BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRYAugust 2009 Vol. 153 No. 8Vol. 153 No. 8 August 2009 www.powermag.com2009 Plant of the Year The Hague Repowering Project Wins Marmaduke AwardGT Flex Fuel Design for LNGIGCC: Are We There Yet?FGD Dewatering Cuts CostCity of Springfield's Dallman 4 Balances Energy and the EnvironmentCIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARDAugust 2009 | POWER www.powermag.com 1 Established 1882 Vol. 153 No. 8 August 2009 www.powermag.com TK TK TKOn the coverBy building a new Illinois coalfired unit on the shore of Lake Springfield, City Water, Light & Power of the City of Springfield, Ill., has ensured that it will no longer have to buy power on the wholesale market. KBV Springfield Power Partners was the Dallman 4 engineer-ing, procurement, and construction contractor. Photo courtesy Terry Farmer Photography, terryfarmer.com COVER STORY: 2009 PLANT OF THE YEAR28 City of Springfields CWLP Dallman 4 Earns POWERs Highest HonorThe $515 million Dallman 4 is the most expensive project ever built by the City of Springfield, Ill., but it was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Thanks to using local coal, it will pay dividends to the municipal utilitys customers for years to come in the form of low rates supported by income from the sale of surplus power to the wholesale market. As one of the cleanest coal-fired plants in the U.S., the plant makes environmental sense, too. SPECIAL REPORTS 2009 MARMADUKE AWARD38 The Hague Repowering Project Upgrades CHP System, Preserves Historic BuildingThis years winner of the Marmaduke Award for excellence in O&M goes to a project that pulled off something much harder than a facelift. The challenge was to preserve the century-old historic exterior of The Hague Power Station while replacing its ag-ing heart with high-efficiency turbines to ensure that the plant will provide heat and power to the Dutch city for many years to come. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT46 Improved FGD Dewatering Process Cuts Solid WasteHow would you like to save over half a million dollars in costs related to flue gas de-sulfurization solids? The plant in this case study shows you how it did just that. (Can you really afford not to read this?) GENERATION TECHNOLOGY52 IGCC Update: Are We There Yet?Integrated gasification combined cycle has for many years been a promising tech-nology. Three experts weigh in on the current balance of pros and cons, and on when IGCC is likely to deliver on its promises. FEATURES CARBON MANAGEMENT58 Commercially Available CO2 Capture TechnologyFluor Corp.s Econamine FG Plus (EFG+) technology has been widely used in the gas-treating industry for two decades. Here the company makes the case for using EFG+ in coal-fired power plants by explaining how the process works and sharing its oper-ating experience with the process at a gas-fired power plant. 28CIRCLE 4 ON READER SERVICE CARD TK www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 2 STEAM TURBINES62 Preventing Turbine Water Damage: TDP-1 UpdatedThe latest revision of ASMEs Recommended Practices for the Prevention of Water Damage to Steam Turbines Used for Electric Power Generation: Fossil-Fuel Plants in-cludes recommendations that apply to the newest power plant technologies, includ-ing combined cycles and digital controls. Consider its design and operating advice an ounce of prevention. COMBUSTION SYSTEM DESIGN66 Flexible Fuel Combustor Design Accommodates LNG Variations in the constituent elements of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can adversely affect the operation of power generation turbines using the fuel. Siemens explains how it is developing an LNG-capable turbine, and modifications for currently avail-able turbines, to handle the fuel variations that are likely to affect increasing num-bers of plants. CLASSIC MARMADUKE71 Marmys Deep-Freeze BlackoutEach year, as a companion to our report on the Marmaduke Award winner, we reprint a story about the fictional plant troubleshooter Marmaduke Surfaceblow. This year we dusted off a tale based on a true scenario set in Greenland. DEPARTMENTS6 SPEAKING OF POWER Politics Trump Scientific Integrity GLOBAL MONITOR8 Help Build the Global Energy Observatory10 Revived FutureGen Faces Renewed Funding Obstacles11 How Much Coal and Gas Does the U.S. Really Have?11 Of Fracking, Earthquakes, and Carbon Sequestration13 Floating and Flying Wind Turbines14 Major Scottish Coal Plant Starts CCS Pilot Program15 European Interest in Saharan Solar Project Heats Up16 Turning Sewage Sludge into Renewable Energy16 POWER Digest FOCUS ON O&M18 Managing Minimum Load22 Polymeric Solution for Pump Cavitation25 The 7,000-Foot Challenge26 LEGAL & REGULATORY Old Challenges Persist in Impeding Renewable Energy Goals74 NEW PRODUCTS80 COMMENTARY Carbon Offsets: Scam, Not Salvation By H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, National Center for Policy Analysis. 66The easiest way to comment on any story in POWER is to use the Comment tab at the bottom of the individual online story pages at www.powermag.com. (This is also true for POWERnews, COAL POWER, and MANAGING POWER content.) Our editorial staff reviews and approves comments daily. This feature allows readers to share comments and ideas with us and each other more quick-ly than when we ran selected letters to the editor in the print magazine.If you have a story proposal, please continue to e-mail ideas to editor@powermag.com after reviewing our con-tributor guidelines (downloadable from the About Us link at the bottom of the powermag.com home page).Want to Comment on a Story?POWER magazine has served the generation industry for more than 125 years. Now POWER is making it easier than ever for industry professionals to fnd career opportunities and for hiring authorities to fnd the best candidates for open positions. The Careers-in-POWER job board on powermag.com allows visitors to post resumes anonymously, view the latest job positions, post job listings, and set up personal job alerts. JOB SEEKERS:Access the most recent positions available to engineers, operations and maintenance managers, corporate and general managers at coal, nuclear, combined-cycle, and alternative power facilities.EMPLOYERS/RECRUITERS:Attract highly qualifed candidates by posting open positions on the Careers-in-POWER job center. Visit Careers-in-POWER on powermag.com to become part of the fastest growing site dedicated to connecting power generation employers and employees. Contact Diane Hammes at dianeh@powermag.com; 713.343.1885.Ramp Up Your Career!CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 4 Now incorporating and EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE 480-820-7855, editor@powermag.com Managing Editor: Gail Reitenbach, PhD Senior Editor: Angela Neville, JD Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; David Daniels; Bill Ellison, PE; Steven F. Greenwald; Tim Hurst; Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize; Douglas Smith; Dick Storm; Dr. Justin Zachary Senior Writer: Sonal Patel Senior Designer: Leslie Claire Senior Production Manager: Tracey Lilly, tlilly@accessintel.com Marketing Manager: Jamie Reesby ADVERTISING SALES North American Offices Southern & Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/ Latin America: Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, mattg@powermag.com Central & Western U.S./Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.comInternational Offices UK/France/Benelux/Scandinavia: Peter Gilmore, +44 (0) 20 7834 5559, pgilmores@aol.com Germany/Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Gerd Strasmann, +49 (0) 2191 931 497, info@strasmann-media.de Italy: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it Spain/Portugal: Vibeke Gilland, +34 91 553 42 06, vibeke.gilland@publistar-es.com Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, amskatsu@dream.com Thailand: Nartnittha Jirarayapong, +66 (0) 2 237-9471, +66 (0) 2 237 9478 India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, gulfk@unitel.co.kr Malaysia: Tony Tan, +60 3 706 4176, +60 3 706 4177, nmedia@tm.net.myClassified AdvertisingDiane Hammes, 713-343-1885, dianeh@tradefairgroup.comPOWER Buyers Guide SalesDiane Hammes, 713-343-1885, dianeh@tradefairgroup.com AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT Audience Development Manager: Terry Best Fulfillment Manager: George Severine CUSTOMER SERVICE For subscriber service: powermag@halldata.com, 800-542-2823 or 847-763-9509 Electronic and Paper Reprints: lyndsay.bahn@theYGSgroup.com, 717-666-3052 List Sales: Statlistics, Jen Felling, j.felling@statlistics.com, 203-778-8700 All Other Customer Service: 713-343-1887 BUSINESS OFFICE TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston, TX 77042 Publisher: Brian K. Nessen, 713-343-1887, briann@tradefairgroup.com President: Sean Guerre ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC 4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850 301-354-2000 www.accessintel.com Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto Divisional President, Business Information Group: Heather Farley Senior Vice President, Corporate Audience Development: Sylvia Sierra Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Robert Paciorek Vice President, Production & Manufacturing: Michael Kraus Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRYVisit POWER on the web: www.powermag.comSubscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pwPOWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rockville, MD 20850. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD 20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Email: power@halldata.com.Canadian Post PM40063731. Return Undeliverable Canadian Addresses to: Station A, P.O. Box 54, Windsor, ON N9A 6J5.Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified executives and engineering and supervisory personnel in electric utilities, independent generating companies, consulting engineering firms, process industries, and other manufacturing industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions: $59 for one year, $99 for two years. In Canada: US$64 for one year, US$104 for two years. Outside U.S. and Canada: US$159 for one year, US$269 for two years (includes air mail delivery). Payment in full or credit card information is required to process your order. Subscription request must include subscriber name, title, and company name. For new or renewal orders, call 847-763-9509. Single copy price: $25. The publisher reserves the right to accept or reject any order. Allow four to twelve weeks for shipment of the first issue on subscriptions. Missing issues must be claimed within three months for the U.S. or within six months outside U.S.For customer service and address changes, call 847-763-9509 or fax 832-242-1971 or e-mail powermag@halldata.com or write to POWER, P.O. Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Please include account number, which appears above name on magazine mailing label or send entire label.Photocopy Permission: Where necessary, permission is granted by the copyright owner for those registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com, to photocopy any article herein, for commercial use for the flat fee of $2.50 per copy of each article, or for classroom use for the flat fee of $1.00 per copy of each article. Send payment to the CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without the express permission of TradeFair Group Publications is prohibited. Requests for special permission or bulk orders should be addressed to the publisher at 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston, TX 77042. ISSN 0032-5929.Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston, TX 77042. Copyright 2009 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.NV Energy Tracy Station celebration luncheon for achieving a million work hours with no lost time accidents.Serving Up Perfection in Power Solutionsatmb200901.007.indd 2009 CH2M HILLCelebrating safety milestones is a fullling way to acknowledge great achievements. On the NV Energy Tracy Station Project , CH2M HILL performed over 1,000,000 work hours with no lost time accidents. CH2M HILLs performance reects the value we place on having every employee return home each day without injury, being good stewards of the environment, and striving for continual improvement. CH2M HILL will work with you to meet the worlds demand for energy by safely delivering the most challenging programs and complex projects globally and locally. Our expertise enables us to respond to your needs quickly. CH2M HILL provides innovative engineering, procurement, construction, operations and consulting solutions that span the entire power value chain. CH2M HILL recently completed the Xcel Energy High Bridge Project in St. Paul, Minnesota...the performance of [CH2M HILL] on this project has been exemplary. Their approach to safety, production, planning and leadership has been impressive. Xcel and I personally consider this project to be near perfection. My compliments and congratulations on a job well done. David Wilks, President of Power Generation for Xcel Energy ch2mhill.com/powerCIRCLE 16 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 6SPEAKING OF POWERPolitics Trump Scientific IntegrityIn their recent endangerment finding draft technical support document (TSD), scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) conclude that carbon dioxide emissions are a public health hazard and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Federal law requires that regulations be based on scientific information that is accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased; the most recent available; and collected by the best available methods. The EPAs TSD on carbon emissions violates all of these requirements.Rush to JudgmentLisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, gave her staff only a few weeks to prepare a TSD for carbon emissions. It should have taken a year or two. The TSD is the technical documentation that must be finalized before the EPA can promulgate carbon regulations, hence the haste. The short schedule to prepare the TSD forced staff scientists to pick between two poor choices: maintain the required scientific checks and balances but miss the TSD deadline of April 2 (the second anniversary of the Su-preme Courts decision allowing the agency to regulate CO2) or compromise their internal scientific review processes and meet the schedule. They chose option two.The EPA working group that authored the TSD circulated its draft in mid-March for an internal review. Staff researcher Dr. Alan Carlin, a 38-year EPA veteran, was given less than five days to prepare his comments. Carlin prepared a blistering 98-page report that was extremely critical of the TSDs scientific rigor because EPA decisions [were] based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data. Action, Meet ReactionThe EPAs overreaction was immediate when Carlins report went public. The EPAs director of the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), Al McGartland, first worried about the inevi-table political fallout in a March 17 e-mail: The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward . . . and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. McGartland obviously missed Jacksons January memo promising to keep the politics out of scientific inquiry: I will ensure EPAs efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.McGartlands next knee-jerk response was to issue a gag or-der: Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc. In an interview with CBSNews.com, Carlin said, I was told . . . not to work on climate change. The EPAs final comments were simply outrageousthey seek to discredit the messenger. In a written statement in response to media questions about Carlins report, the EPA noted that The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. The EPA completely ig-nores Carlins credentials (a BS in physics from CalTech and PhD in economics from MIT), yet he was sufficiently qualified to be part of the internal review team of the draft TSD and to work at the NCEE for many years. Carlin suddenly became unqualified when he asked hard questions and was unwilling to rubber-stamp the TSD. Three Categories of Errors FoundCarlins report outlines six specific reasons why the scientific basis for the TSD is flawed. I dont have room here for the de-tails, but theyre persuasive and worth reading at http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf. Carlin suc-cinctly summed up the TSDs flawed science this way: Until and unless these and many other inconsistencies . . . are adequately explained it would appear premature to attribute all or even any of what warming has occurred to cha nges in GHG/CO2 atmo-spheric levels. Carlin pointed out that the EPA used short-cuts to buttress the endangerment findings. Much of the TSD is based on Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies and models rather than on independent research and studies conducted by EPA scientists, as has been its historical practice. These incon-sistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and the CCSP [Climate Change Science Program] without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evi-denced by the TSD, he wrote.Carlin also pointed out that there is an obvious logical prob-lem posed by steadily increasing US health and welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.The EPA has not responded to the concerns raised in Carlins critique of the TSD in the three months since it was made public. The Essence of ScienceCarlin wrote in his critique that science requires experimentally determining the correctness of a hypothesis by comparing em-pirical data with real-world data. Its not a statement of belief. Heres my critique of the TSD: Its EPAs scientific integrity that is endangered. Editor-in-Chief Dr. Robert Peltier, PE The EPA has not responded to the concerns raised in Carlins critique of the TSD in the three months since it was made public.GE EnergyI promise David Chapin, Lead Product Manager, Filtration TechnologiesBoiler cleaning outages whether planned or not are costly and disruptive. Now you can do something about it. The Powerwave+ impulse cleaning system helps keep your boilers working even while theyre being cleaned. Which not only helps reduce scheduled shutdowns, it also helps eliminate unscheduled outages due to buildup. And thats not just a promise. Its the promise of something better. Find out how Powerwave+ technology is already hard at work for your peers at ge-energy.com/powerwave.CIRCLE 7 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 8GLOBAL MONITORGLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TORHelp Build the Global Energy Observatory How would you like to be able to access data on all the power plants in the world and all of their performance metrics, analyze that data, and map it? Those abilities are part of the vision behind the Global Energy Ob-servatory (GEO), an OpenModel website that serves as a wiki for global energy data. Like Wikipedia, this enterprise uses wiki software that allows for the creation and editing of interlinked web pages by a collaborative community of users. GEO seeks to promote an understanding, on a global scale, of the dynamics of change in energy systems, quantify emissions and their impacts, and accelerate the transi-tion to carbon-neutral, environmentally benign energy systems while providing af-fordable energy to all. It is attempting to do so by using open source software tools, including Google Earth, and encouraging community participation. Thats where the power generation community comes in.GEOs databases are organized into three categories: GEOpower for power genera-tion, GEOresources for fuels and resources, and GEOtransmission (under construction) for the transmission of electricity and fu-els. The GEOpower database can account for coal, gas, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, oil, solar PV, solar thermal, waste, and wind plants of all sizes, though to date it includes mostly utility-scale plants for which public data are available.The project was conceived and devel-oped by Dr. Rajan Gupta, a fellow of Los Alamos National Laboratory and a theoret-ical high energy physicist with wide-rang-ing research interests. It is sponsored by the New Mexico Consortium and has been built primarily by Gupta and four Univer-sity of New Mexico electrical and computer engineering masters students. A Virtual World of InformationAlthough GEOpower contains information on many power generation facilities around the world, the initial data have come from publicly available sources, so plant entries are necessarily incomplete. The GEO web-site explains that the project developed scripts to scrape data available from open credible websites and publications in dif-ferent formats (Excel, html, KML, pdf) into the database. Data for U.S. plants, for example, have been imported from Energy Information Administration and Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) sources. Gupta estimated that by the end of May, GEOpower included 40% to 50% of global power generation capacity. The GEOpower home page includes links to tools that allow you to map data, view and edit data, add a plant, view the his-tory of edits, download data, and analyze data. If you map all hydro plants in India, for example, you can click on any plant lo-cation to see capacity, and then click into the database for additional information.Users must register and log in to edit and add data, use analysis tools, and download data so that the consortium representatives can track and validate changes, and work with and acknowledge high quality users.Because the majority of data included to date came from official sources, they are considered prevalidated. Gupta told POWER that when considering data from other sources, the system will be analogous to a peer review system used by scientific jour-nals: the editors and moderators in this system would be subject area experts. Data analysis looks as if it could be very interesting when the database is more fully populated. The interface includes 25 performance metrics, from gigawatt-hours generated to NH3 (ammonia) emitted. Cur-rently, data are typically limited to metrics tracked by regulatory agencies (for exam-ple, seven years of the EPAs eGRID data for U.S. plants).Drilling Down into the DatabaseTo test the database, POWER searched for the small Valmont Station in Boulder, Colo. (Figure 1). GEOpower shows the plant as being owned by Public Service Co. of Colo-rado (an Xcel Energy subsidiary), having a design capacity of 236.9 MWe, firing bi-tuminous coal as its primary fuel, and using water from Boulder Creek. It also includes the commissioned date for both units. Performance data as of mid-June were GWh generated; heat input; and CO2, SOx, NOx, and mercury emissions. (Inter-estingly, GEO showsas does the EPAs original eGRID data, according to GuptaCO2 emissions increasing between 2000 and 2004 even though gigawatt-hours generated dropped.) For comparison, we looked at informa-tion on Xcel Energys Valmont Station web-site, which gives 229 MW as the plants size and low-sulfur coal from western Colorado mines and natural gas as its fuels. Xcel also provides the following in-formation about the plant: Unit 5 (V5) went into service in 1964 and can burn either coal or natural gas. The unit uses three surrounding lakes for circulating 1. Getting a grip on global energy data. The collaborative Global Energy Observa-tory seeks to provide easy access to data on all energy systems around the globe. To date, this work in progress includes publicly available information on power plants in nine countries. This screen shot shows the interface for selecting a plant whose data you want to examine and/or edit. Source: New Mexico ConsortiumBe RightSource code: M925CD HAC-0300Solutions for continuous power generation. We know how hard you work to manage your water chemistry. Hach helps you optimize your efforts for maximum uptime with the most complete line of process and lab instruments, all backed by a team of experts. 866-450-4248 www.hach2O.comYour formula for water analysis.CIRCLE 21 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 10GLOBAL MONITORcooling water. Unit 6 (V6) began generat-ing electricity in 1973. (It also includes the interesting historical note that when Unit 1no longer operatingwent into service in 1924, Valmont was the largest power station west of the Missouri River.)Plant Manager Mark Fox confirmed that Unit 5 burns gas when the economics of doing so are favorable. He also resolved the apparent discrepancy in water source by noting that cooling water comes from reservoirs (also called lakes) that are fed by Boulder Creek. Xcel notes that Valmont Station is the companys most efficient power plant. Unit 5 has a scrubber to reduce SO2 emissions, low-NOx burners to reduce NOx emissions, and a baghouse that removes particu-late emissions from the flue gas by more than 99%. (GEOpower includes fields for Type of SOx First Control Device, Type of NOx First Control Device, and Type of Mercury Control Device, but those were empty fields for Valmont.) The reservoirs used for cooling water have also been recognized as a wildlife refuge, and the plant was chosen by Audubon Colorado as the first important Bird Area in Boulder County. Some of that qualitative infor-mation would be invisible to GEOpower, which doesnt acknowledge that Unit 5 can switch fuels. Gupta noted that GEO allows users to correct mistakes and add missing information. When asked how GEOpower would ac-count for changes in equipment (includ-ing emissions control systems) and hours run year-over-year as those factors affect emissions, Gupta responded that the anal-ysis will correlate those data. Whether we will be able to get all the data needed is an open research question.We hope that GEO becomes a ready reference for journalists and advocacy groups that come to appreciate the value of structured scientific information that is available from one place, Gupta told POWER. Our goal is not to be antagonistic to power companies and their associated partners but to provide a forum for a sci-entific discussion and analysis that leads to cheap, clean energy for all. GEO is de-signed to highlight efforts by industry to take innovative steps towards this.Gupta, who clarified that GEO is still a research project and not a finished prod-uct also noted that the more complete the picture is, the more information we can infer, and this inferred information can then become the starting point for validation through the wiki process.To add a new plant to the database, or to provide additional or correct data for your plant, register at http://openmodel.newmexicoconsortium.org.Revived FutureGen Faces Renewed Funding ObstaclesA little more than a year after the Bush administration abruptly withdrew its sup-port for the FutureGen project, the De-partment of Energy has again announced it will back the proposed Illinois gasified coal power plant and carbon capture ini-tiative. Though the 275-MW project may be different in technical aspectsit will be initially designed for 60% carbon cap-ture, not 90%, and gasify only Illinois Ba-sin Coal (Figure 2)it is still riddled with many of same funding problems. Making matters worse, it may have been revived too late: Since the DOE withdrew its sup-port, several major carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects and alliances have sprouted in the U.S., and these could give FutureGen a run for its money. Project costs for FutureGen now stand at about $2.4 billion, with construction expected to cost between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion. In June, the DOE pledged $1.073 billion to the project$1 bil-lion of which would come from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds for CCS research. But it required under a provisional agreement with the FutureGen Industrial Alliance that the al-liance expand to 20 members by years end and that each member contribute be-tween $20 million and $30 million over the next four to six years. Other condi-tions included development of a com-plete funding plan and a rapid restart of preliminary design activities, including completion of a site-specific design and a detailed cost estimate. Then, barely a week after the DOEs an-nouncement, news broke that American Electric Power (AEP) and Southern Co.two of the FutureGen Alliances major membershad abruptly withdrawn their financial support, leaving the alliance with only nine members, most of whom are multinational coal companies. AEP told POWER that its decision was based on qualms about the projects fund-ing. The uncertainty about FutureGen brought by DOEs decision last year to with-draw funding, combined with financial con-straints brought by the current economic downtown, led to our difficult decision to withdraw from FutureGen, said AEP spokes-person Pat Hemlepp, in a sentiment echoed by Southern Co. Hemlepp added that AEP would direct funds to other projects, par-ticularly to its Mountaineer plant project in West Virginia, which is expected to validate the commercial viability of chilled ammonia CCS technology when it begins operations this September.Both Southern and AEP have also said they would focus on the newly launched National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), of which the companiesalong with the DOE, Electric Power Research Institute, and four other industry heavyweightsare members. While supporting work from scientists, government, industry, and aca-demia, the NCCC has said it would facili-tate testing and analyses in a power plant setting, at a size large enough to provide meaningful performance data under real operating conditions, enabling scale-up 2. One step forward, two steps back. The DOEs conditional backing of the Future-Gen project revived hopes for the Illinois gasified coal power plant and carbon capture initiative. But the project is still riddled with many of its old funding problems, which poses risks that Future-Gen Alliance members are not willing to face. Barely a week after the DOE announced renewed support, American Electric Power and Southern Co. withdrew from the alliance. Both companies have said they will redirect funds to other carbon capture initiatives, like the National Carbon Cap-ture Center, of which the DOE is also member. Source: DOE; modification: Leslie ClaireAugust 2009 | POWER www.powermag.com 11GLOBAL MONITORof the technologies, when it is fully operational in 2010. The center is to be located partly at the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF), a coal plant research complex south of Birming-ham, Ala., that is run by the public-private consortium. Southern Co. said existing facilities at the PSDF would be modified to test precombustion CO2 capture while postcombustion CO2 capture will be tested at Plant Gaston, a coal plant adjacent to the PSDF that is operated by Southern Co. subsidiary Alabama Power.Meanwhile, as the DOEs regional sequestration partnerships make significant gains in their carbon sequestration tests, major projects with better initial design capture capabilities than Fu-tureGensuch as Tenaskas proposed $3.5 billion Trailblazer En-ergy Center in Sweetwater, Texasare pushing forward. If built, that 600-MW plant could capture 85% to 90% of CO2 emissions while using supercritical steam, pulverized coal technology. The CO2 will then be provided for use in enhanced oil recovery and geologic storage. How Much Coal and Gas Does the U.S. Really Have? The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a federal mapping agency, has of late been propounding the difference between resources and reserves. It says that although the two terms are used in-terchangeably, the distinction is simple: Reserves are a subset of resources. Coal resources, as an example, include those in-place tonnage estimates determined by summing the volumes for iden-tified and undiscovered deposits of coal, whereas coal reserves are those resources considered economically producible at the time of classification, even though extraction facilities are not in place and operative.That distinction becomes especially important in light of new assessments from separate groups that claim coal reserves in the U.S. have been wildly overestimated and gas reserves un-derestimated. And it throws into question the Energy Informa-tion Administrations (EIAs) assessments, which have long been a yardstick for comparable estimates. In 2007, the EIA said the U.S. had a demonstrated reserve base of nearly 500 billion metric tons of coal, and it regarded 267 million metric tonsenough for 240 yearsof that as economi-cally recoverable. But an extensive USGS analysis of Wyomings Gillette coal fieldthe nations largest and most prolificre-leased this June determined that of 182 billion metric tons of resources in place, less than 9.16 billion (or 6%) were found to be recoverable under current technological and economic circum-stances. This compares with an earlier assessment from 2002 by the USGS in which 20.87 billion metric tons were estimated to be recoverable. The USGS engineers, geologists, and economists explain the discrepancy is a result of using an improved method-ology, which incorporates a new dataset with 10 times as many data points as were used in previous assessments. In June, meanwhile, the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), a group of industry, government, and academic volunteers, said in a study that U.S. natural gas reserves were likely 1,836 trillion cubic feet. This assessment is up 39%the highest increase on recordfrom the groups estimate of 1,321 trillion cubic feet two years ago. New and advanced exploration, well drilling and com-pletion technologies are allowing us increasingly better access to domestic gas resourcesespecially unconventional gaswhich, not all that long ago, were considered impractical or uneconomi-cal to pursue, said John Curtis, a committee member and profes-sor of geology at the Colorado School of Mines.The increase has been tagged to a reevaluation of shale in the Appalachian Basin and in the midcontinent, Gulf Coast, and Rocky Mountain areas. When the PGCs results are combined with the DOEs latest available determination of proven gas reserves (238 trillion cubic feet as of 2007), the report says that the U.S. has a total available future supply of 2,074 trillion cubic feet. Thats an increase of 542 trillion cubic feet over the previous evaluation. Curtis cautioned, however, that the current assess-ment assumes neither a time schedule nor a specific market price for the discovery and production of future gas supply. Estimates of the Potential Gas Committee are base-line esti-mates in that they attempt to provide a reasonable appraisal of what we consider to be the technically recoverable gas resource potential of the United States, he explained.The USGS Wyoming Gillette coal field assessment is available at http://tinyurl.com/lw7yv5; the PGCs complete report can be purchased in August from http://www.mines.edu/. Of Fracking, Earthquakes, and Carbon SequestrationHydraulic fracturingthe process of drilling and then pumping fluid deep into a formation to generate fractures or cracks, typi-cally for extracting natural gas from shale formationshas been under fire lately, owing to concerns that it contaminates drink-ing water. But while Congress debates proposed legislation that would impose new restrictions on the technology, an entirely dif-ferent concern related to fracturingor frackingis emerging: It may trigger earthquakes. The claim is not new, but attention to it has been renewed following a June 2 earthquake recorded at Cleburne, Texasthe first in the towns 140-year historyand four subsequent smaller quakes, none with a magnitude greater than 2.8. Speculators as-CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 12GLOBAL MONITORsert that whats causing the temblors is fracking, which began in earnest in 2001 in the Barnett Shale, a geologic formation said to be the nations richest gas field. A geologist has yet to confirm the claim. At the same time, fracking-related quake concerns are mount-ing in northern California, around The Geysers region, where start-up company AltaRock Energy is looking to tap geothermal energy in a demonstration of Engineered Geothermal Systems technology. The technology essentially pumps water into the earth, creating fractures in the hot dry rock (Figure 3). The water then flows into the fissures, creating a reservoir of very hot geothermal fluid that is continuously heated, and when it is returned to the surface, the pressure decrease produces steam, which is used to turn a turbine. That project has secured more than $36 million from the DOE and has the backing of several large venture capital firms. But it has caught bad press from The New York Times, which points out that the project proposes fracturing hard rock more than 2 miles deep in an area overlying two fault lines. The news-paper draws similarities between the Alta Rock demonstration and a Swiss geothermal prospecting project in Basel, which is believed to have triggered a massive earthquake on Dec. 8, 2006, after prospectors drilled 3 miles into a significant fault. Alta Rock has disputed the comparison, saying that Basel sits on top of a large (200-km long) locked fault that previously ruptured and heavily damaged the city in the 14th century. We carefully chose our site to avoid Basels problems, the company said in a statement. There has been geothermal energy produc-tion at the Geysers since 1965. AltaRocks project is located in a seismically active area adjacent to smaller faults (the closest faults are 3 and 11 km long) which are not locked due the con-stant stress relief resulting from small seismic movements. Can Fracking Cause Earthquakes? There is no consensus among geologists on whether drilling causes earthquakes. But, according to Dr. David Oppenheimer, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the fracking process could certainly generate seismic activity because that is how the fractures are made, he told POWER in July. Concern-ing the Alta Rock project, he said, After the fractures have been established at the Geysers and an enhanced geothermal system has been implemented where cold water introduced in the injec-tor flows through the fractures to the second well to return to the surface, it is possible that seismicity could be induced due to thermal contraction of the reservoir rock. There are also certain conditions that could trigger a large earthquake, and foremost among them is sufficient, pre-existing tectonic stress, conditions that exist at The Geysers because the geothermal field is located near the Pacific-North American plate boundary, he said. However, even in areas like Colorado, far from a plate boundary, a magnitude 5.3 quake was induced by pump-ing of waste fluids into a deep disposal well at the Rocky Moun-tain Arsenal. With regard to fracking and earthquakes associated with natural gas extraction, Oppenheimer said that the pressures 3. Cracks that run deep. Hydraulic fracturinga process that involves drilling and then pumping fluid deep into a formation to gener-ate fractures or crackshas been thought to cause earthquakes, most recently in Cleburne, Texas, where fracturing, or fracking, is used to extract natural gas from shale. But Alta Rocks geothermal demonstra-tion plant, which uses Engineered Geothermal Systems technology (shown here) has also come under scrutiny because the project pro-poses fracturing hard rock more than 2 miles deep in an area overlying two fault lines. Courtesy: Department of EnergyProduction wellEngineeredfracturesystemHot rockEnergy conversion plantInjectionwellCIRCLE 10 ON READER SERVICE CARDAugust 2009 | POWER www.powermag.com 13GLOBAL MONITORintroduced by the process would have to exceed a minimum compressive tectonic stress to encourage an earthquake. If the hydrofracture pressures are lower, then no fractures should oc-cur, he said. Implications for Carbon SequestrationThe fracking-quake debate raises questions about whether geolog-ical carbon sequestrationstoring carbon dioxide by injecting it deep within geologic formationscould prompt quakes. Dr. Chris-tian Klose, a geophysical hazards research scientist from Columbia University, says it couldas much as any geological fluid injec-tion can. He told POWER in July that three processes could trigger seismic activity, large and small: pore fluid pressure changes; fluid mass (volume) changes, which can cause stress on the rock; and migration of the CO2 through the rock over decades to centuries. CO2 is buoyant since its density is [lower] than saline water deep in the crust, he said. Thus it will come upward through cracks and fractures and faultseven in so-called cap rocks are rock discontinuities that cause leakages.Klose said that the quake risk is intensified by hydrofracturing, a process that is recommended by the DOEs Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership to provide a better injection rate into rocks that have moderate porosity and low effective permeability. The recommendation comes as one of several les-sons learned from a sequestration field test at FirstEnergys R.E. Burger Plant near Shadyside, Ohio, in the Appalachian Basin.But, according to Traci Rodosta, a geological sequestration project manager for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, quake risk is well-assessed during research and development of any given project. Potential sequestration reservoirs are thor-oughly characterized prior injection, she told POWER. In order to eliminate and reduce the potential for fault activation and slippage along preexisting fractures that could be caused when injecting fluids at high pressures, regulatory agencies limit in-jection rates and pressure to avoid unintentional hydrofractur-ing. CO2 storage projects would operate under similar guidelines, and the risk managed through site characterization, injection design, and monitoring.Floating and Flying Wind TurbinesAfter months of preparation, Norways StatoilHydro and Germa-nys Siemens in June erected the worlds first large-scale floating deepwater wind turbine some 7 miles offshore Karmy, southeast Norway, on the 720-feet-deep waters of the Amoy Fjord. The de-velopers are now gearing up to connect the Hywind turbine to the local grid, and it could begin producing power as early as mid-July. Siemens provided the SWT2.3-MW wind turbine, which has a rotor diameter of about 270 feet and a nacelle that towers 213 feet above the waves (Figure 4). The company said that the Hy-wind was designed to be suitable for installation in water depths of between 390 feet and 2,300 feet, opening up new possibili-ties for offshore wind technologies. Currently relying on turbines mounted firmly on the seabed, offshore wind turbines are limited to shallow waters because it is costly to install foundations at water depths of more than 100 feet to 165 feet. The wind turbine sits atop a Spar-buoy, which is based on the design of oil production platforms and offshore loading buoys. The steel floaterwhich extends more than 330 feet be-neath the surfaceis filled with ballast and fastened to the sea-bed by three anchor wires. The control system for the turbine, a joint development between StatoilHydro and Siemens, addresses operating conditions of a floating structure, allowing it, for in-stance, to dampen out part of the wave-induced motions of the floating system. Offshore wind development has taken off around the worldespecially in Europe, where Denmark and the UK have taken the reins, installing a combined nameplate capacity of 1,103 MW. Including the Hywind in Norway, offshore projects have also been installed by Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland. France, Italy, Poland, and Spain, meanwhile, have plans to complete installations by 2015. The U.S.the country that leads the world in land-based in-stalled wind capacity, with 28,200 MW (as of April 2009)has yet to build its first offshore wind farm, though a number of projects are moving through the development process. Earlier this year, the industry received a boost when the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed to end a long-standing turf war that had hampered per-mitting and stalled renewable energy projects in offshore waters. This June, for the first time ever, the DOI issued five exploratory leases for wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore New Jersey and Delaware. The leases will allow companies to construct weather towers 6 to 18 miles offshore to collect data on wind speed, intensity, and direction. As some companies test new ways to make deepwater offshore wind power viable, several others are looking to pilot wind tech-nologies that harness jet streams so high in the sky that cruising airliners would have to steer around them. According to Stanford environmental and climate scientists Cristina Archer and Ken Calde-ira, winds in these high-altitude jet streams hold roughly 100 times more energy than all the electricity being consumed on Earth. If you tapped into 1% of the power in high-altitude winds, that would be enough to continuously power all civilization, Cal-deira said. In comparison, similar solar cells would cover roughly 100 times more area than a high-altitude wind turbine, he said.The researchers findings, published in the May issue of the journal Energies, were reached from analysis of 27 years of data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. By study-ing the distribution of wind power in the atmosphere, by location and time, they found that winds at altitudes around 32,000 feet have the highest wind power density. Some regionslike Tokyo 4. Floating an idea. Siemens and Statoil Hydro in June erected the worlds first large-scale floating deepwater wind turbine 7 miles offshore Karmy, southeast Norway, in waters that are 720 feet deep. The Siemens SWT2.3-MW turbine has a rotor diameter of about 270 feet and a nacelle that towers 213 feet above the waves. To keep it afloat, the Hywind turbine sits atop a buoybased on the design of oil production platforms and offshore loading buoysthat has been anchored to the seabed by three wires. The project could be connected to the local grid as early as mid-July. Courtesy: Siemens www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 14GLOBAL MONITORand Seoul, which are affected by the East Asian jet streamhad a higher power density. On the other hand, Mexico City and So Paolo, which are located at tropical latitudes, are rarely affected by polar and subtropical jet streams and therefore have lower wind power densities. Archer and Caldera claim that tethered wind-turbine kites are the most cost-competitive technologies to harness the energy from jet streamsthough these still have not overcome the chal-lenge of fluctuating wind, they note. While the winds at high altitude are much more consistent than the winds at the surface, theyre still not consistent enough, Caldeira said. Other hurdles include airliner interference, storage issues, and cost. Even so, the scientists point to several designs with potential, such as Sky WindPowers model, a single tethered kite of four connected turbines, each with spinning rotors (Figure 5). That kite transfers electricity back to a hub on the ground through its tether. Other models include the Kite Gen, an Italian project, which looks like an inverted carousel that pilots a kite or an array of kites over a predefined flight path. The kite is maneuvered by dif-ferentially unrolling and recovering the two lines on two winches controlled by engines. New Yorkbased Magenn Power takes a different approach with its Magenn Air Rotor System (MARS), floating a helium balloonlike turbine that rotates around a hori-zontal axis in response to winds at altitudes between 600 feet and 1,000 feet. Rotation of the MARS device is kept stable by the Magnus effect, which provides additional lift and keeps the MARS stabilized. Major Scottish Coal Plant Starts CCS Pilot ProgramEnergy provider ScottishPower on May 29 flicked on the switch of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) pilot program at its 2,304-MW coal-fired Longannet power plant, in Fife, Scotland, marking the beginning of a seven-month testand the first time a UK coal-fired power plant has reportedly attempted to capture its carbon emissions. The prototype, developed by Norwegian firm Aker Clean Car-bon, is an exact, 1-MW replica of the full-scale carbon capture plant (Figure 6). It will use Aker Clean Carbons postcombus-tion capture process, which employs an amine solvent to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas. If successful, ScottishPower could use the technology to scale up the prototype and deliver a full National Steel Erection, Inc.NSE is a Full-Service Mechanical Contractor devoted to providing Quality Fabrication and Erection Services to the Power & Heavy Industrial Markets!1115 Industrial DriveOwensboro, KY 42301Ph (270) 926-2534Fax (270) 683-1960Info@NationalSteelErection.comNSEQual i t y, Safet y & Pr i de. . .Throughout t he U. S. A.5. Taking to the sky. A study by Stanford researchers concludes that sky-high winds at altitudes around 32,000 feet have the highest wind power density, and that tapping just 1% of the power of these winds would be enough to power all civilization. Several prototypes of turbines that seek to harness the energy in high-altitude winds have been proposed. An example is Sky WindPowers model, a single teth-ered kite of four connected turbines, each with spinning rotors. Cour-tesy: Ben Shepard, Sky WindPower6. A carbon footprint. ScottishPower in May switched on the UKs first reported 1-MW prototype of a full-scale carbon capture plant at its 40-year-old Longannet coal-fired power station in Fife, Scotland. The prototype employs Norwegian firm Aker Clean Carbons postcom-bustion amine solvent process. If ScottishPower wins a government carbon capture and storage competition, it could receive 1 billion to fund the project and deliver a full demonstration project by 2014. Cour-tesy: ScottishPower CIRCLE 11 ON READER SERVICE CARDAugust 2009 | POWER www.powermag.com 15GLOBAL MONITORCCS demonstration project by 2014a ti-mescale that aligns perfectly with the UK governments plans. But ScottishPower has yet to gain the UK governments backing for the project. The company is in competition with two other contendersE.ON and Peel Powerin a government contest, whose winner would secure 1 billion in funding for a postcombustion technology that captures 90% of emitted greenhouse gases at a 300-MW to 400-MW coal-fired unit. E.ON in June opted for Mitsubishi Heavy Indus-tries KM-CDR process, which uses a pro-prietary solvent (KS-1) for CO2 absorption and desorption. If E.ON wins, it said it would use that technology to build a capture plant at its proposedand highly controversial1-,600-MW supercritical pressure coal plant proposed for the Kingsnorth Station in Kent. Peel Power, meanwhile, has joined forces with Denmarks DONG Energy and Germanys RWE to build a facilitythough its scope has not been described yet. The government is expected to announce the winner this summer. Akers prototype at Longannet weighs 30 metric tons, covers an area of 85 square meters (m), and is said to process 1,000 m3 of exhaust gases per hour. The two companies will now test the technology to determine how much heat is required to break the bond between CO2 and the amine, and how long the capture chemical can keep capturing CO2 effectively. They also plan to test three different amine so-lutions over seven months. Aker, whose technology is also in use at the Mongstad project in Norway, said in a release in May that early results from tests at a gas power plant show a capture rate above 85%, and that the amines had successfully demonstrated lower energy requirements and less degradation. European Interest in Saharan Solar Project Heats UpPlans to install a series of solar panel farms in the Sahara Desert to power Eu-rope and North Africa are heating up. The idea was discussed in May as part of the newly formed Mediterranean Union, launched at a summit in Paris, and it now has the backing of both UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nico-las Sarcozy. More recently, Germanys Wuppertal In-stitute for Climate, Environment and En-ergy and the Club of Rome issued a study that said the project could generate some 2 trillion worth of power through 2050. And this July it received yet another ma-jor boost, with 12 companies congregat-ing at the request of German insurance firm Munich Re and formally agreeing to analyze and develop a multidimensional framework for the 400 billion project. The Desertec Industrial Initiative, as the 12-company coalition is now called, in-cludes European giants Deutsche Bank, Siemens, ABB, and utilities E.ON, RWE, and Abengoa Solar. At the heart of the ambitious Desertec project is the goal to establish 6,500 square miles of concentrated solar pow-er plants in the vast African and Middle Eastern deserts, along with a super-grid of high-voltage transmission lines, to sup-ply countries in Europe and Africa with electricity. The project could supply conti-nental Europe with up to 15% of its total energy needsproducing a stunning 20 GW of power by 2020, as Guenter Gloser, Germanys deputy foreign minister, told Reuters in June. The first possible power station would be a 2-GW solar thermal power station in Tunisia with power lines to Italy, a project that would take five years to build.According to the Desertec Foundation, satellite studies conducted by the Ger-man Aerospace Center show that by using less than 0.3% of the entire desert of the Middle East/North Africa region, enough electricity and desalinated seawater can be produced to meet the growing needs of these countries and of Europe (Figure 7). The German Aerospace Center also assumes that in 10 to 15 years, electric-ity from solar power plants will be able to compete with medium-load electricity from fossil power plantsBut not everyone is convinced that the project is feasible. Vattenfall prefers not to support the undertaking, because it costs too much money and transmission costs are too high, as the Swedish state-owned utilitys CEO Lars Josefsson told the Financial Times in June. I dont think its realistic, he said, adding that securing Europes future energy needs should be focused on developing carbon capture and storage technology for coal-fired power plants. Even Munich Rewhich spurred a me-dia frenzy about the project by publicly inviting Europes energy giants to discuss the projectrecognizes the cost obstacle. The insurer said recently in a statement that, despite the use of known technolo-gies, implementation of such a visionary concept will require substantial initial financing. Therefore, DESERTEC can prob-ably only be put into practice if suitable incentivisation mechanisms are in place to make such investments worthwhile for investors.Other critics have expressed concerns about becoming energy dependent on po-7. Built on sand. Several European countries are backing an ambitious project that seeks to establish 6,500 square miles of concentrated solar power plants and a super-grid of high-voltage transmission lines in the vast deserts of North Africa and in the Middle East, saying that they could power 15% of Europes energy needs by 2050. The project got a major boost this July, when 12 major European companies agreed to study and devleop the 400 billion project. Courtesy: Desertec Foundation www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 16GLOBAL MONITORlitically unstable North African countries in the Sahara and about the concept of centralized transmission lines, which could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Project proponents counter by saying that the EU already imports energy from regions and sources that are not risk free. Turning Sewage Sludge into Renewable EnergyNews has been emerging from around the world about several projects that seek to turn human sewagearguably the dirtiest of manmade wastesinto clean energy. This June, Atlanta start-up EnerTech Environmental unveiled the first U.S. commercial biosolids-to-energy facility in Rialto, Calif. (Figure 8). The $160 million facility employs SlurryCarb technology, us-ing heat and pressure to transform sewage sludge80% of which is waterfrom five Southern California municipalities into fuel pellets to be burned at local cement kilns. Currently, the plant operates at 60% capacity. At full capacity, it will be able to process 270,000 wet tons of biosolids. The so-called E-fuel is 95% solid and interchangeable with coal, the company said. SlurryCarb can also treat animal manure, lumber and paper wastes, and agricultural wastes. The technology was developed from demonstration plants pro-cessing municipal solid waste in Ube City, Japan, and a demonstration plant in At-lanta, which can process 1.6 tons of sludge per day. The company is now looking at building a similar plant in New York, but it expects thatespecially because some 7 million tons of biosolids are produced in the U.S. each yearmunicipalities across the nation will show interest in the renew-able fuel. Across the pond in the UK, mean-while, United Utilities teamed up with grid operator National Grid to produce biogas from wastewater sludge at one of the UKs largest wastewater treatment plants at Davyhulme in Manchester, using anaerobic digestion. The biogas is then upgraded to biomethane, compressed, and injected into the local gas pipe-line network or used as fuel for a fleet of sludge tankers. The 4.3 million pilot plantwhich United Utilities describes as a poo power projecthas been in development for some time, but it only recently received funding from the coun-trys environment department. The plant should be operational by 2011. Few Manchester residents are raising a stink about the governments determina-tion to put its money in the toilet, be-cause the pilot project has been touted as a renewable project that will help the country meets its target of 15% renewables by 2020. United Utilities also stresses that sewage treatment is a 24-hour process that provides an endless supply of biogas. National Grid, too, is confident that there should be no fundamental technical dif-ficulties in injecting biomethane into the gas distribution network. Several plants in Europe have already demonstrated it can be done, it said. POWER DigestNews items of interest to power industry professionals.Worley Parsons to Consult with Gov-ernments for New Nukes in Egypt, Ar-menia. WorleyParsons said on June 19 that it had signed separate contracts to provide consultancy services to the Egyp-tian Nuclear Power Plant Authority and the Ministry of Energy and Natural Re-sources of the Republic of Armenia for new nuclear projects in those countries. The companys EGP 900 million (US$160 million) contract with the Egyptian gov-ernment includes site and technology selection studies for that countrys first nuclear power plant, as well as design, construction management, commission-ing, and start-up. Execution of the eight-year project will be carried out from the companys office in Sofia, Bulgaria, and supported locally in Cairo. The scope of the $430 million contract signed with the Armenian government will be implemented in four phases, with the first two phases scheduled to begin in 2009. The major work during the first two phases includes development of a feasibil-ity study and then managing and assessing the tender process for strategic project in-vestors. The duration of these two phases is expected to be one year. Phases three and four require the company to organize and manage a tender, eventually recom-mend EPC contractors for selection, and then provide consulting services to the ministry during the design, construction, and project start-up. This contract will also be managed by WorleyParsons Sofia office. ABB Wins Order to Power Algerian Seawater Desalination Plant. Power and automation group ABB on June 22 announced it had won a $28 million contract from environmental solutions company Hyflux for a turnkey electri-cal solution to power the worlds larg-est membrane-based reverse osmosis seawater desalination plant. The Magtaa desalination plant is being constructed in the western Oran region of Algeria. It will have a designed capacity of 500,000 cubic meters per day of drinking water to serve about 5 million people. The project is part of the Algerian governments ef-fort to provide clean drinking water to its growing population. As part of the contract, ABB will set up a 220-kV outdoor substation to provide power to the facility and also supply prod-ucts such as power transformers, medium-voltage drives and a range of medium- and low-voltage switchgear. ABB will be re-8. Greenif not cleanenergy. Atlanta start-up EnerTech Environmental this June unveiled the first U.S. commercial biosolids-to-energy facility in Rialto, Calif. The facility turns sewage sludge80% of which is waterfrom five Southern California municipalities into fuel pellets that will be burned in local cement kilns. The so-called E-fuel is 95% solid and inter-changeable with coal, the company said. Courtesy: EnerTech Environmental August 2009 | POWER www.powermag.com 17GLOBAL MONITORsponsible for the design, engineering, supply, installation, and commissioning of the electrical plant system. The project is scheduled for completion by 2011. AREVA T&D Inaugurates GI Substa-tion Factories in China. AREVA Trans-mission and Distribution (T&D) and Chinese partners on June 18 inaugurated two factories in Wuxi and Yangzhou, in Jiangsu province, that will manufacture key components for gas-insulated (GI) substations in China and throughout the world. The Wuxi Alumin Casting Plant is a joint venture between AREVA and Wuxi Alumin Casting, and the AREVA T&D (Yangzhou) High Voltage Bus-ducts Plant is a joint venture between AREVA and Jiangsu Jinxin Electric Appliance. The products of both factories will be used in AREVA T&Ds production plants and substations in China and throughout the world. The investments, which total some 30 million, follow similar ventures by the company in Suzhou and Xiamen. Those factories manufacture complete GI sub-stations (GIS) up to 550 kV. Since 1988, when AREVA installed the first GIS in China, it has installed more than 1,500 GIS and inaugurated seven GIS manufac-turing sites worldwide. Chilean Supreme Court Revokes Per-mit for AES-Proposed Coal Plant. The Su-preme Court of Chile on June 22 upheld a ruling by a lower court and invalidated an environmental permit granted by Chilean regulatory authorities for the Campiche thermal power plant, a 270-MW coal plant located in Ventanas, Chile. Virginia-based AES Corp. indirectly owns a 71% interest in Campiche through its subsidiary AES Gener, the second-largest generator of electricity in Chile. The Supreme Court upheld the Valparaiso Appeals Court ruling that the environment commission for the region had awarded the permit erroneously in May 2008, as the land where the plant was to be built had been designated for conservation. As a re-sult of the Supreme Courts ruling against the local permitting authority, Gener stopped work on Campiche, which was pre-viously expected to commence commercial operations in the second quarter of 2011. The company said that construction on the project would resume when a solution has been implemented that complies with all applicable laws. GE to Provide Equipment, Services for Bahrains Largest Power Plant. GE Energy on June 11 signed contracts to-taling more than $500 million to supply two steam turbines and four heavy-duty Frame 9FA gas turbines for the proposed 1,250-MW Al Dur Independent Water and Power Projectthe largest power plant in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The plant is expected to support the countrys report-ed power demand growth rate of 7% to 10% per year. GE also signed a 20-year contractual service agreement contract for the project, which will support the long-term operability and performance of the turbines. By Sonal Patel, senior writer, and Gail Reitenbach, managing editor. CorrectionThe June editorial (Gone with the Wind, p. 6) incorrectly quoted an es-timate of the installed cost for offshore wind turbines. The estimate is actually $5,000/kW.POWER regrets the error.CIRCLE 12 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 18FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&MFOCUS ON O&MSTEAM TURBINESManaging Minimum LoadReducing the minimum load at which a steam turbine can reli-ably operate is one way to increase revenue for marginal base-loaded units during periods of low electrical demand. For this reason, it is not unusual to see merchant plants operating at super minimum load levels that are well below the typical 25% rated full-load limits. However, such units are operating well outside the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) design basis, and owners may experience undesirable damage to their turbines for a number of reasons. Thats why it is important for owners to understand the trade-offs and risks that come with such operation. The following is an overview of the main steam turbine and generator issues that must be considered before deciding to operate a steam turbine generator below OEM minimum load limits.Anticipate Increased HP-IP Rotor VibrationUnits with partial arc admission, where the lower arc valves open first, are more susceptible to increased vibration at re-duced minimum loads. This is due to unbalanced upward steam pressure forces that tend to lift the rotor and partially unload the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP-IP) bearings. Older units employing plain journal bearings may experience oil whip and related vibration at reduced bearing loads. Assum-ing that proper supervisory instrumentation exists, a load test can determine if this is a concern. The operator can perform a load test and perform bearing adjustments at the next outage to determine if minimum load can be reliably reduced. Proper bearing clearances and preloads may be sufficient to eliminate this concern. If adjustments to the bearings alone do not address oil whip concerns, the operator has two options: change the admission sequence such that the cover valves open first and convert to full arc admission, or retrofit the unit with tilt-pad bearings. A tilt pad retrofit to maintain stability and acceptable bearing vibration level is often the best option.Modern units usually already employ tilt pad bearings. How-ever, even with tilt pads, maintaining correct clearances and preloads is important to ensure sufficient damping. Adding tilt pad bearing preloads (Figure 1) normally addresses damping and subsynchronous stability concerns. Expect Higher Nozzle and Valve Erosion RatesAt super minimum loads, particles exfoliating from the boil-er are throttled at much higher velocities through the inlet 2. Nozzle block erosion. Minute solid material that is thrown off from the boiler is accelerated through the steam turbine nozzle valves and can increase erosion. The nozzle valves accelerate the steam much as a garden hose nozzle accelerates the velocity of wa-ter. This increased velocity increases the erosion on the valves and nozzle block. Courtesy: TG Advisers Inc.3. Nozzle block weld repairs. The HP nozzle block vanes may also experience increased particle erosion but can, under most circumstances, be weld-repaired and returned to service. Courtesy: TG Advisers Inc.1. Tilt pad bearing preload. Pad preload, m, is the amount of convergence and divergence that is built into the oil film through the pad geometry. If the pad surface is completely concentric with the shaft, the pad is said to have zero preload. Some shaft eccen-tricity is needed to create a converging oil film. By adding preload, the bearing load capacity and stiffness are usually increased, and the possibility of pad flutter is reduced because the top pads carry more load. Preload is accomplished by boring the arcs of the pads to a larger diameter than the clearance diameter. Typical preload val-ues range from 0.0 to 0.5, with the most common being about 0.3. Source: TG Advisers Inc.ShaftradiusBearingset radiusPad groundin radiusBearingclearanceRSRB CBRPm = 1 = 1 CpCb(Rb Rs)(Rp Rs)Shaft radius = 2.000 inBearing set radius = 2.003 inPad ground-in radius = 2.004 inExample:m = 1 = 0.252.003 2.0002.004 2.000To To To To To Toda da da da da d y y y y yss ss s po po po po po poowe wwww rrrrr pl pll plaan ann anttts t r rrrreq eq e ui uiire re re re re re aaadvanced air quality control technologies to meet present and future demands from aa ma mma ma mark rk rk rr et et ett ett ll llea ea eadee dee d r r th th th th tt at att at consi siiiisst stently delivers peak environmental performance and the lowest life-cycle cost.Ba Ba Baa Ba Babc bc bc bc bc bcoc oc oc occk k k Po Po Po PPPowe wwe wwe wer rrr r s s wo wo wo wo worl r d- d- dd- d-cl cl c as as ass ass SCR technology has already reached an industry pinnacle with over 38,000 MWs now op op op op op op o er er er er erat aat at at a in innnnng g gg at at attt iii iind nd nd nd nd nduus uss uu try- -le lee leeading levels in the USA.No No No No NN w w wwww we weeeeer r r r re eee ne ne ne ne near ar arr ar tt tthe he he he he ss ss sum um um um um ummmmi mm t on wet and dry SO2removall, , , have demonstrated that our FGD systems are carbon capture re re eeead ad add a y, y,, y, yy, a aa and nd nd nd c cccan an an ann aaaa ach ch ch chhie ie iee ieve ve l lleees eee s then 2 ppm SO2 while minimizing energy usage.We We We We We WWe o ooo ooff ff ff ff ff f er er err e mmm mm mul ul ul ulti tttt pl ppl plle e e e we we we we w ttt t sc sc sccru ru ru ru r bber desig gggns and have proven experience wi w th several absorber vessel ma ma ma ma m te te te te e terri ri rial al a s ss an an an annd d dd re re rre eag ag ag ag a en een en ents s. A AAAnd, when en en e spe eci c ed, d we produce wallboard quality gypsum to meet yo yo yo yo y ur urrrr rr rrreq eeqq equi ui uire re re re re reme me me me ment nt nt nts s s s fo fo fo fo orr al al alllllll ffu ffu uels.Th Th Th Th The e e e ee ne ne ne ne next xt xt xt tt ttim immmee e e yo yo yoo you u u ne ne ne neeeed ed e a aan n SSSO SS2 scrubber for your plant, join the worlds leading expedition - Ba Ba BBB bc bc bc bccoc oc oc oc ock kk k Po PPo Powe we we wer rrrrr En EEn En nvii vi vi viiro ro ro rro onm nm n en eeen eee ta tta aa t l. l For more information e-mail us at bpe@babcockpower.com.www.babcockpower.comCIRCLE 13 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 20FOCUS ON O&Mvalves. As a result, the rate of erosion is accelerated on the first few stages of stationary and rotating vanes, espe-cially on units with partial arc admission (Figures 2 and 3). Increased throttling also results in additional thermodynamic losses that affect heat rate. Treating the vanes with an erosion-resistant coating can mitigate nozzle block wear. A more permanent solution is to convert the unit to sliding pressure operation and/or redesign the nozzle block (first set of stationary vanes) to reduce impingement angles.Expect the Possibility of More Water Droplet ErosionBoiler temperature droop at lower loads typically occurs in both reheat and main steam conditions. Lower steam tempera-tures will increase moisture levels and also move the saturation line further up-stream (near the Wilson line) of the last stages of the low-pressure (LP) turbine. At the Wilson line, the state where the first liquid droplets appear, chlorides be-come concentrated and stress corrosion concerns are elevated (Figure 4). Running a test to optimize boiler op-eration and efficiency at minimum load is also an important part of a steam tur-bine generator operations assessment. Moving boiler burner tilts positive, and frequent sootblowing, can increase steam temperatures at low loads, although this often occurs at the expense of increased moisture in the last turbine stage (Fig-ure 5). Sliding pressure may also support lower moisture levels, if this capability exists. 4. LP salt solution line. The Wilson line is often the zone of first condensation in the LP steam turbine, where steam moisture is typically about 3% to 4%. Concentrated chloride solutions are often present. The salt solution zone is bordered by the saturation line (dashed line) on top and the Wilson line (the solid line) below the red area. Source: TG Advisers Inc.IP Inlet538CSaltsolutionzoneL-1RmeandiameterHubIP-LP expansion lineTip NormalPart loadPurewaterSaturationlineEntropyEnthalpyVISIT NANOSTEEL IN BOOTH #1806AT COAL-GEN 2009A New Level ofPower Plant ProtectionNANOSTEEL POWER SOLUTIONSA New Level ofPower Plant Protectionwww.NanoSteelco.com infopwr@NanoSteelco.comCall Toll Free 1-877-293-NANONanoSteel Solutions for Corrosion, Erosion and Wear ISO Compliant Quality Program Engineered Applications Job Site Material Test LabFind Out How NanoSteel Can Help You Reduce Forced Outages Increase Component Life Lower Maintenance CostsAPPLICATIONSMATERIALSINSPECTIONSCIRCLE 14 ON READER SERVICE CARDAugust 2009 | POWER www.powermag.com 21FOCUS ON O&MMonitor Heating of Exhaust Hood and Operation of SpraysAt low loads, significant flow losses on the last-stage blades result in increased blade heating. Hood temperatures usually are not problematic at super minimum loads, but they should be monitored, and spray capabilities should be verified be-fore testing.Watch Out for Last-Stage Blade Stall Flutter VibrationLP last-stage blade stall flutter poten-tial is greatest during conditions of low flow and high backpressure. Stall flutter occurs when flow separation at the base of the blade forces steam flow toward the tip. This can produce blade stall flutter vibrations and buffeting caused by flow instabilities. Longer blades with lower first-blade mode frequencies are gener-ally more susceptible than shorter, higher first-blade mode designs. Also, conditions of high stress can occur due to stall and blade buffeting vibration. This increased stress can be measured from strain gauge data because blade vibrations are not detected by tra-ditional bearing vibration-detection sys-tems. In many regions of the U.S., there are plants that have load limitations dur-ing summer periods because of higher-than-acceptable backpressures caused by inadequate condenser cooling. Unless this issue is addressed, low minimum load dur-ing high backpressure conditions (typical-ly over 4.5 inches Hg) should be avoided. Good operating practices such as frequent condenser tube and tube sheet cleaning can help provide additional margin at minimum loads. Control Differential ExpansionExhaust heating can create additional dif-ferential expansion between LP station-ary and rotating parts when first entering lower load conditions. Differential tem-perature distributions may also cause ro-tor axial growth. Differential temperatures in both rotating and stationary compo-nents should be carefully monitored dur-ing initial low-load testing and trended as a function of load and time.Analyze Casing and Rotor Low-Cycle Fatigue CrackingDuring low-load periods, boiler droop will cause temperatures to drop from nominal design conditions. This increases the fa-tigue effect of load swings from minimum to full load. Typically, the effect is minor, but depending on the amount of cycling, the cumulative effect can be casing and rotor cracking. Typical locations for low-cycle fatigue cracking include dia-phragm ledges, steam chest bridges, and ligaments between bolt holes. During a major outage, complete nondestructive examination should be made in these ar-eas and any detected cracks charted for length. In subsequent outages, the same procedure should be repeated to deter-mine the rate of propagation to support future repair decisions.5. Damaged last-stage blades. The turbines last stage of blades is particularly vulnerable to water droplet erosion damage. Courtesy: TG Advisers Inc.Our service stands out.Supply | Manufacture | Engineer | Install | ServiceCoal | Biomass | Mining | Cement | Ports | Petroleum CokePROUD MATERIAL HANDLING PROVIDER OF DALLMAN UNIT 4, POWER 2009 PLANT OF THE YEARwww.dmwcc.comCIRCLE 15 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 22FOCUS ON O&MManage Thrust TemperaturesAlthough it is unlikely, thrust imbalances may develop with excessive thrust bear-ing temperatures. Temperature monitor-ing is a way to assess this risk. Minimize Generator HeatingIts important to ensure that operation remains within the generator capability curve. Also monitor stator slot tempera-tures, hydrogen gas temperatures, and generator rotor vibration to make certain generator operation remains within the OEM specifications.Contributed by David Charlton, PE (david.charlton@tgadvisers.com), senior consultant for TG Advisers Inc.PUMPSPolymeric Solution for Pump CavitationCavitation is defined as the phenomenon of forming and imploding vapor bubbles in a region where the pressure of the liq-uid falls below its vapor pressure. Cavita-tion and the resultant damage can occur in any fluid-handling equipment, espe-cially in pumps. Technological advances in industrial protective coatings and composite repair materials have made it possible to repair pumps operating in a cavitating environment rather than sim-ply replacing them after damage occurs. Cavitation-resistant (CR) elastomers have the ability to retain adhesion under long-term immersion, dissipate energy created under high-intensity cavitation, and pro-vide outstanding resistance to corrosion and other forms of erosion.Cavitation is a serious problem for pumps. In simple terms, the main utility of a pump is to move a fluid from one location to another under sometimes very extreme conditions. The impeller vane is subject to pressure gradients, which cause bubbles to form and implode and strike the surface underneath. The resulting damage to the pumps internal working parts can cause loss of pump performance and even pump failure. The phase diagram of water in Figure 6 is a practical aid to understanding the theory behind cavitation. This diagram illustrates the three physical states of water at different values of tempera-ture and pressure. Water is most com-monly boiled by heating it at a constant pressure, as we do when boiling a pot of water on a stovetop (white arrow). As temperature increases at constant pres-sure, water remains in a liquid phase un-til it reaches the normal boiling point (100C at 1 atm). What is less intuitive is that water can also be boiled by dropping the pressure at a constant temperature (red arrow in Figure 6). This is exactly what occurs just behind the leading edge of a pump impel-ler vane. As water (or any other fluid) en-ters the pump, it is deflected by the vane. Above the leading edge of the vane, the fluid is compressed, creating a high local pressure area. Directly after the leading edge, theres a small area of decreased pressure. If this decrease in fluid pressure 7. How to damage a pump. A cavitating fluid can cause extensive damage to a pump impeller even during normal operation. The imploding pressure caused by cavitation has been recorded as high as 145,000,000 psi, which exceeds the elastic limit of any exotic alloy. These vapor bubbles are responsible for the mechanical damage found on pump impellers placed in any type of service that causes cavitation. Courtesy: Belzona Inc.High pressureCavitation damageLow pressureureCavitation damageure217.7Solid16.0 x 1030 100 374.4Normal meltingpointLiquidTriple point0.0098GasSupercriticaluidCritical pointNormal boilingpointTemperature (C)Pressure (atm)6. Two ways to boil water. The curves on the graph represent equilibrium states. The curve bordering the liquid and gas phases is referred to as a vaporization curve. At normal conditions of pressure and temperature, a fluid is at 1 atm (14.7 psi) and 25C (77F). The white arrow illustrates a typical heating process that occurs at atmospheric pressure. The red arrow illustrates that saturation temperature (hence, boiling) of a liquid can also occur by reducing the liquids pressure. Source: Belzona Inc.GE EnergyCleaner burning coal technology is here, and innovation from GE Energy is playing a leading role. IGCC offers a power solution that taps the globes abundant coal supply, while reducing emissions and enabling carbon capture retrot. The largest cleaner coal facility in the world, Duke Energys 630MW IGCC Edwardsport, Indiana, power plant ( now under construction), is advancing the evolution of proven IGCC technology to the next stage.GE Energys commitment to sustainable solutions is helping to transform coal into a star attraction. Visit us at ge-energy.com/gasication to nd out more. NOW SHOWINGCIRCLE 29 ON READER SERVICE CARD www.powermag.com POWER |August 2009 24FOCUS ON O&Mmoves below the vaporization curve at constant temperature, the fluid will begin to boil, and vapor bubbles will form in the fluid. Behind this low-pressure area there is another high-pressure region. As the vapor bubbles entrained in the fluid move into this high-pressure region, they condense and collapse violently against the surface of the impeller vane. This rap-id production of vapor bubbles, followed by their violent collapse, is described as cavitation (Figure 7).One Solution: Upgrade MaterialsThe easiest solution to problems caused by pump impellers suffering from cavi-tation lies in finding a material that can withstand the high pressures expe-rienced during cavitation. At the same time, this material must endure harsh environments and be machinable. Un-fortunately, there isnt a single alloy available that meets these strict require-ments that is also cost-effective. Most users must settle with either replacing the pump impeller at routine intervals or protecting it with a sacrificial material that is readily available, easy to use, and cost-effective.A new CR elastomer that can bond to virtually any substrate, including steel, was formulated as a more cost-effective solution. Provided the surface is ad-equately prepared, adhesion strengths of over 3,200 kg/m can be achieved. Combining elastomeric properties and great adhesive strength, the material can withstand full immersion and a harsh working environment. More importantly, the materials flexible nature gives it the ability to dissipate the enormous energy involved in cavitation as well as in other erosion processes.CR fluid elastomer coatings on pumps have been in service for a number of years. In one particular case, the sides and the trailing surfaces of a large impel-ler had suffered from cavitation and sig-nificant metal loss (Figure 8) when a CR elastomer was applied by an authorized coating applicator. The multi-step application process follows:Grit-blast all the surfaces to be coated 1. using an angular abrasive to NACE No.2 (Near White Metal) to a minimum 3 mil (75 m) angular profile.Thoroughly wash all surfaces with a 2. recommended cleaner degreaser to remove residual blasting debris and contaminants.Mask off the outer edges of the areas 3. to be coated to give a neat and clean finish.If necessary, weld-repair damaged ar- 4. eas or cut out a large section of the impeller and weld in a new plate. Re-build the substrate to factory specifica-tions using an extended-working-life, paste-grade polymer from a reputable manufacturer. Apply an efficiency-improving, abra- 5. sion-resistant polymeric coating using stiff, short bristled brushes to a maxi-mum wet thickness of 10 mil (250 m) to protect the freshly rebuilt substrate. Two coats of this material are required to ensure that voids are eliminated. This coating is used to prevent the effect of erosion and corrosion under cavitating conditions. Apply a CR coating to the entire impel- 6. ler (Figure 9). Allow all the coated surfaces to cure, 7. and then inspect the coating for conti-nuity of coverage.Reassemble the pump and put it back 8. into service.Contributed by Glenn Machado (gmachado@belzona.com), a technical service engineer for Belzona Inc.9. Well-dressed impeller. A cavitation-resistant elastomer coating was applied to this pump impeller