LATEST TECHNOLOGIES

SUPERCRITICAL & IGCC

Presented By
M.V.Pande
Dy.Director
NPTI, Nagpur

Boilers Technologies
Type

Main steam
pressure,
bar

Main steam Reheat steam

temperature, temperature,
oC
oC

Base sub critical

166

538

538

Super critical

247

538

565

270

585

600

295

595

600

285

600

620

375

700

720/720

Ultra super critical

( Up-coming)

Heat Rate Improvement Vs. Steam

Conditions

ALSTOM

Cycle Efficiency Vs Steam

Parameters

BHEL

Net Plant Efficiency of Different Power

Generation Systems

Cycle Efficiency & Heat Rate

Plant Heat Rate =

Heat Supplied in Boiler ( Kcal/h)

Plant Efficiency =

Gross Generator Output (kW)

860
Plant Heat Rate

Kcal/kWh

X 100 %

1% Efficiency Improvement = 45 Kcal/kWh reduction in Heat Rate

CO2 Reduction Vs. Plant Heat Rate

Babcock & Wilcox

Effects of Co-firing

1200

100% coal

CO 2 em ission (g/kW h)

1100
1000

10% biomass

900

20% biomass

800
700

100% nat.gas

600
500
400
300
25

30

35

40

45

Net efficiency (%)

50

55

60

Background
- Conventional coal fired power plants in developing
countries have efficiency of about 32% (on LHV basis)
- Supercritical steam parameters results in higher
efficiencies above 40%
- Supercritical (SC) and ultra -supercritical (USC)
power plants require less coal per megawatt-hour,
leading to lower emissions per megawatt (including
carbon dioxide and mercury), and lower fuel costs per
MW

Benefits of Advanced Supercritical Power

Plants

Reduced fuel costs due to improved plant efficiency

Significant reduction in CO2 emissions
Much reduced NOx, SOx and particulate emissions
Excellent availability, comparable with that of an existing
sub-critical plant
Plant costs comparable with sub-critical technology and
less than other clean coal technologies
Compatible with biomass co-firing
Can be fully integrated with appropriate CO2 capture
technology

Typical Schematic Diagram of Supercritical Plant

Present Status
- At present, there are more than 500 supercritical power plants in
operation across the World supplying 300 GW of electricity. Most of these
plants are concentrated in USA, Russia, and former Eastern block
countries. China is proposing to add 100,000 MW of supercritical power
plant to the present installed capacity of 300000 MW (year 2006).
- Early experience with supercritical plants in the US indicated that they had
poor availability i.e. forced outages were greater than with subcritical
plants. However, experience that takes account of plant performance in
Japan and Europe as well as in China and South Africa shows that these
plants are just as reliable as subcritical plants. This improvement is due to
usage of superior materials and better welding technology. Worldwide,
more than 500 supercritical plants are in operation.

Typical Feed Water Quality for Supercritical

Boiler

As blowdown is not available to remove impurities

from the system, makeup water quality shall be as
followsTotal solids

50 ppb max.

Total iron

10 ppb max.

Total copper

10 ppb max.

Total silica

20 ppb max.

Oxygen

5 ppb max.

Hydrazine

10

20
residual.

pH

8.8 9.2

ppb

Also a portion of the condensate must be purified in

the Condensate Polishing Unit.

Installation of Supercritical Units in

India
At present, in India super critical technology plants are planned in a big
way. Several of them are under execution and in pipeline.
i) NTPC adopted Super Critical Technology (3 x 665 MW)
in Sipat Super Thermal Power Plant, Chattisgarh for the
first time in India.
Schedule commissioning date:i) for unit-1 on April 2008,
ii) for unit-II on February 2009,
iii) for unit III on December 2009.
ii) NTPC also installing 3 x 660 MW Barh Super Thermal
Power Plant in Bihar and 3 x 660 MW North Karanpura
Super Thermal Power Plant in Jharkhand.

Efficiency Improvement

Ultra-Supercritical: The Next Step

375/700/720/720

D P. &
E
AS T EM
E
CR A M U R E
N
I
E S
ST ES
PR 280/600/620

subcritic
al

supercritical
240/540/565 (bar/C/C)

167/540/540

Mature technology

50s

R&D ongoing

USA USC Mat

Consortium
&
EC Thermie
project
280/580/600
(Ni-base)
Market intro.
250/565/585
by ALSTOM & others
R&D ongoing
Current (COST/DOE)
market in Europe and US
commercial
280/630/650

Mature technology

60s

70s

80s

90s

00s

Cost Effective Materials are

10s

Steaming Capacity, Pressure and Temperature for

800 MW Supercritical Coal Fired Power Plant
Superheated Steam
Steaming Capacity

: 696 kg/s

Pressure

: 25.34 MPa (g)

Temprature

: 538 deg. C

Reheated Steam
Steaming Capacity

: 604 kg/s

Pressure

: 4.44 MPa (g)

Temprature

: 538 deg. C

Feed Water
Economizer Inlet Temperature

: 262 deg. C

Efficiency of Hard Coal fired Power Plants vs Site

48.50%

non-market orientated
technological optimized plant
(costal side)

Net Efficiency

48.00%
47.50%
47.00%
46.50%
46.00%
45.50%

market orientated
optimised plant
(costal side)

market orientated
optimised plant
(non-costal side)

Market - Orientated Optimized Power Plant Design

Reference Power Plant North Rhine-Westphalia

Plant capacity:

600.0 MW

Net capacity:

555.5 MW

Net efficiency:

45.9 % (NCV basis)

Costs of plant:

478.5 Mio. Euro

Specific costs:

798 Euro/kWbrutto

Cost of electricity:

3.3 - 3.5 ct/kWh

Type of boiler:

Benson

Live steam condition:

285bar/600C/620C

Condenser pressure:

45 mbar

Preheater:

8 preheater + external cooler

Comparison of Different Boiler Concepts

Floor space: 2 975 m

Floor space: 4 164 m

Floor space: 4 600 m

Volume: 166 000 m3

Volume:

Volume :

Efficiency:

Efficiency:

95%

197 000 m3
95%

Efficiency:

209 000 m3
95%

Design Data Turboset

Design Criteria HP-Turbine

HP Turbine Materials
9-10%Cr-Steel
1%Cr-Steel

10%Cr-Steel

Design Criteria IP-Turbine

IP Turbine Materials
GGG40.3
9-10%Cr-Steel

10%Cr-Steel

Design Criteria LP-Turbine

LP Turbine Features
Design features 16 m

Rotor diameter
Blade length
Velocity at blade end
Mach -number
Blade connection
Exit losses

- last stage blade

~ 1900 mm
1400 mm (55)
750 m/s (~ Ma = 2.0)
Supersonic at blade end
Shroud & snubber
3D effects

Layout Detailed View

Detailed View Turbine Building

AD 700 Project
The purpose of the project is to prepare, develop
and demonstrate the next generation of pulverised
coal-fired power plants featuring advanced steam
data (700/720C, 375 bar).
Resulting in efficiencies in the range of 52-55%,
fuel savings and CO2 emission reductions of up to
15% compared with the best available technology
(BAT) of today.
BAT year 2000: Approx. 600C, 290 bar, 47%

AD 700+Emax. Time Schedule

Phase Description

1A

Conceptual feasibility

1B

Material property demonstration

2A

Basic design for Phase 3

2B

Material property demonstration

Full Scale Test Facility (FSTF)

3A

Contracts

3B

Engineering & procurement

3C

Construction

3D

Operation of FSTF & feedback to Partners

Emax. First-of-its-kind commercial

plant

4A

Planning and procurement

4B

Construction & commissioning

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

AD 700 Results in phase-1 (1998-2003)

Materials identified
Materials test in progress
Thermodynamical cycle agreed upon
Feasibility study shows competitiveness
New boiler concepts, which reduces the
amount of superalloys

AD 700 Goals in phase-2 (2002-2005)

Design and test of critical components
Further study of innovative designs to reduce
the amount of superalloys
Concept for a test facility
Business plans for a commercial plant

The AD 700 cycle- Sigle Reheat

720C

350 bar
700C
HP

A8

A6

LP

IP

A5

A2

A4

A3

A1

40 mbar
ECO
350C

A7

Efficiency 50-51%
Net Net
Efficiency
50-51%
(LCV)

AD700 Double Reheat

M.S.

R.H.-1, 720C

R.H.-2, 720 C
350C

375bar
700C

Schematic of Master Cycle with double reheat

Coupling of Test Facility with Existing Unit

Gas

Component Test Area

Existing Cycle
Isolating Valves
Test Cycle
Heat Control Cycle

Compact design. Twin Tower Boiler. Alstom

Compact Design HF Boiler by Siemens

Creep Strength and Targets

Creep Strength of Materials for Steam Piping at 600C

12% Cr Steel - X20 :
59 N/mm2
9% Cr Steel - P92
: 123 N/mm2
Super Alloy Estimate: > 300 N/mm2
Targets for the Joint European Advanced 700C Project
Martensitic Steel: 100 N/mm2 at 650C
Austenitic Steel : 100 N/mm2 at 700C
Super Alloys
: 100 N/mm2 at 750C

NI-based materials for AD 700

Element

Ni

Cr

Co

Mo

Other

625

63,5

21,5

617

52

22

12

9,5

4,5

C263

51

20

20

740

50

24

20

Material

Wall Thickness

Wall Thickness of Three Live Steam Pipes.

Output 400 MW and 2 Steam Lines in Parallel

Esbjerg 3

Nordjylland 3

ADV 700

250bar/560/560 C

290bar/580/580/580 C

375bar/700/720/720 C

Inner
Diameter =
255 mm

Inner
Diameter =
230 mm

X20CrMoV121

P91
WT = 60 mm

WT = 58 mm

Inner
Diameter =
175 mm

Super Alloy
WT = 42 mm

Pathway to USC 700C Power Plant

Status 700 C Technology

AD 700 phase I and II (FP5)

strategy study (VGB member)
Start in
COMTES 700 (RFCS)
PP 700 Pre-Engineering (EU Reg. Fund)
Demo Plant > 400 MWel
Commerciality

1998
2002
2004
2006
2008
2014+

COMTES700 Material Concept

Evaporator

Alloy 617

P 92

Outlet

HCM 12

43 x 48 =
2,046 mm

7 CrMoVTiB 10 10/T 24

44 parallel tubes

Inlet

8,800 mm
VGB Power Tech

13 CrMo44

Boiler Design - NRWPP700 Boundary

Design
Conditions
500 MW (gross)
BMCR
Single Reheat (365 bar / 705 C / 720 C)
Tower Type Boiler / Tangential Firing
Design coal
Reheater temperature control
Average flue gas velocity
Tube pitch
Furnace outlet temperature
Flue gas temperature before APH
Exhaust gas temperature
Temperature of the air (ambient)

Hu = 25 MJ/kg
Tilting burners
< 13 m/s
110 440 mm
1250 C
Approx. 380 C
115 C
25 C

NRWPP700 Boiler Rated Design Data

Steam flow superheater outlet
Steam pressure superheater outlet
Steam temperature superheater outlet
Feedwater temperature
Reheater inlet steam flow
Reheater inlet steam pressure
Reheater outlet steam temperature
Reheater inlet steam temperature
Reheater spray mass flow
Thermal output
Design coal Bituminous coal
Excess air furnace exit
Firing capacity
Furnace exit temperature
Flue gas temperature downstream economizer
Flue gas temperature downstream airheater
Maximum flue gas velocity in convective heating
surfaces

325 kg/s (1170 t/h)

365 bar
705 C
330 C
252,5 kg/s (909 t/h)
73 bar
720 C
425 C
0 kg/s
909 MW
25 MJ/kg
17 %
953 MW
1250 C
380 C
115 C
9.3 m/s

I.G.C.C. Technology

IGCC Process

IGCC is a process in which a low-value fuel such as

coal, petroleum coke, biomass or municipal waste is
converted to low heating value, high-hydrogen gas in a
process called gasification.The gas is then used as the
primary fuel for a gas turbine.
IGCC can also be viewed as the two-stage
combustion of an opportunity feedstock. First, the
feedstock is partially combusted in a reactor or gasifier.
Then the combustion is completed in the gas turbine.

IGCC Process

2C + O2= 2CO
C + H2O = CO + H2

Typical Operating Cycle of IGCC Plant

Page 48

Gasification

Cryogenic Air Separation

A cryogenic air separation unit provides pure oxygen to the
gasification reactor, often using or supplemented with post
compression air bleed from the gas turbine.
Gasification in Reactor
The most common technique partially oxidizes the feedstock
with pure oxygen inside a reactor. The carbon and hydrogen
from the feedstock are converted into a mixture composed
primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This mixture is
commonly called synthetic gas, or syngas. Syngas has a
heating value of 1000 to 1100 kCal/Nm3, which is three to eight
times lower than that of natural gas.

Syngas Cleanup

The syngas from the reactor must be cleaned before it can

be used as a gas turbine fuel. The cleanup process typically
involves removing sulphur compounds, ammonia, metals,
alkalytes, ash and particulates to meet the gas turbine's fuel
gas specifications.
To make IGCC more economically attractive, marketable
products such as methanol, ammonia, fertilizers and other
chemicals from the compounds you remove from the syngas.
This process often further reduces the hydrogen content and
therefore the heating value of the syngas

Power Block

The clean gas is then fed to the combined cycle power

plant. Combined cycle power plant consists of a
combustion turbine/generator, a heat recovery steam
generator, and a steam turbine/generator. The exhaust
heat from the combustion turbine is recovered in the
heat recovery steam generator to produce steam. This
steam then passes through a steam turbine to power
another generator, which produces more electricity.
Combined cycle is more efficient than conventional
power generating systems because it re-uses waste
heat to produce more electricity

Characteristics of Different Gasifier Types

Gasifier Type
Temperature
Oxidant
demand
Ash conditions
Size of coal
feed
Acceptability
of fines
Other
Characteristic

Fixed Bed
425-600 (C)
Low
Dry ash or
Slagging
6-50 mm
Limited
Methane, tar,
And oils
present
in syngas

Fluidized Bed

Entrained Flow

900-1050 (C)

1250-1600 (C)

Moderate
Dry ash or
Agglomerating
6-10 mm
Good
Low carbon
conversion

High
Slagging
< 0,1 mm
Unlimited
Pure syngas; high
carbon conversion

Benefits of IGCC

- Gasification can proceed from any organic material,

including biomass and plastic waste. The resulting syngas
burns cleanly into water vapor and carbon dioxide.
Alternatively, syngas may be converted efficiently to
methane.
- Inorganic components of the input material, such as metals
and minerals, are trapped in an inert and environmentally
safe form as ash, which may have use as a fertilizer.
- IGCC offers thermodynamically favorable conditions of high
pressure, high concentration of contaminants and low
volumetric flows of syngas as little as 1/100 of combustion
products.

Page 53

Benefits of IGCC

- Integrated gasification combined -cycle (IGCC) systems

are among the cleanest and most efficient of the emerging
clean coal technologies.
- Biomass gasification could play a significant role in a
renewable energy economy, because biomass production
removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Gasification runs on a
wider variety of input materials, can be used to produce a
wider variety of output fuels, and is an extremely efficient
method of extracting energy from biomass.

Page 54

Benefits of IGCC

- Very low air pollutant emissions

- Proven CO2 capture process
- Fuel flexibility
- Lower water use and solid waste production
- Can be integrated into polygeneration facilities

Page 55

Why consider IGCC?

Technology: IGCC technology produces air emissions that are
already considerably lower than required by current Clean Air
standards. Significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) are possible, making IGCC
plants more advantageous than conventional coal power plants.
Carbon dioxide reduction: Carbon dioxide (CO2), considered a
major source of global warming, could be captured more
economically with IGCC than with conventional technologies. The
CO2 could be sequestered or sold in part as a by-product.
Efficiency: Overall efficiency is approximately 40 to 45 percent of
the energy value of coal converted to electricity. In comparison,
conventional coal plants are approximately 30 to 35 percent efficient.
Page 56

Why consider IGCC?

Water requirements: Water requirements are

typically about 50 percent less for IGCC applications
than for conventional coal generation.
By-products: Marketable by-products from the
IGCC process can be sold, such as sulfur.

Page 57

What are the risks?

Cost: IGCC facilities are more expensive to build than

conventional coal plants. Only recently have suppliers begun
to emerge that can offer comprehensive, integrated designs
with packaged systems and compatible equipment. Due to the
industrys limited experience with the technology, truly accurate
cost estimates for construction and operating costs are not yet
available for use in planning future facilities.
Maintenance: IGCC technology requires more frequent
maintenance with longer maintenance outages, requiring that
power be purchased from other resources when the IGCC
plant is unavailable.

What are the risks?

Performance guarantees: The industry is encouraging

suppliers to offer performance contracts for next-generation
IGCC plants, but for now, the risk of reduced reliability and
availability add significant cost to the projects financing.
Unproven fuel experience: Neither of the U.S.-based
IGCC projects has used Powder River Basin, or western,
coal, which is the type used most frequently in the Midwest.

Conclusion

No simple solution, we need all options:

energy saving

increase of efficiency

more renewable energy

more nuclear power

efficient coal and gas power plants

Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS)

consistent global climate policy

Page 60