubcritical Supercritical NGCC
CO2 Capture NO YES NO YES NO YES
Total Plant Cost, $/kWe (2007$)1
Base Plant 1,376 1,730 1,413 1,763 584 718
Gas Cleanup (SOx/NOx) 246 316 234 297 - -
CO2 Capture - 805 - 766 - 456
CO2 Compression - 91 - 87 - 52
Total 1,622 2,942 1,647 2,913 584 1,226
Total Plant Cost, $/kWe (2007$)1
Capital 31.2 60.2 31.7 59.6 10.1 22.3
Fixed 7.8 13.1 8.0 13.0 3.0 5.7
Variable 5.1 9.2 5.0 8.7 1.3 2.6
Fuel 15.2 21.3 14.2 19.6 44.5 52.2
CO2 TS&M 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 3.2
Total 2 59.4 109.7 58.9 106.6 58.9 85.9
CO2 Avoided, $/tonne (2007$)
Same technology - 68 - 69 - 84
Compared to SCPC - 75 - 69 - 36
1Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner’s costs)
285% Capacity Factor
25
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Environmental Performance Comparison
IGCC, PC and NGCC
26
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture
CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture
Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture
SubcriticalPC
Subcritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
Supercritical PC
Supercritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
NGCC NGCC w/ CO2 Capture
Emis
sion
s, lb
/MM
Btu
SO2
NOx
Particulate Matter
Criteria Pollutant Emissions for All Cases
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture
CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture
Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture
SubcriticalPC
Subcritical PC w/ CO2 Capture
Supercritical PC
Supercritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
NGCC NGCC w/ CO2 Capture
Hg E
mis
sion
s, lb
/TBt
u
27
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
CO2 Emissions for All Cases
1,723
206
1,710
217
1,595
218
1,888
266
1,768
244
804
94
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture
CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture
Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture
SubcriticalPC
Subcritical PC w/ CO2 Capture
Supercritical PC
Supercritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
NGCC NGCC w/ CO2 Capture
CO2
Emis
sion
s, lb
/net
-MW
h
28
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Raw Water Withdrawal and Consumption Comparison
IGCC, PC and NGCC
29
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Raw Water Withdrawal and Consumption per MWnet (Absolute)
7.6
10.7
7.0
11.1
6.6
11.310.7
20.4
9.7
18.3
4.3
8.4
6.0
8.7
5.5
9.0
5.3
9.3
8.5
15.7
7.7
14.1
3.3
6.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture
CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture
Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture
SubcriticalPC
Subcritical PC w/ CO2 Capture
Supercritical PC
Supercritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
NGCC NGCC w/ CO2 Capture
Wat
er, g
pm/M
Wne
t
Raw Water Withdrawal
Process Discharge
Raw Water Consumption
30
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Economic Results for All Cases
31
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
CO2 Avoided Costs
43
54
61
68 69
84
66
73
86
75
69
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GEE CoP Shell Subcritical PC Supercritical PC NGCC
Firs
t Yea
r CO
2Av
oide
d Co
st, $
/ton
ne
Avoided Cost (Analogous Technology w/o Capture Reference)
Avoided Cost (SC PC w/o Capture Reference)
32
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Plant Cost Comparison
2,447
3,334
2,351
3,466
2,716
3,904
1,996
3,610
2,024
3,570
718
1,497
2,789
3,801
2,680
3,952
3,097
4,451
2,264
4,115
2,296
4,070
771
1,614
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC
GEE GEE w/ CO2 Capture
CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture
Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture
Subcritical PC Subcritical PC w/ CO2 Capture
Supercritical PC Supercritical PC w/ CO2 Capture
NGCC NGCC w/ CO2 Capture
TOC
or T
ASC,
$/k
W
TASC
Owner's Cost
Process Contingency
Project Contingency
Home Office Expense
Bare Erected Cost
33
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Cost of Electricity Comparison
Coal cost $1.64/106Btu, Gas cost $6.55/106Btu
43.4
59.1
41.7
61.5
48.2
69.2
31.2
60.2
31.7
59.6
10.122.3
11.3
14.8
11.1
15.5
12.1
16.7
7.8
13.1
8.0
13.0
3.0
5.7
7.3
9.3
7.2
9.8
7.8
9.9
5.1
9.2
5.0
8.7
1.3
2.6
14.3
17.1
14.0
18.0
13.3
17.9
15.2
21.3
14.2
19.6
44.5
52.2
5.35.6
5.7
5.95.7
3.276.3
105.7
74.0
110.4
81.3
119.5
59.4
109.7
58.9
106.6
58.9
85.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture
CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture
Shell Shell w/ CO2
Capture
Subcritical PC
Subcritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
Supercritical PC
Supercritical PC w/ CO2
Capture
NGCC NGCC w/ CO2
Capture
FY C
OE,
mill
s/kW
h
CO2 TS&M Costs
Fuel Costs
Variable Costs
Fixed Costs
Capital Costs
34
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Highlights
35
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
NETL Viewpoint
• Most up-to-date performance and costs available in public literature to date
• Establishes baseline performance and cost estimates for current state of technology
• Improved efficiencies and reduced costs are required to improve competitiveness of advanced coal-based systems – In today’s market and regulatory environment – Also in a carbon constrained scenario
• Fossil Energy RD&D aimed at improving performance and cost of clean coal power systems including development of new approaches to capture and sequester greenhouse gases
36
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Result Highlights: Efficiency & Capital Cost
• Coal-based plants using today’s technology are efficient and clean– IGCC & PC: 39%, HHV (without capture on bituminous coal) – Meet or exceed current environmental requirements – Today’s capture technology can remove 90% of CO2, but at
significant increase in COE
• Total Overnight Cost: IGCC ~25% higher than PC– NGCC: $718/kW– PC: $2010/kW (average)– IGCC: $2505/kW (average)
• Total Overnight Cost with Capture: PC > IGCC– NGCC: $1497/kW– IGCC: $3568/kW (average)– PC: $3590/kW (average)
37
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Results HighlightsCOE ($2007)
• COE: NGCC & PC lowest cost generators– NGCC: 59 $/MWh – PC: 59 $/MWh (average) – IGCC: 77 $/MWh (average)
• With CCS: PC lowest coal-based option – NGCC: 86 $/MWh – PC: 108 $/MWh (average)– IGCC: 112 $/MWh (average)
• Breakeven FY COE* when natural gas price is:– No Capture IGCC: $9.24/MMBtu PC: $6.59/MMBtu
– With Capture IGCC: $9.80/MMBtu PC: $9.34/MMBtu
* At baseline coal cost of $1.64/MMBtu
38
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Summary Table for All Cases
39
Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010
Summary TablePERFORMANCE Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 9 Case 10 Case 11 Case 12 Case 13 Case 14CO2 Capture 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90%Gross Power Output (kWe) 747,800 734,000 738,200 703,700 737,000 673,400 582,600 672,700 580,400 662,800 564,700 511,000Auxiliary Power Requirement (kWe) 125,750 190,750 113,140 190,090 108,020 176,540 32,580 122,740 30,410 112,830 9,620 37,430Net Power Output (kWe) 622,050 543,250 625,060 513,610 628,980 496,860 550,020 549,960 549,990 549,970 555,080 473,570Coal Flowrate (lb/hr) 466,901 487,011 459,958 484,212 436,646 465,264 437,378 614,994 409,528 565,820 N/A N/ANatural Gas Flowrate (lb/hr) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 167,333 167,333HHV Thermal Input (kWth) 1,596,320 1,665,074 1,572,582 1,655,503 1,492,878 1,590,722 1,495,379 2,102,643 1,400,162 1,934,519 1,105,812 1,105,812Net Plant HHV Efficiency (%) 39.0% 32.6% 39.7% 31.0% 42.1% 31.2% 36.8% 26.2% 39.3% 28.4% 50.2% 42.8%Net Plant HHV Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,756 10,458 8,585 10,998 8,099 10,924 9,277 13,046 8,687 12,002 6,798 7,968
Raw Water Withdrawal (gpm/MWnet) 7.6 10.7 7.0 11.1 6.6 11.3 10.7 20.4 9.7 18.3 4.3 8.4
Process Water Discharge (gpm/MWnet) 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.2 2.0 2.2 4.7 2.0 4.3 1.0 2.1Raw Water Consumption (gpm/MWnet) 6.0 8.7 5.5 9.0 5.3 9.3 8.5 15.7 7.7 14.1 3.3 6.3
CO2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 197 20 199 20 197 20 204 20 204 20 118 12
CO2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 1,434 152 1,448 158 1,361 161 1,783 217 1,675 203 790 87
CO2 Emissions (lb/MWhnet) 1,723 206 1,710 217 1,595 218 1,888 266 1,768 244 804 94
SO2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.0012 0.0022 0.0117 0.0022 0.0042 0.0021 0.0858 0.0017 0.0858 0.0016 Negligible Negligible
SO2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.0090 0.0166 0.0852 0.0173 0.0290 0.0171 0.7515 0.0176 0.7063 0.0162 Negligible NegligibleNOx Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.059 0.049 0.060 0.049 0.059 0.049 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.009 0.008NOx Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.430 0.376 0.434 0.396 0.409 0.396 0.613 0.747 0.576 0.697 0.060 0.061PM Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 Negligible NegligiblePM Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.052 0.055 0.052 0.057 0.049 0.057 0.114 0.139 0.107 0.129 Negligible NegligibleHg Emissions (lb/TBtu) 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 Negligible NegligibleHg Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 4.16E-06 4.42E-06 4.15E-06 4.59E-06 3.95E-06 4.61E-06 1.00E-05 1.22E-05 9.41E-06 1.14E-05 Negligible Negligible
COSTTotal Plant Cost (2007$/kW) 1,987 2,711 1,913 2,817 2,217 3,181 1,622 2,942 1,647 2,913 584 1,226Total Overnight Cost (2007$/kW) 2,447 3,334 2,351 3,466 2,716 3,904 1,996 3,610 2,024 3,570 718 1,497 Bare Erected Cost 1,528 2,032 1,470 2,113 1,695 2,385 1,317 2,255 1,345 2,239 482 926 Home Office Expenses 144 191 138 199 156 221 124 213 127 211 40 78 Project Contingency 265 369 256 385 302 444 182 369 176 362 62 162 Process Contingency 50 119 50 120 63 131 0 105 0 100 0 60 Owner's Costs 460 623 438 649 500 723 374 667 377 657 133 271Total Overnight Cost (2007$ x 1,000) 1,521,880 1,811,411 1,469,577 1,780,290 1,708,524 1,939,878 1,098,124 1,985,432 1,113,445 1,963,644 398,290 709,039Total As Spent Capital (2007$/kW) 2,789 3,801 2,680 3,952 3,097 4,451 2,264 4,115 2,296 4,070 771 1,614
COE (mills/kWh, 2007$)1,2 76.3 105.6 74.0 110.3 81.3 119.4 59.4 109.6 58.9 106.5 58.9 85.9 CO2 TS&M Costs 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.6 0.0 3.2 Fuel Costs 14.3 17.1 14.0 18.0 13.3 17.9 15.2 21.3 14.2 19.6 44.5 52.2 Variable Costs 7.3 9.3 7.2 9.8 7.8 9.9 5.1 9.2 5.0 8.7 1.3 2.6 Fixed Costs 11.3 14.8 11.1 15.5 12.1 16.7 7.8 13.1 8.0 13.0 3.0 5.7 Capital Costs 43.4 59.1 41.7 61.5 48.2 69.2 31.2 60.2 31.7 59.6 10.1 22.3LCOE (mills/kWh, 2007$)1,2 96.7 133.9 93.8 139.9 103.1 151.4 75.3 139.0 74.7 135.2 74.7 108.91 CF is 80% for IGCC cases and 85% for PC and NGCC cases.
GEE R+Q CoP E-Gas FSQ Shell PC Subcritical PC Supercritical Advanced F Class