SBI Capital For Super Critical

Consultants Technical Consultant
SBIINDI
Report Submitted to
SBI Capital Markets Limited
6 x 660 MW (Net)
Hirma Power Project
Technology Characterization Study
August 2000
11401 Lamar, Overland Park, Kansas, 66211, USA (913) 458-2000

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Executive Summary .....................................................................................1-1
Chapter 2 Introduction .................................................................................................2-1
Chapter 3 Pulverized Coal Technology ........................................................................3-1

Definition of Subcritical and Supercritical ..............................................................3-1
Advances in Supercritical Technology....................................................................3-1
First and Second Generation Supercritical Units ...............................................3-1
Current Supercritical Designs ...........................................................................3-2
Supercritical Steam Experience List .......................................................................3-7
Chapter 4 Plant Descriptions ........................................................................................4-1

General Description................................................................................................4-1
General Equipment.................................................................................................4-3
Steam Generator. ..............................................................................................4-3
Steam Turbine. .................................................................................................4-3
Feedwater System.............................................................................................4-4
Combustion Air System....................................................................................4-4
Compressed Air Systems. .................................................................................4-5
Service Air System. ..........................................................................................4-5
Auxiliary Cooling Water System. .....................................................................4-5
Chemical Feed System......................................................................................4-5
Condensate System...........................................................................................4-6
Heat Rejection and Cooling Tower. ..................................................................4-6
Water Treatment and Demineralizer. ................................................................4-6
Particulate Removal System. ............................................................................4-7
Flue Gas Desulfurization. .................................................................................4-7
NOx Emission Control System. ........................................................................4-7
Fuel Handling and Storage................................................................................4-7
Ash Handling and Storage. ...............................................................................4-7
Electrical System. .............................................................................................4-8
Subcritical System Major Equipment Characteristics..............................................4-8
Steam Generator. ..............................................................................................4-8
Steam Turbine. .................................................................................................4-8
Supercritical System Major Equipment Characteristics...........................................4-9
22 August 2000 TC-3 Black & Veatch

Steam Generator. ..............................................................................................4-9

Steam Turbine. .................................................................................................4-9
Plant Characteristics ...............................................................................................4-9
Performance .....................................................................................................4-9
Boiler Efficiency ............................................................................................4-10
Net Plant Heat Rate ........................................................................................4-11
Fuel Burn Rate ...............................................................................................4-11
Resource Requirements and Waste Streams....................................................4-12
Capital Cost Estimates..........................................................................................4-13
Chapter 5 Summary Comparison..................................................................................5-1
Chapter 6 Operational Comparison...............................................................................6-1

Heat Rate Degradation ...........................................................................................6-1
Partial Load Heat Rate............................................................................................6-1
Plant Load Factor ...................................................................................................6-2
Chapter 7 Conclusions .................................................................................................7-1
Chapter 8 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................8-1

Project Cost Estimate .............................................................................................8-1
Comparative Project Costs .....................................................................................8-1
O&M Costs ............................................................................................................8-1
Fuel Oil Consumption ............................................................................................8-1
Availability Cost ....................................................................................................8-2

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Conventional Technology Summary............................................................1-2

Table 1-2 Coal Fired Power Plant Technology Comparison.........................................1-3
Table 3-1 Comparison of Balance Draft Coal-Fired Units, 1994 - 1998 .......................3-5
Table 3-1 Supercritical Experience List.......................................................................3-8
Table 4-1 Boiler Performance Summary....................................................................4-12
Table 4-1 Predicted Performance Summary..............................................................4-14
Table 4-3 Resource Requirements and Waste Streams................................................4-15
Table 5-1 Coal Fired Power Plant Technology Comparison.........................................5-3
Table A-1 Project EPC Cost Estimate..........................................................................8-3
Table A-2 Cost Estimate Assumptions ........................................................................8-7
Table A-3 O&M Costs ..............................................................................................8-11
Table A-4 Fuel Oil Consumption ..............................................................................8-14

List of Figures
Figure 4-1 Basic PC Power Generation Cycle. .............................................................4-2

Figure 6-1 Normalized Heat Rate Curve.......................................................................6-3
Figure A-1 Cost of Coal fired power plant……………………………………… 8-10

Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Black & Veatch performed a Technology Characterization study for SBI Capital
Markets Limited, Hirma Power Project. This study investigates the cost,
performance, and emissions for a new power plant burning local Indian coal.
The study focuses on supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology. The plant
will consist of six 720 MW (gross), 660 MW (net) units located adjacent to the coal
mine which will supply all of the fuel for the facility. The bulk of the study is a
comparison between a subcritical PC plant, with main steam conditions of 166 bar,
538º C and a single reheat stage at 538º C, and a supercritical PC plant, with main
steam conditions of 243 bar, 538º C and a single reheat stage at 566º C.
A summary of the performance, emissions and cost for the subcritical and
supercritical PC units is shown in Table 1-1.
A comparison of the two technologies is provided in Table 1-2. The bases for the
comparisons are references published in 1999. The objective was to use a single
resource for each item of comparison. This helps to normalize the results. The
relative rank of each technology for each item was confirmed by cross-checking with
several other resources.
The data presented in Table 1-2 for subcritical and supercritical PC units does not
match the data developed for this study because the references consider European
installations with bituminous and subbituminous coals. The decision was made to use
all available published data for this comparison to provide a complete view of the
overall experience of each technology.
The advantages associated with a supercritical cycle include a lower heat rate,
lower fuel burn rate, lower emission rate (on mass basis), and improved load response
rate. Supercritical unit commissioning time and availability is expected to be
equivalent, and capital cost is expected to be only slightly higher than a subcritical
unit.
Based on these factors, it is expected that the project based on the use of a
supercritical cycle will show an overall advantage.
22 August 2000 1-1 Black & Veatch

Black & Veatch
Table 1-1
Conventional Technology Summary
Table Header Subcritical Supercritical
Gross Turbine Output, kW 717,391 717,391
Net Plan Heat Rate including 2460 2411
degradation, kcal/kWh (Btu/kWh)
Net Plant Thermal Efficiency, % 35.7 36.4
3
Particulate Matter, mg/Nm 50 50
CO, ppm at 6 percent O2 <200 <200
SO2 emission rate, t/day 141.6 141.6
CO2, kg/kWh 1.02 1.00
Total EPC Cost for all 6 Units 3,644,100,000 3,675,100,000

Black & Veatch
Table 1-2
Coal Fired Power Plant Technology Comparison
Subcritical Supercritical
Technology Maturity Commercial Commercial
Sizes Available Up to 1,300 MW Up to 1,300 MW
Environmental Performance
SO2 Good Good
NOx Good Good
Ash Good Good
Net Plant Efficiency, % 34-36 35-37
Source: Data taken from “Future Plans for Research and Development, Technology Transfer
and Export Promotions” and “Competitiveness of Future Coal-Fired Units in Different
Countries”.
Notes:
a
Operation on fuels other than coal was not considered.
b
Data for this table was taken from common sources and may not match data developed
for this study.
c
Performance based on bituminous coal.

Black & Veatch
Chapter 2 Introduction
Black & Veatch performed a preliminary Technology Characterization feasibility

study for SBI Capital Markets Limited, Hirma Power Project. This study investigates
the cost, performance, and emissions for a new power plant burning local Indian coal.
The study focuses on supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology. The plant
will consist of six 660 MW (net) units located in the state of Orissa. The bulk of this
study is a comparison between a subcritical PC plant, with main steam conditions of
166 bar, 538º C and a single reheat stage at 538º C, and a supercritical PC plant, with
main steam conditions of 243 bar, 538º C and a single reheat stage at 566º C.
Budgetary quotes by equipment vendors were used to develop capital cost, full
load performance, and emissions estimates for both PC technologies. Operating
characteristics, such as start-up, shutdown, cycling, partload performance, and
availability, of each PC technology are discussed.

Chapter 3 Pulverized Coal Technology
The focus of this study is on pulverized coal (PC) power plants. Conventional
PC plants are broken into two categories: subcritical and supercritical. This section
defines subcritical and supercritical PC technology. This definition is followed by a
discussion of concerns associated with supercritical PC units built from the late 1950s
through the early 1980s and what steps have been taken to eliminate these concerns
with current designs. Next, based on available literature, an update focused on
supercritical PC units burning high ash, low heating value Indian fuels is discussed.
Definition of Subcritical and Supercritical

The terms subcritical and supercritical refer to the critical point of water (3,203.6
psig, 705.4º F). The critical pressure of water is the maximum pressure that liquid
and vapor can coexist in equilibrium. At this critical point the density of steam and
the density of water are equal and there is no distinction between the two states. The
majority of boilers at power plants are subcritical boilers with steam drums.
Supercritical has typically referred to main steam conditions of 240 bar and
538º C with a single reheat stage at 566º C. There have been over 175 units, totaling
over 115,000 MW built with these steam parameters in the western world.
Supercritical PC boilers are considered conventional technology.
Advances in Supercritical Technology

Modern supercritical technology is primarily found in Japan and Western Europe,
but is beginning to make inroads in South Korea and China. Supercritical technology
has matured since it first appeared. The problems associated with the first and second
generation of the technology have been resolved with better materials and designs.
The purpose of this section is to identify common perceptions of supercritical
technology and discuss how these issues have been addressed over the last 15 years.
First and Second Generation Supercritical Units

Metallurgical advances did not occur early enough to impact the designs of units
commissioned prior to 1985. Early problems with the first and second generation
units have created a perception problem. Key issues regarding these early
supercritical plants include the following:
• Reliability/Availability
• Startup, Cycling, and Partload Operation

With experience, these early units eventually overcame most of these issues.
How these issues have been corrected by modern designs is addressed in the
following section.
Current Supercritical Designs

Since the early 1980s dramatic improvements in boiler and steam turbine
materials, an improved understanding of water chemistry, and design advances have
made the current generation of supercritical units extremely robust, and their function
is equal to or exceeds current subcritical designs. The following subsections discuss
issues that need to be addressed when considering supercritical technology.
Capital Cost. Most sources indicate that supercritical technology, compared to

subcritical technology, involves a equipment capital cost increase of 2 percent. The
cost differences have decreased in recent years because of improved materials,
improved equipment designs, and increased experience.
The supercritical cycle has increased costs associated with the boiler, steam
turbine, pumps, feedwater heaters, and piping. However, these cost increases are
offset by cost savings in balance of plant equipment such as coal handling, emissions
control, and heat rejection, which results from the increased cycle efficiency.
Efficiency. Assuming similar plant configurations, conventional supercritical steam

conditions are expected to provide an efficiency improvement of 2 percentage points
over subcritical steam conditions.
Current supercritical designs that employ sliding pressure technology have
significantly better part load efficiencies than subcritical units. The efficiency
reduction for supercritical units at 75 percent load is about 2 percent compared to a 4
percent reduction for subcritical units. At 50 percent load, the efficiency of the
supercritical unit is reduced 6 to 8 percent, compared to 10 to 11 percent reduction for
a subcritical unit.
Reliability and Availability. The current literature indicates that the reliability and
availability of new supercritical units is expected to be equivalent to subcritical units.
Improvements in materials design, and experience contribute to this assumption.
The bulk of the published reliability analyses on US supercritical units were
performed prior to 1986. Two studies were performed by the North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC) using the Generating Availability Data System
(GADS). The studies only consider first and second generation supercritical units and

do not account for improvements in materials, equipment design, and experience from
the early 1980s to the present.
While studies on the reliability of the first and second generation of supercritical
units may not be relevant to today’s designs, a brief examination of these issues may
assist in understanding the negative perception of supercritical technology by many
utilities.
During the first through fifth years of operation, the first and second generation
supercritical plants clearly underperformed their subcritical counterparts in terms of
equivalent availability factor (EAF) and equivalent forced outage rate (EFOR). The
problems were more pronounced in the boiler than in the steam turbine. The data also
demonstrated that the EAF and EFOR of second generation supercritical technology
was much better than that of the first generation technology.
The first generation supercritical plants were almost exclusively pressurized draft
design. The second generation plants are split fairly evenly between pressurized and
balanced draft design with a definite trend toward balanced draft. Between 1975 and
1980, nearly 90 percent of the units built in the US have been balanced draft. In
addition, 26 units originally constructed as pressurized draft had been converted to
balanced draft before 1985. Fifteen of the converted units were constructed between
1969 and 1980 and are representative of second generation technology.
Analysis of the EAF and EFOR for the 15 second generation supercritical units
was performed. Data was reviewed for the 4 years prior to conversion and the 4 years
after conversion. Dramatic improvements in reliability and availability were noted.
The EFOR improved from 20.6 percent prior to conversion to 15.8 percent after
conversion, while the EAF improved from 61.2 percent to 71.7 percent. While these
improvements are significant, the EFOR for units originally constructed as balanced
draft ranged from 7.6 to 11.6 percent, and the EAF ranged from 81.4 to 84.2 percent.
Based on the data trends, NERC GADS estimated that the EFOR and EAF of
second generation units would approach 6.0 percent and 86.4 percent, respectively, by
1990. As it will be shown below, these targets were never achieved
A 1985 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report showed that
unavailability associated with pressure parts of supercritical plants decreased before
finally leveling off at less than 500 hours per year after 10 years in service. In
contrast, the unavailability associated with pressure parts in subcritical plants after 10
years in service was equal to that of supercritical units but was increasing.
Black & Veatch performed a similar comparison using data available from NERC
GADS for subcritical and supercritical balanced draft coal fired units between 400
and 850 MW built between 1973 and 1982. The installation timeframe was chosen to
eliminate the bulk of the first generation units. However, the shift from first to second

generation technology occurred at different times for the various manufacturers, and it
is possible that one or more first generation supercritical units are included. Results
of this analysis are shown in Table 3-1.
While the results of the analysis fell short of the NERC GADS predictions, the
subcritical and supercritical units are performing similarly. For units of
approximately the same age, size, and with the same net capacity factor (NCF), the
EAF of the subcritical units is only 0.5 percent better than that of the supercritical
units, while the EFOR is only 0.1 percent better
Critical reliability issues in the boiler have been tube leaks and waterwall tube
cracks. Water chemistry is a major contributor to tube leaks as the deposition of
corrosion products is a root cause of failure. The corrosion products form in the
feedwater heater system and flow into the boiler. The solution is to switch to
oxygenated water treatment systems instead of all volatile or coordinated phosphate
treatment for the water/steam cycle. The oxygenated water treatment has
substantially reduced tube leaks. The all volatile system forms a magnetite oxide,
while the oxygenated treatment system forms ferric oxide hydrate. Ferric oxide
hydrate is much less soluble, therefore the quantity of the oxide transported to the
boiler is reduced as are corrosive deposits on the waterwalls. Since 1991, over 60
supercritical units in the US have switched to oxygenated water treatment
The waterwall cracking has been resolved through the use of better materials.
EPRI Report TR-104442 issued in September 1995 addresses the waterwall cracking
issue.
Critical steam turbine reliability issues were premature aging of rotor materials
and solid particle erosion of the steam turbine blading. Developments in rotor
forging, using 9 to 12 percent chromium steel have eliminated the premature aging.
The particle erosion issue has also been resolved and is documented in EPRI Report
TR-103552 issued in December 1993.

Table 3-1
Comparison of Balance Draft Coal-Fired Units, 1994 - 1998
Subcritical Supercritical Difference
Number of Units 31 16 -15
Average Age of Units, yr 16.8 20.3 +3.5
Average Size of Units (Net), MW 565 684 +119
Average EAF, percent 83.7 83.2 -0.5
Average EFOR, percent 6.63 6.73 +0.10
Average NCF, percent 70.2 70.1 -0.1
Notes:
a
Based on NERC GADS.
b
Balanced draft units.
c
Commercial operation dates between January 1, 1973 and December 31, 1982.
d
Minimum net capacity factor of 50 percent.
e
Unit net capacity between 400 and 850 MW.
f
Subcritical main steam pressures between 158 bar and 180 bar. Supercritical main
steam pressures between 227 bar and 260 bar.
g
Results are the average of the data for the 5 year period from 1994 through 1998.
EAF = Equivalent Availability Factor
EFOR = Equivalent Forced Outage Rate
NCF = Net Capacity Factor

Startup, Cycling, and Partload Operation.

The issues associated with startup, cycling and partload operation of supercritical
plants are interrelated.
Startup. First and second generation supercritical units used extremely thick steam
lines. In addition, valve bodies experienced accelerated damage as a result of severe
metal temperature gradients. These two items necessitated slower startup procedures
to alleviate stresses.
The development of stronger steels addressed these issues. Ferretic steel
containing 9 to 12 percent chromium was developed in the US as part of the breeder
reactor program and is now routinely used in supercritical plants. This new steel,
referred to as P91, is used for high temperature headers, steam lines, valves, and
turbine components. P91 has both improved strength and creep resistant properties
and allows for reduced wall thickness, which results in lower stresses and improved
startup rates.
There are added complexities to starting a supercritical unit, primarily the
transition from the recirculation loop to once-through operation. Advances in
distributed control systems (DCS) have essentially automated the startup process,
requiring only operator oversight and minimal interaction.
With the new materials such as P91 steel and improvements in the DCS
technology, supercritical unit startup times are comparable to subcritical units.
Cycling. Many supercritical units have been designed for load following, primarily
by allowing the boiler pressure to decrease with steam demand. Sliding pressure
benefits part load efficiency and unit flexibility, and may also increase boiler tube life
by reducing the likelihood of creep failure. Sliding pressure operation is currently
used in both subcritical and supercritical boiler.
In a supercritical boiler, sliding pressure operation results in a transition to
subcritical conditions at part loads. This transition can result in boiler tubes that
overheat as the superheated water changes to a mixture of water and steam. The
primary means of alleviating this problem is the use of spiral wound tubes that
mediate the effects of uneven heat distribution and allows for increased water flow
rate through each tube. The flow rate is increased three to five times as a result of the
reduction in tube diameter and in the reduction in the number of tubes. The increased
mass flow rate improves the heat transfer between the tube metal and the fluid inside.
The disadvantage of spiral tubing is a more complicated boiler structure and higher
auxiliary power consumption.

One alternative to the standard spiral wound membrane wall is the internally
ribbed or rifled walls. The standard spiral wound membrane employs tubes that are
internally smooth. A rifled tube has a spiral groove on the internal surface. The rifled
tube has several advantages over the spiral wound membrane, including the
following:
• Simplified boiler construction of vertical tube design.
• Reduced mass flow velocity and corresponding auxiliary power.
• Lower partload operation.
• Significant reduction in startup system capital cost.
• Reduction in slag accumulation.
Seven Japanese supercritical plants using the rifled tube design have come on-
line since 1989. While the experience is limited, the technology appears to offer
reduced capital and operating costs.
Partload Operation. Most partload operation issues have been covered in the
efficiency discussion and in the cycling discussion. With current technology, partload
operation should be as good or better for supercritical units than the technology
associated with subcritical units. Using sliding pressure technology, minimum load in
a supercritical unit with spiral wound construction can be as low as 35 percent.
Supercritical Steam Experience List

An experience list of supercritical plants in the free or non-communist world was
developed in the mid 1990s and is included as Table 3-2. The list has not been cross-
referenced or updated for current market activity. It is believed that the list is fairly
accurate.
Note that while no supercritical units have been built to fire high ash Indian fuels,
there are units in operation firing difficult fuels. The most notable are the units
located in Germany which fire a local brown coal. These fuels can contain as much
as 40% moisture and are considered to have much higher slagging and fouling
potential than the local Indian fuels. Designing for an Indian fuel will require more
care in maintaining lower velocities than other fuels however the slagging and fouling
design requirements are not expected to be as stringent as the German units.

Table 3-2
Supercritical Experience List
Yr Size, Steam Conditionsb Country Company Unita
MW
ABB
60 36 4,264/1,031/986 Germany Chemische Werke Huls T24
66 65 4,264/1,067/1,049 Germany Chemische Werke Huls T26
67 240 3,278/995/995 Germany PREAG Robert Frank 3
69 320 3,278/1,022/1,022 Germany VEW Westfalen C
72 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA TVA Cumberland 1
73 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA APE (Columbus OH.) Amos 3
73 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA TVA Cumberland 2
73 455 3,568/995/995 Germany PREAG Robert Frank 4
74 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA APE (Columbus OH.) Gavin 1
74 455 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA Dept. of Water and Power Scattergood 3
75 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA APE (Columbus OH.) Gavin 2
77 615 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA Buckeye Power, Inc. (OH.) Cardinal 3
80 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA APE (Columbus OH.) Mountaineer 1
82 198 3,553/986/1,004 Germany Grosskraftwerk GKW Mannheim M
84 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA APE (Columbus OH.) Rockport 1
84 375 3,481/995/1,004 Denmark I/S Midkraft Studstrup 3
85 450 3,625/995/1,000 Germany Isar-Amperwerke AG Leiningerwerk 5
85 375 3,481/995/1,004 Denmark I/S Midkraft Studstrup 4
89 260 3,481/1,004/1,004 Denmark Elkraft A.m.b.A. Amager 3
89 1,300 3,510/1,000/1,000 USA APE (Columbus OH.) Rockport 2
90 260 3,481/1,004/1,004 Denmark Elkraft A.m.b.A. Avedore 1
91 1,300 3,684/1,000/1,000 USA Cincinnati Gas &Electric, Zimmer
92 407 3,568/1036/1,040 Denmark I/S Midkraft Esbjerg BI.3
92 550 3,626/1,004/1,040 Germany PREAG Staudinger 5
93 650 3,626/995/1,045 Netherland N.V.EPZ Zuid Amer 11 (9)
93 588 3,408/1,000/1,036 Finland IVO Meri-Pori
94 680 3,626/995/1,045 Netherland N.V. Energieproduktie Hemwig 8
94 353 3,698/1,011/1,040 Germany Veba Kraftwerke Schkopau Block A
95 550 3,626/1,004/1,040 Germany KNG Berlin Rostock
95 389 3,698/1,011/1,040 Germany Veba Kraftwerke Schkopau Block B
96 808 3,452/1,008/1,040 Germany VEAG Berlin Boxberg 4, Block Q
97 808 3,452/1,008/1,040 Germany VEAG Berlin Boxberg 4, Block R
Fuji
73 350 3,550/1,000/1,000 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Oi #3
89 375 3,550/1,000/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Miyazu #2
93 600 3,550/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Noshiro #1
GEC Alsthom
60 375 3,500/1,100/1,050 UK Central Elec. Gen. Board Drakelow C3
60 375 3,500/1,100/1,050 UK Central Elec. Gen. Board Drakelow C4
60 100 3,550/990/990/990 Germany Grosskraftwerk Franken AG Franken 15
64 220 3,550/990/1,000/1,000 Germany Grosskraftwerk Franken AG Franken 2/2
66 375 3,500/1,100/1,050 UK Central Elec. Gen. Board Drakelow 'C'
66 375 3,500/1,100/1,050 UK Central Elec. Gen. Board Drakelow 'C'
General Electric

Table 3-2
MW
60 450 3,500/1,050/1,050 USA Indiana Michigan Power Co. Breed #1 HP
60 500 3,500/1,050/1,000 USA Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek #7 HP
64 580 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Indiana Michigan Power Co. Tanners Creek #4 HP
66 900 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Tennessee Valley Authority Bull Run #1 HP
67 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Anegasaki #1 HP
67 590 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Ohio Power Co. Cardinal #1
67 590 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Buckeye Power Inc. Cardinal #2
67 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Chita #3
67 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Monongahela Power Co. Fort Martin #1
67 531 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA New Orleans Public Service Michoud #3
67 702 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Moss Landing #6 HP
67 531 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Mountain Creek #8
67 477 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power Robinson #2
67 489 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Union Electric Co. Sioux #1 HP
67 532 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Valley #2
68 422 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Bailly #8
68 715 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Power & Light Brunner Island #3
68 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Monongahela Power Co. Fort Martin #2
68 481 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Georgia Power Co. Harlee Branch #3
68 702 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Moss Landing #7 HP
68 591 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Ohio Power Co. Muskingum #5
68 531 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power Parish #4
68 531 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power Robinson #3
68 489 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Union Electric Co. Sioux #2 HP
69 738 3,334/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Kentucky Power Co. Big Sandy #2
69 755 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Arizona Public Service Co. Four Corners #4 HP
69 531 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Louisiana Power & Light Little Gypsy #3
69 648 3,500/1,000/1,000/1,000 USA Duke Power Co. Marshall #3
69 1,104 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise #3 HP
70 842 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Electric Co. Conemaugh #1 HP
70 755 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Arizona Public Service Co. Four Corners #5 HP
70 560 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Dayton Power & Light Co. Jim Stuart #2
70 648 3,500/1,000/1,000/1,000 USA Duke Power Co. Marshall #4
70 755 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern California Edison Mohave #1 HP
70 542 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Gulf States Utilites Co. Nelson #4
70 442 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Public Service Co. of OK Northeastern #2
71 738 3,334/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Appalachian Power Co. Amos #1
71 700 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Alabama Power Co. Barry #5
71 842 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Electric Co. Conemaugh #2 HP
71 738 3,334/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Ohio Power Co. Mitchell #2
71 755 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern California Edison Mohave #2 HP
71 752 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Detroit Edison Co. Monroe #1
71 727 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Power & Light Montour #1
71 551 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Potomac Electric Power Co. Morgantown #2
71 750 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern California Edison Ormond Beach #1
72 738 3,334/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Appalachian Power Co. Amos #2
72 700 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Georgia Power Co. Bowen #2
72 698 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power Ceday Bayou #2
72 598 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Cleveland Elec. Illuminating East Lake #5
72 700 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Alabama Power Co. Gorgas #10

Table 3-2
MW
72 729 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Tradinghouse #2
73 736 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Power & Light Montour #2
73 750 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern California Edison Ormond Beach #2
73 542 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Gulf States Utilites Co. Willow Glen #4
74 718 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Mississippi Power & Light Andrus #1
74 703 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power Ceday Bayou #3
74 884 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Alabama Power Co. Gaston #5
74 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Kashima #5 HP
74 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Kashima #6 HP
74 521 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Michigan city #12
74 752 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Detroit Edison Co. Monroe #4
74 750 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Salt River Power District Navajo #1
74 538 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Gulf States Utilites Co. Sabine #4
75 729 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Decordova #1
75 618 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA PSI Energy Inc. Gibson #2
75 835 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Ohio Edison Co. Mansfield #1
76 441 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Public Service Co. of OK Riverside #2
76 865 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Georgia Power Co. Wansley #1
78 727 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Monticello #3
78 865 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Georgia Power Co. Wansley #2
80 537 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Sandow $4
93 542 3,500/1,000/1,000 S. Korea Korea Electric Power Cor. Poryong #3
95 542 3,500/1,000/1,000 S. Korea Korea Electric Power Cor. Taean #2
Mitsubishi
71 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Kashima Power Station #2
71 450 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Takasago Power Station #1
72 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Kashima Power Station #4

Table 3-2
MW
72 450 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Takasago Power Station #2
73 600 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Himeji Power Station #5
74 600 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Kainan Power Station #3
74 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Sendai Power Station #1
77 600 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Tanagawa # 1
79 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Sodegaura Power Station 4
81 500 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chugoku Electric Power Co. Iwakuni #3
84 600 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Gobo Power Station #1
85 500 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Sendai Power Station #2
87 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Akoo Power Station #1
88 375 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Miyazu Power Station #1
90 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Electric Power Devel. Co. Matsuura Power Station #1
90 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Nanko Power Station #1
91 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Higashi-Ogishima Power 2
93 700 3,500/1,000/1,100 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Hekinan Power Station #3
95 500 3,500/1,050/1,100 Japan Hokuriku Electric Power Co. Nanaohta Power Station #1
97 1,000 3,500/1,100/1,100 Japan Electric Power Devel. Co. Matsuura Power Station #2
98 1,000 3,500/1,100/1,100 Japan Chugoku Electric Power Misumi Power Station #1
- 1,000 3,500/1,100/1,100 M Plant # 2
Siemens
65 270 BRD Staudinger 1
65 270 BRD Staudinger 2
66 220 BRD Franklin 2,1
69 320 BRD Farge 30
70 320 BRD Kiel
72 400 BRD KW Emden 4
73 350 Japan Ol 3
76 270 BRD Mainz-Wiecbaden 9
77 600 Netherland Plem Maasbracht A
78 641 USA Pleasants Power station 1
78 600 Netherland Plem Maasbracht 8
80 641 USA Pleasants Power station 2
85 405 OES KW Duernrohr
89 502 BRD Steag KW Herne 4
91 410 Denmark Fynsvaerket Block 7
97 345 BRD Altbach HKW 2
97 813 3,890/1,001/1,040 BRD KW Schwarze Pumpe 1
97 813 3,890/1,010/1,040 BRD KW Schwarze Pumpe 2
98 910 3,750/1,000/1,070 BRD KW Boxberg Q
99 750 3,625/1,065/1,100 BRD Bexbach II
00 910 3,750/1,000/1,070 BRD KW Boxberg R
Toshiba
69 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Anegasaki #2
70 450 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Kainan #1
71 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Atsumi #1
71 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Anegasaki #3
72 350 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Shikoku Electric Power Co. Sakaide #2
72 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Kashima #3

Table 3-2
MW
73 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Karatsu #3
73 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tohoku Electric Power Co. Shin Sendai #2
74 350 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Shikoku Electric Power Co. Sakaide #4
74 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Hokuriku Electric Power Co. Toyama Shinko #1
74 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Sodegaure #1
75 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Nishinagoya #6
75 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Sodegaura #2
76 450 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Shikoku Electric Power Co. Anan #4
76 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Ainoura #2
77 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Buzen #1
77 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tohoku Electric Power Co. Higashi Nigata #1
78 600 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Shin-Kokura #3
79 600 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Shin Kokura #4
79 700 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chugoku Electric Power Co. Kudamatsu #3
80 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Buzen #2
80 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tohoku Electric Power Co. Akita #4
80 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Hirono #1
80 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Hirono #2
81 500 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Electric Power Development Matsushima #2
81 500 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Hokuriku Electric Power Co. Toyama Shinko #2
83 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Joban Kyodo Power Co. Nakoso #9
83 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co. Shin Kokura #5
83 700 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Chita No.2 #1
83 700 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Chita No.2 #2
84 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Higashi Ougishima #1
85 600 3,500/1,000/1,000 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Gobou #3
86 500 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chugoku Electric Power Co. Shin-Onoda #1
87 500 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Owase-Mita #3
87 500 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chugoku Electric Power Co. Shin-Onoda #2
87 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Akou #2
89 700 4,500/1,050/1,050/1,050 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Kawagoe #1
90 700 4,500/1,050/1,050/1,050 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Kawagoe #2
91 500 3,500/1,050/1,050 Japan Hokuriku Electric Power Co. Tsuruga #1
91 600 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Power Co. Nanko #3
91 700 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Chubu Electric Power Co. Heikinan #1
93 1,000 3,500/1,000/1,050 Japan Tokyo Electric Power Co. Hirono #4
Westinghouse
57 936 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Co Keystone 1
59 233 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Cleveland Elec Illum Co Avon Lake 8
60 354 5,000/1,200/1,050/1,050 USA Philadelphia Elec Co Eddystone 1
61 350 3,500/1,000/1,000 Spain Langreo CE Lada 04
64 455 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Public Service Elec & Gas Hudson 1

Table 3-2
MW
66 495 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern Calif Edison Co Alomitos 5
66 495 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern Calif Edison Co Alomitos 6
66 545 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Mississippi Power & Light Baxter Wilson 1
66 359 3,500/1,000/1,000/1,000 USA Baltimore Gas & Elec Co HA Wagner 3
66 485 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power PH Robinson 1
67 450 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Japan Kansai Electric Himeji 4
67 385 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Consumers Power Co JH Campbell 2
67 545 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Arkansas Power & Light Co RE RITCHE 2
67 495 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern Calif Edison Co Redondo Beach 7
67 495 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Southern Calif Edison Co Redondo Beach 8
68 598 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Northern States Power Co Allen King 1
68 543 3,500/1,000/1,000/1,000 USA Canal Electric Canal 1
68 660 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Public Service Elec & Gas Hudson 2
68 936 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Co Keystone 2
68 660 3,500/1,000/1,025 Italy Edison Volta La Spezia 04
68 592 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Gulf States Utilities Willow Glen 3
69 643 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA New England Power Co Brayton Point 3
69 349 3,500/1,000/1,000/1,000 USA Dairyland Power Coop Genoa 3
69 490 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Georgia Power Co Harllee Branch 4
69 576 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA West Penn Power Co Hatfields Ferry 1
69 660 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Elec Co Homer City 1
69 660 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pennsylvania Elec Co Homer City 2
69 660 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 Italy Edison Volta La Spezia 03
69 370 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Utilicorp United Sibley 3
69 623 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Ohio Edison Co WH Sammis 6
70 680 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Clevlend Elec Illum Co Avon Lake 9
70 765 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power Cedar Bayou 1
70 626 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Potomac Elec Power Co Morgantown 1
70 581 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Elec Co Tradinghouse Creek 1
71 783 3,600/1,000/1,000 USA Mississippi Power & Light Baxter Wilson 2
71 583 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Elec Co Big Brown 1
71 806 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Georgia Power Bowen 1
71 760 3,500/1,000/1,025/1,050 USA Ohio Power Mitchell 1 (W Va)
71 783 3,600/1,000/1,000 USA Louisiana Power & Light Ninemile Point 4
71 623 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Ohio Edison Co WH Sammis 7
72 593 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Elec Co Big Brown 2
72 684 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Monongahela Power Co Harrison 1
72 740 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Pacific Gas & Electric Co Pittsburg 7
73 633 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA South Carolina Gen Co AM Williams 1
73 750 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Columbus Southern Power Conesville 4
73 893 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Kansas City Power & Light Lacyngne 1
73 823 3,600/1,000/1,000 USA Detroit Edison Co Monroe 2
73 823 3,600/1,000/1,000 USA Detroit Edison Co Monroe 3
73 783 3,600/1,000/1,000 USA Louisiana Power & Light Ninemile Point 5
73 765 3,334/1,000/1,000 USA Houston Lighting & Power PH Robinson 4
74 593 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Elec Co Monticello 1
74 473 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Public Service Oklahoma Riverside 1

Table 3-2
MW
75 593 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Elec Co Monticello 2
76 521 3,500/1,000/1,000 USA No Indiana Public Ser RM Schahfer 14
77 793 3,600/1,000/1,000 USA Texas Utilities Electric Co. Martin Lake 1
80 660 3,500/1,000/1,000 Italy ENEL Porto Tolle 1
89 660 3,500/1,000/1,000 Italy ENEL Brindisi 1
Notes:
a
This list has not been verified. Contains ultrasupercritical units as well as
supercritical units. Entries with commercial operation dates after 1995 may not be
actual plants.
b
Steam conditions are listed as main steam pressure (psig)/ main steam temperature
(F)/ reheat steam temperature (F)/ second reheat temperature, if applicable (F).

Chapter 4 Plant Descriptions
This section covers the screening analysis of six 660 MW (net) subcritical and
supercritical plants. The subcritical and supercritical cycles are similar and use the
same basic equipment. The largest differences between the two systems are the
manner in which the steam generators are designed and operated and the expected
steam turbine performance. There are also differences in the sizing of the equipment.
The following subsections contain brief descriptions of systems and equipment
common to both the subcritical and supercritical cycle.
General Description
The unit will consist of six separate systems. The steam cycle for each system
consists of one steam generator, and one turbine generator. Major balance of plant
equipment consists of a condenser, condensate pumps, low-pressure feedwater
heaters, a deaerator, boiler feedwater pumps, and high-pressure feedwater heaters.
The basic power generation cycle is illustrated on Figure 4-1.
Coal feeders supply fuel into the pulverizers from coal storage silos located
adjacent to the steam generator. Primary air from the air heater discharge delivers the
coal from the pulverizers to the burners. The heat released from the burning fuel
heats feedwater entering the steam generator. The resulting high-pressure steam
provides throttle steam flow to the turbine electric generator. As the throttle steam
passes through the steam turbine, a portion of the steam is extracted from the turbine
for in-house auxiliary requirements, such as feed to the high- and low-pressure
feedwater heaters, to the deaerator, and to the steam turbine drives of the boiler feed
pumps (BFP).
Turbine exhaust steam flows to the condensers where it is condensed, giving up
heat to the wet cooling tower circulating cooling water system. Condensate is
pumped by condensate pumps through low-pressure feedwater heaters, where the
water is heated, and then to the deaerator for removal of non-condensable, corrosion
causing gases, and then further heating. Feedwater from the deaerator is pumped by
boiler feed pumps through the high-pressure heaters to the steam generator.
Flue gas produced by the steam generator flows through an air heater, a
particulate removal system, and a scrubber system before entering the induced draft
fans, which exhaust to the stack. All ash collected from the system is removed to an
ash landfill.

STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR - PRELIMINARY CYCLE SCHEMATIC

FROM
TO BOILER BOILER
2 1
HPT IPT
LPT LPT GENERATOR
3 E1
E8 E7 E6
E5
FROM
BOILER E2
E3
E4 5
TO BOILER
HTR8 HTR7 HTR6

DEA HTR4 HTR3 HTR2 HTR1
6
CONDENSATE
PUMP
7
FEED PUMP
STEAM SEAL FLOWS AND GLAND STEAM CONDENSERS NOT SHOWN
Figure 4-1 Basic PC Power Generation Cycle.
22 August 2000 4-2

General Equipment
The following subsections are intended to give a general discussion of the
equipment required for both subcritical and supercritical plants. The material and
operation of the equipment discussed in this section are not affected by the type of
plant cycle. Because of variations in performance of the subcritical cycle versus the
supercritical cycle, the size of some equipment and systems may vary.
Steam Generator.
The project will include a single, wall- or corner-fired steam generator. The
design fuel is typical of coals found in India, exhibiting severe erosion characteristics.
Because of the severity of these characteristics and the potential impact on
maintenance and performance, the boiler design will need to incorporate features that
have been proven to minimize the potential for erosion. The first feature is to require
the steam generators to be designed with sufficient space between tubes to ensure the
flue gas velocity through tube banks can be maintained at a relatively slow velocity.
The second feature will be to ensure sufficient sootblowing equipment is included in
the furnace and heat transfer sections to maintain the unit’s cleanliness and
performance. The final design feature will include maintaining tube spacing in the
heat transfer sections sufficient to ensure pluggage will not occur. In addition to these
features, extended surface heat transfer sections would not be allowed in the steam
generator.
The basic function of a subcritical steam generator and a supercritical steam
generator are the same. However, there are significant differences in their design and
operation. These differences are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.
Steam Turbine.
A two casing steam turbine tandem compound generator unit was selected as the
basis for estimating the steam cycle performance discussed in this study. One of the
casings includes a high-pressure (HP) and an intermediate-pressure (IP) steam
turbine, and the other casing contains a two double flow low-pressure (LP) steam
turbines. Main steam enters the HP section through the throttle valves. Most of the
steam exhausted from the HP section is returned to the steam generator to be reheated
before being delivered to the IP section. Reheat steam enters the IP section through
the intercept valve. Steam exhausted from the IP section enters the LP section, which
exhausts the steam downward to the condenser.
The HP and IP sections each have two uncontrolled extraction points that provide
steam to the high-pressure feedwater heaters and the deaerator. The LP turbine has

four uncontrolled extraction points that supply steam to the first four stage low-
pressure feedwater heaters.
Performance and design differences in the turbine caused by the use of either the
subcritical or supercritical cycle are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.
Feedwater System.
Four low-pressure feedwater heaters are located between the condenser and the
deaerator. Each heater shall receive heating steam from an LP turbine extraction
point. The heater drains cascade to the condenser.
There is one deaerator in the cycle. The deaerator receives condensate from the
final LP feedwater heater and steam from an IP turbine extraction point.
There are three high-pressure feedwater heaters in the cycle located between the
deaerator and the steam generator. The first HP heater receives heating steam from an
IP turbine extraction point. The remaining two HP heaters receive heating steam from
the HP turbine extraction points. The heater drains cascade to the deaerator.
Three BFPs are provided for plant operation. Two 50 percent pumps operate the
plant at 100 percent load; a third 50 percent pump is provided as a spare. The BFPs
are supplied with feedwater from the deaerator and discharge to the HP feedwater
heater. Each BFP is driven by a BFP turbine. The BFP turbines are supplied with
steam from an HP turbine steam extraction port. The BFP turbines exhaust to the LP
feedwater heaters.
Combustion Air System.

The unit uses two forced draft (FD) fans, two primary air (PA) fans, and two
induced draft (ID) fans. The FD fans force combustion air through the air heater then
into the windbox and steam generator for combustion. The FD fans are axial flow
fans that are driven by single-speed electric motors.
The PA fans force combustion air through the air heater then through the
pulverizers, where the pulverized coal is removed before delivery to the burners. The
PA fans are centrifugal fans driven by single-speed electric motors.
The steam generator operates at essentially atmospheric pressures. The ID fans
develop the pressure differential necessary to remove the combustion gas from the
steam generator. The fans propel the flue gas through the air heater, particulate
removal system, flue gas desulfurization system and up the stack. The ID fans are
axial flow fans driven by single-speed electric motors.

Compressed Air Systems.

The compressed air system provides instrument quality air to various instruments,
devices, and plant air systems. Air compressors are provided with high water and air
temperature switches, aftercooler with moisture separators, and constant-speed
electric motors. An air receiver is located downstream of the compressors. Air dryers
are used to produce instrument quality air, which will be piped to the various
instruments, operators (valve or damper), and other devices that require instrument
quality air. Cooling water for the compressors and the aftercoolers are provided by
the auxiliary cooling water system.
Service Air System.

The service air system will be a common system with the instrument air system.
Since the service air system does not require instrument-quality air, service air shall
be piped from the header between the air receiver and dryer inlet connections.
Auxiliary Cooling Water System.

The cooling tower basin supplies auxiliary cooling water, which is a parallel
closed loop cooling water system that supplies water for such uses as equipment
bearing cooling, lubricating oil cooling, and sample cooling. Auxiliary cooling water
is pumped from the cooling tower basin through the points of auxiliary cooling water
usage and back to the distribution system at the top of the cooling towers.
Chemical Feed System.

Circulating water is chemically conditioned to reduce biofouling, scaling, and
corrosion in the circulating water system. The exact process to be used will be
determined following a chemical analysis of the water source. For the purposes of
this study, costs have been included for a typical system which includes pH control, a
dispersant and corrosion inhibitor, dechlorination, and a chemical conditioning system
for all discharge back to local rivers or lakes.
Steam cycle makeup and condensate is also chemically conditioned to maintain
proper steam cycle chemistry. A supercritical steam generator does not have a
blowdown system; therefore, the contaminants must be removed from the feedwater
prior to entering the boiler. A subcritical boiler is equipped with drums that allow a
blowdown system to be used for removal of contaminants. As a result of this
difference, the chemical feed system for the supercritical cycle must have greater
capacity and may require additional steps.

Condensate System.
Condensed steam is collected in a hot well section, which is an integral part of
the condenser. Condensate is withdrawn from the hot well section and pumped
through four low-pressure feedwater heaters to a deaerating feedwater heater unit.
Heat Rejection and Cooling Tower.

Each unit includes a cycle heat rejection system that uses a condenser and a
conventional mechanical draft wet cooling tower. The steam turbine exhausts steam
into the condenser where circulating water condenses the steam. The condenser also
receives drains from the low-pressure feedwater heaters and supplies condensate as a
source of closed loop cooling water for the turbine lube oil system. The condensed
steam is returned to the system for reuse.
Circulating water is cooled by means of a cooling tower. The cooled water is
collected in a basin, which is the supply point of the closed loop circulating water
system. Circulating water is pumped from the cooling tower basin through the
condenser and back to the distribution system at the top of the cooling tower. The
water is cooled by evaporation as it flows down through the cooling tower.
Water Treatment and Demineralizer.

Without conducting a study of the existing water supply quality, an exact water
treatment system cannot be designed. The system described in the following
paragraphs is a generic system typical of greenfield sites with makeup water from a
nearby river or lake with a quality similar to that expected from lakes and rivers
located in India.
Makeup water will be taken from a an on-site raw-water reservoir located
adjacent to the plant. The water is treated and used as cooling tower makeup, steam
cycle makeup, and fire water. The steam cycle is conditioned to maintain proper
boiler water and steam-condensate-feedwater quality. A sample panel is provided to
monitor the circulating water, steam cycle makeup, and steam cycle.
The raw water stored in the makeup water reservoir pond is expected to have
undergone some clarification by having some of the suspended particles settle out
during the time the water is stored. The clarified water is then pumped from the
holding pond through additional filters to remove the majority of the remaining
suspended solids from the clarified water. The filtered water is routed to storage
tanks. The majority of the filtered water is used as cooling tower makeup to replace
water lost by evaporation and blowdown. Periodically, the filters need to be
backwashed to remove accumulated suspended solids.

Particulate Removal System.

Each system will include electrostatic precipitators for dust removal. The size of
the particulate removal system will be such that the emissions are reduced to a level
below the allowable level as determined by the local environmental permitting
authority. For purposes of this study, the cost of an ESP capable of reducing the
particulate matter emission rate to 50 mg/Nm3 has been included in the cost estimate.
Flue Gas Desulfurization.

Each unit will be equipped with a wet FGD system. The size of the system will
be such that the emissions are reduced to a level below the allowable level as
determined by the local environmental permitting authority. For purposes of this
study, the cost of a wet FGD system capable of reducing the sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emission rate to the level required to meet the expected emission level.
NOx Emission Control System.

Each unit will be equipped with low NOx burners. The current burner technology
is capable of meeting the required 650 mg/Nm3 at 6.0% O2 wet emission limit. If the
emission rates are determined to be lower than this level, the ability of current Low
NOx Burner technology will need to be reviewed once more to determine if the
revised level is achievable. If Low NOx Burners are not capable of meeting the
revised emission level, additional NOx control equipment such as SCR or SNCR will
need to be added.
Fuel Handling and Storage.

The project is expected to be a mine mouth installation, therefore, the fuel
handling equipment included has been kept to a minimum. Space for a 15 day storage
pile is included in the plant. Coal will be removed from the storage pile and sent to a
crusher for the initial fuel sizing. A conveyor system delivers the coal from the
crusher to the coal storage silos located adjacent to the steam generator. Each silo has
an individual feeder and pulverizer associated with it, with the feeder being used to
regulate the coal flow rate. Primary air is used to carry the correctly sized coal
particles from the pulverizers to the burners.
Ash Handling and Storage.

Ash will be collected from the generating units at the following pickup points:
economizer outlet hopper, air heater outlet hopper, precipitator hoppers, and furnace
ash hopper.

The fly ash system will be a pneumatic conveying system that takes the ash from
the fly ash hoppers and conveys it to a collection silo. Ash from the silo bottoms is
discharged through an air lock and ash conditioning system into trucks to be
transported to a disposal area.
Bottom ash from the furnace is removed by a submerged chain conveyor system
to a bottom ash storage silo. Ash from the silo bottoms is discharged through an ash
conditioning system prior to being transported to a disposal area.
Electrical System.
The electrical facilities include the main power generating station, the main step-
up transformer, the unit auxiliary power system, and an uninterruptible power supply
system. The electrical supply system terminates at a sub-station located on site.
Transmission and distribution of the electricity generated by the station is not
included in this study.
Subcritical System Major Equipment Characteristics

The subcritical system will be designed to operate under a 166 bar cycle with
538º C main steam temperature and 538º C reheat steam temperature. The piping and
equipment will be designed to support this operation.
Steam Generator.
Under TMCR conditions, each unit will provide 2284 t/h of main steam to the
turbine generator at 166.5 bar(a) and 538º C and 1902 t/h of cold reheat steam will be
returned to the boiler at 36.6 bar(a) and 322º C, where it will be reheated to 538º C at
32.9 bar(a). The steam generator rating is based on a 1 percent blowdown rate.
The steam generator is a standard PC type unit equipped with a steam drum,
steam conditioning desuperheaters, sootblowing system, and all equipment required
by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Startup fuel will be
a heavy fuel oil.
Steam Turbine.
The turbine generator is designed to produce 717,391 kW of electricity at the
generator terminals when receiving steam from the steam generator. When operating
at this level of electrical output, about 57,391 kW of electric capacity is used for
auxiliary power to operate fans, pumps, and other auxiliary equipment. The expected
net electric capacity available for sale is 660,000 kW.

Supercritical System Major Equipment Characteristics

The supercritical system is designed to operate under the 243 bar cycle with 538º
C main steam temperature and 566º C reheat steam temperature. The piping and
equipment are designed to support this operation.
Steam Generator.
Under TMCR operating conditions, each steam generator shall provide 2086 t/h
of main steam to the turbine generator at 243.3 bar(a) and 538º C. 1809 t/h of cold
reheat steam at shall be returned to the boiler at 48.9 bar(a) and 300º C, where it is
reheated to 566º C at 45.0 bar(a).
The steam generator will be a supercritical unit designed for sliding pressure
operation. As with all supercritical boilers, the unit will not be equipped with drums,
instead a start-up separation system will be incorporated into the design. The exact
separation system will vary with each manufacturer, however most will utilize some
type of separation chambers located after the furnace water wall tubes and return the
drains from these separation devices to the deaerator.
As with the subcritical design, the steam generator is equipped with steam
conditioning desuperheaters, sootblowing system, and all equipment required by
NFPA and ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code. Startup fuel will be a heavy fuel
oil.
Steam Turbine.
The turbine generator is designed to produce 717,391 kW of electricity at the
generator terminals when receiving steam from the steam generator. When operating
at this level of electrical output, about 57,391 kW of electric capacity is used for
auxiliary power to operate fans, pumps, and other auxiliary equipment. The expected
net electric capacity available for sale is 660,000 kW.
Plant Characteristics
This section discusses the steam cycle, estimates the thermal efficiency of the
steam generator, and determines the net plant heat rate.
Performance
On the basis of projects of similar size at sites with similar characteristics and on
the basis of preliminary analysis, the conceptual plant performance criteria has been
developed for two equal size plants: one a subcritical system, the other a supercritical
system.

The conceptual steam cycle for both systems consists of a steam turbine with
reheat cycle, condensate pumps, four low-pressure feedwater heaters, a deaerating
feedwater heater, boiler feedwater pumps, and three high-pressure feedwater heaters.
Heat rejection is accomplished by a closed loop circulating water system using a
mechanical draft cooling tower. Electricity is generated by a generator at a voltage
and frequency compatible with the local grid.
Boiler Efficiency
The thermal efficiency of the steam generator is determined in accordance with
ASME Test Code for Stationary Steam Generating Units (PTC-4.1). The PTC-4.1
procedure determines boiler efficiency based on the higher heating value of the fuel.
PTC-4.1 describes two methods for determining steam generator efficiency: the input-
output method and the heat loss method. Because data collection is less complex with
the heat loss method and can be easily performed in the field, the thermal efficiency in
this study is based on the ASME PTC-4.1 heat loss method.
The inputs to the heat loss method include the as-received ultimate analysis of the
fuel, the temperature of the combustion air at the inlet to the air heater, the
uncorrected (no air heater leakage) temperature of the flue gas at the exit of the air
heater, the barometric pressure, and the temperature and humidity (or wet-bulb
temperature) of the ambient air. Heat losses and credits are determined as a
percentage of the total heat input of a unit weight of fuel. Heat credits are usually
small and are neglected. This provides a conservative value for the steam generator
efficiency. The heat losses included in the determination of the steam generator
efficiency for this study include unburned carbon in refuse, heat in dry flue gas,
moisture in fuel, moisture from burning fuel hydrogen, moisture in combustion air,
and radiation and convection. In addition to an unaccounted loss of 0.5 percent, the
steam generator efficiency also includes a manufacturer’s margin of 1.0 percent.
A 159º C uncorrected (no leakage) flue gas temperature at the exit of the air
heater has been used for the evaluation. The combustion air temperature at the air
heater inlet is the ambient temperature plus the weighted average isentropic
temperature increase across the PA and FD fans.
In addition to determining the efficiency, the evaluation also determines other
boiler operating parameters such as the required combustion air flows, fuel burn rates,
flue gas flows, ash generation rate, and emissions. The boiler efficiency and key
operating parameters are summarized in Table 4-1.
The ultimate analysis values, shown in Table 4-1, used to estimate the efficiency
of the steam generator units were taken from the analysis included in the Technical
Data section of the Detailed Project Report dated Sept. 1998. The steam generator

flue gas temperature, NOx emissions, fan static pressure requirements, and fan
efficiency used to calculate fan power requirements are based on performance
guarantees and operating data received from manufacturers and similar size steam
generating units used on previous Black & Veatch projects.
Net Plant Heat Rate

Net plant heat rate, expressed in kcal/kWh, is the amount of boiler heat input
required to generate a kilowatt-hour measured at the electric transmission lines
leaving the plant. Determination of the net plant heat rate at a particular value of
turbine output requires the turbine heat rate, auxiliary power, and boiler efficiency.
Certain values, including auxiliary power consumption, must be assumed to
calculate the net plant heat rate. Table 4-2 shows the assumptions used to estimate the
net plant heat rate for the two cycles being examined.
Auxiliary power includes the power required for the steam generator and balance-
of-plant equipment operation. Balance-of-plant power is the power for the fans,
pumps, cooling tower, and all miscellaneous equipment that is continuously operated.
Table 4-2 provides the performance estimated for a 660 MW (net) subcritical and
supercritical units. The net plant output is equal to the generator output minus the
auxiliary power. The boiler heat input is equal to the generator output multiplied by
the gross turbine heat rate divided by the boiler efficiency.
Fuel Burn Rate

An advantage of the supercritical system is the differential fuel consumption due
to the increased plant operating efficiency. Based on the performance shown in Table
4-2 and a PLF of 68.5% the installation of 6 x 660 MW (net) supercritical systems are
expected to reduce the total plant coal consumption by 396,472 tonne/year. When a
PLF of 85.0% is utilized, the total plant fuel consumption for a supercritical system
will be 491,972 tonne/year lower than that of a subcritical system.

Table 4-1
Boiler Performance Summary
Coal Ultimate Analysis, percent by weight
Carbon 36.3
Hydrogen 2.16
Sulfur 0.41
Nitrogen 0.84
Oxygen 6.29
Moisture 12.0
Ash 42.0
Gross Calorific Heating Value, kcal/kg 3,360
Boiler Efficiency Losses, percent
Dry gas loss 5.25
Loss from moisture in air 0.18
Loss from moisture in fuel 2.25
Loss from hydrogen in fuel 3.62
Unburned carbon loss 0.80
Radiation/convection loss 0.20
Unaccounted loss 0.50
Manufacturers margin 1.00
Boiler Efficiency (GCV), percent 86.20
Performance conditions
Excess air, percent 20
Air heater leakage, percent 8
Air heater exit flue gas temperature, º C
Uncorrected 159
Corrected 149
Resource Requirements and Waste Streams

Table 4-3 provides the estimated fuel burn rate, ash production rate, and makeup
water requirements. These values are based on the performance indicated in Table 4-
2.

The total makeup water requirements are the combined requirements from the
boiler and the cooling tower. Over 90 percent of the makeup water requirements are
from the cooling tower, which is based on the design day and 8 cycles of
concentration.
Capital Cost Estimates

This cost estimate is for six coal fired power plant producing 660 MW net each.
It is to be developed in the Orissa area of India complete with the following. The
total cost associated with a subcritical 6 x 660 MW (net) arrangement is expected to
be approximately $3,644,100,000. The cost of equipment for a supercritical 6 x 660
MW (net) system is approximately $31,000,000 greater than that of the subcritical
arrangement however the erection cost will remain the same. Based on this analysis,
the estimated cost for a supercritical 6 x 660 MW (net) system is $3,675,100,000

Table 4-2
Predicted Performance Summary
Gross Output, kW 717,391 717,391
Total Auxiliary Load, kW 57,391 57,391
Percent of Gross Output, % 8.0 8.0
Net Power Output, kW 660,000 660,000
Net Turbine Heat Rate, kcal/kWh 1913 1875
Gross Plant Heat Rate, kcal/kWh 2,219 2175
Net Plant Heat Rate, kcal/kWh 2412 2364
Net Plant Heat Rate including 2460 2411
degradation allowance 2%, kcal/kWh
Gross Plant Thermal Efficiency, % 38.8 39.6
Net Plant Thermal Efficiency, % 35.7 36.4
Boiler Efficiency, % 86.20 86.20
Heat Input, kcal/h 1.592 E+09 1.560 E+09
Fuel Burn Rate, kcal/h 1.847 E+09 1.810 E+09
Fuel Burn Rate tonne/h 549.702 538.690
Total Ash Production, tonne/h 230.88 226.25
Turbine Steam Conditions
Main Steam
Flow rate, t/h 2,284 2,086
Pressure, bar(a) 166.5 243.3
Temperature, º C 538 538
Cold Reheat Steam
Flow rate, t/h 1,902 1,809
Hot Reheat Steam
Note: Performance shown at TMCR

Table 4-3
Resource Requirements and Waste Streams
Fuel Burn Rate, kg/h/unit 549,702 538,690
Ash Production Rate, kg/h
Fly Ash Production Rate, kg/h 184,700 181,000
Bottom Ash Production Rate, kg/h 46,175 45,250
Makeup Water requirements, kg/h 136,000 130,000
Note: Performance provided for TMCR condition

Chapter 5 Summary Comparison
A comparison of the two conventional technologies is provided in Table 5-1.

The bases for the comparisons are references published in 1999. The objective was to
use a single resource for each item of comparison. This helps to normalize the results.
The relative rank of each technology for each item was confirmed by cross-checking
with several other resources.
The data presented in Table 5-1 for subcritical and supercritical PC units does not
match the data developed for this study. There are several reasons for this difference:
• The references are based on European installations.
• The references do not consider Indian coal fueled units.
• The references do not consider the identical scope of supply.

Table 5-1
Coal Fired Power Plant Technology Comparison
Technology Maturity Commercial Commercial
Sizes Available Up to 1,300 MW Up to 1,300 MW
Fuel Flexibility (Coal) Good Good
Operational Flexibility
Startup Good Good
Partload Operation Good Very Good
Availability > 86% >86%
Construction Time, months 36 36
Environmental Performance
SO2 Good Good
NOx Good Good
Ash Good Good
Net Plant Efficiency, % 35.7 36.4
Capital Equipment Cost Ratio 1.00 1.02
Source: Data taken from “Future Plans for Research and Development, Technology Transfer and Export
Promotions” and Competitiveness of Future Coal-Fired Units in Different Countries.”
Notes:
a
Operation on fuels other than coal was not considered.
b
Data for this table was taken from common sources and may not match data developed for this study.
c
Performance based on bituminous coal.
22 August 2000 5-3

Chapter 6 Operational Comparison
In addition to the performance differences between the subcritical and

supercritical arrangements discussed in section 4.0, a number of general operational
differences exist.
Heat Rate Degradation

Over the 30 year plant life, heat rate degradation is expected to be approximately
2%. This degradation will generally be caused by a decline in the performance of
various pieces of machinery. Specific examples include a degradation in the air
heater leakage due to wear of the air heater seals, and basket erosion. This reduction
in air heater performance will increase the air heater exit gas temperature, decreasing
the boiler efficiency. Additional degradation is expected in the turbine performance
due to blade wear, pulverizers, fans, pumps, etc. all due to wear. Implementing a
thorough maintenance program will reduce the effect of wear and use over time
however, regardless of the amount of maintenance performed, all equipment will
eventually experience performance degradation.
Partial Load Heat Rate

The optimum operating scenario for a plant this size is as a base loaded unit.
Operating units of this size below full load will have a large effect on the net plant
heat rate. Figure 6-1 provides an indication of the effect operating below full load
will have on the heat rate. As shown in the figure, the heat rate is approximately 4%
higher when the units are operated at 50% of their full load capacity, beyond this load,
the effect is even more dramatic on unit performance. Based on this it is
recommended that if the units must be operated at points below their full load
capacity for extended periods, the operating sequence is such that the minimum load
for any operational system be maintained at 50% of its full load capacity.
In addition to the effect on heat rate associated with partial load operation,
operating steam generators at loads below 50% may require the use of fuel oil for
flame stabilization. When operating at low loads, the steam generator will only have
a minimum number of mills in operation. Operating in this manner can lead to a mill
trip causing a fuel rich environment in the furnace. In order to ensure the safety of the
unit, fuel oil will need to be fired to maintain the furnace temperature above the
autoignition temperature of the coal.
22 August 2000 6-1 Black & Vea

Plant Load Factor

Operating the units at the projected PLF of 68.5% may also result in high fuel oil
consumption. In order to meet this PLF and maintain the most advantageous heat
rate, some of the units would need to be completely shutdown allowing the remaining
units to be operated at full load. When the shutdown units go through startup they
will need to operate on fuel oil during the warm up and low load ramping periods.
This operation on fuel oil will continue until approximately 50% load at which time
flame stabilization on pulverized coal will be achieved. This scenario will occur for
both the subcritical and supercritical systems.
22 August 2000 6-2 Black & Vea

Figure 6-1
Normalized Heat Rate Curve
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
Normalized Heat Rate
1.08
1.06
3 2
y = -0.4164x + 1.2371x - 1.2157x + 1.395
2
R = 0.9992
1.04
1.02
0.98
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Normalized Output
22 August 2000 6-3

Chapter 7 Conclusions
The advantages associated with a supercritical cycle include a lower heat rate,
lower fuel burn rate, lower emission rate (on mass basis), and improved load response
rate. Supercritical unit commissioning time and availability is expected to be
equivalent, and capital cost is expected to be only slightly higher than a subcritical
unit.
Based on these factors, it is expected that the project based on the use of a
supercritical cycle will show an overall advantage.

Chapter 8 APPENDIX A
8.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Project Cost Estimate

A project cost estimate was prepared for the Hirma Mega Project
utilizing sub-critical cycle based on the limited scope information and
project details, and is presented in Table A-1. Cost estimate
assumptions are listed in Table A-2.
Comparative Project Costs

Based on the experience and some published data, a curve was
prepared to show relationship of unit costs based on the unit size for
coal fired units. The curve should be used only for comparative
purposes. Figure A-1 is attached. As expected, the curve shows that
smaller size units have higher per unit price.
It may also be noted that the multiple units ordered together and the
same site in sequence leads to a lower cost per unit. It is estimated
that a two unit station will have 2% lower cost, a 4 unit station will
have 4% lower cost and 6 unit station will have 6% lower cost as
compared to a single unit of that size.
O&M Costs
Operation and Maintenance costs are shown in Table A-3. Both fixed
and variable O&M costs for 68.5% and 85% PLF are shown for a sub-
critical station.
It is expected that the O&M costs for supercritical station will be 2.5%
higher due to higher due to higher complexity, higher water quality
requirements and highly trained experienced operator requirements.
Fuel Oil Consumption

Table A-4 lists estimated startup characteristics lists Fuel Oil
consumption for cold, warm and hot starts. Based on assumption of
one cold, 3 warm and 10 starts per unit, the oil consumption is
estimated to be 22,802 gallons per unit.

Availability Cost
Regarding the difference in O&M Costs for an availability of 85%
against an availability of 68.5%, we are of the view that this higher
availability will entail an additional Fixed O&M cost of $1.83 million
per year.

Table A-1
Project EPC Cost Estimate
In Million US$
Civil Structural 872.0

Dust Control Equipment
Auxiliary Cranes & Hoists
Turbine Room Crane
Breeching & Dampers
Colony/Township(F&E)
Water Supply Line, pumps and
pump intake
Construction Facilities
Material Handling
Ash Landfill
Water Reservoir/Basins(F&E)
Chimney
Elevators
Metal Wall Panel
Rail (40 Kilometers)
Steel
Major Mechanical 1,284.9

Equipment
Hydrogen Generator
Turbine Generator
Emergency Generator
Ash Handling System
Pumps-Boiler Feed
Pumps-Circulating Water
Precipitators
Dry 'Scrubbers
Cooling Tower(F & E)
Steam Generator

Table A-1
BOP Mechnical 259.6

Equipment
Fire Protection System
Field Erected Tanks
Compressed Air Equipment
Carbon Dioxide Supply
Nitrogen Supply
Air Preheat Coils
Auxiliary Cooling Heat
Exchangers
Condenser
Deaerator
Feedwater Heaters
Condenser Tube Cleaning
Boiler Feed Pump Drive Turbine
Machine Shop Equipment
Pipe
Pumps-Condensate
Pumps-Condenser Vacuum
Pumps-Fire
Pumps-Miscellaneous
Lube Oil Conditioning
Induced Draft Fans
Auxiliary Boiler
Tanks – Shop Fabricated
Valves
Major Electrical 57.2

Equipment
Generator & Transf Prot
Relaying
Transformers-Auxiliary &
Generator
Substation(F&E)
BOQ Electrical 195.5

Equipment
Table A-1
Equipment
Cable
Iso Phase Bus,Neut Grd &
Surge Prot
High Voltage Motors
Batteries & Battery Charger
Continuous Ac Power
Equipment
Motor Control Centers
Hight Voltage Motor Starters
Switchgear And Bus Duct
Secondary Unit Substations
Distr. Control & Inform. Sys
(DCIS)
Annuciators
Vibration Monitoring
Fuel Silo Monitoring
Local Transmitters
Primary Flow Elements
Level Switches & Dectectors
Pressure Gauges
Pressure Switches
Thermometers
Thermocouple Assy & Test
Wells
Miscellaneous Instrumentation
Flue Gas Continuous Monitors
(CEM)
Control Panels
Instrument Racks, Enclosures,
Cabinets
Chemical 28.8
Spec Protective Coating
Boiler And Preboiler Cleaning
Chemical Feed Equipment
Chlorination Equipment

Table A-1
Demineralization System
Equipment
Plant Water Pretreatment
System
Laboratory Equipment
Water Quality Control System
Chemical Waste Treatment
Sanitary Waste Treatment
Field Labor 376.8

Engineering/CM 197.6
Start up/Testing 49.3
Construction 57.4
Equipment Costs
Freight 178.5
Startup Spares 14.5
Operating Spares 42.0
Rolling stock - coal 30.0
wagons & locos
Total Project EPC 3,644.1

Costs

Table A-2
Cost Estimate Assumptions
ESTIMATE DESCRIPTION
This cost estimate is for six (6) pulverized coal power generation plants,
producing approximately 720 MW gross, 660 MW net output each. It is to be
developed in the Orissa State of India complete with the following.
I. General Assumptions:
1. The plant site is considered a "greenfield" site that is reasonably

level and clear. No demolition of any existing structures is
included in this cost estimate.
2. The site has sufficient area available to accommodate

construction activities including, but not limited to, offices,
laydown, and staging.
3. Each unit will feature one (1) sub-critical steam generator and one
(1) condensing steam turbine generator. Draft fans and breeching
are included in these estimates. An allowance for structural steel
is provided for the steam generator. The steam generators are
not enclosed.
4. The steam turbine for each unit will be rated at approximately 720
MW and is inclusive of standard sound enclosure. The steam
turbines are in building with one overhead canes per steam
turbine.
5. Spread footings are assumed for all foundations. except for major
foundations turbines, boilers, and chimneys which are on piling.
Stabilization of the existing sub-grade is not anticipated.
6. The central control/electrical building will have adequate space to

support a control room, battery room, motor control center, meal
room and toilets, locker room, and various offices. The estimate
also includes a workshop/stores building that includes storage and
workshop areas, instrument room, locker room, and a drawing
room. A water service building consisting of cooling pumps,
firewater pumps, chemical conditioning system and a service
water system is also included. All buildings will be pre-engineered
metal structures. Within the plant a fire and first aid station is
included.
7. A dry scrubber and baghouse with the structural steel and total
electrical system for each unit are included.

8. Raw water and make-up water will be available from the Hirakund
Reservoir. Pipes, pumps and pumps intake is included.
9. A sanitary sewer is included.
10. Construction power is available at the site boundary.
11. One deep well is included for construction water and the colony
12. Coal will be delivered to the site by railroad (MGR) from the mine.
Allowance for a coal handling system is included. Forty kilometers
of railroad track is included. The railroad cars and locomotives are
included.
13. Back up fuel will be No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 6 fuel oil will also be
used during start up and for low load stabilization.
14. Automatic fire protection will consist of the vendor's standard CO2
fire suppression system, water deluge of the transformers, hydrant
protection of the cooling tower and site, wet pipe sprinkler system
in the buildings except in the control room which will have fire
detection equipment only.
15. Field Erected Tanks consist of the following:

• Fuel Oil Storage Tank
• Service/Fire Water Storage Tank
• Demineralized Water Storage Tank
• Neutralization Tank
• Condensate Storage Tank
16. A new substation is included that will tie into a 400 kV transmission
line. Power transmission lines are not included.
17. A township is included –one for 100 families of senior managers

and 30 families of other management and for 870 families of
employees
18. The entire site including the township will be enclosed with a 3-
meter high boundary wall. The township, in addition to housing,
also includes a school, a hospital, fire station, shopping areas,
recreation areas, and other facilities.
II. Direct Cost Assumptions:
1. All direct costs are expressed in August 2000 U. S. dollars.

2. Direct costs include the costs associated with the purchase of

equipment, erection and contractors' service.
3. These costs are escalated based on the proposed project

schedule.
4. Construction costs are based on an engineer, procure and

construction (EPC) contracting philosophy.
5. The construction labor rates are based on India labor rate

information.
III. Indirect Cost Assumptions:
1. General indirect costs include relay checkouts and testing,

instrumentation and control equipment calibration and testing,
systems and plant startup including operating crew during test and
initial operation period, operating crew training, electricity, water
and fuel used during construction, but no local taxes are included
in this cost estimate.
2. Engineering and related services include A/E services are

included to execute an EPC contract.
3. Field construction management services include field

management staff including supporting staff personnel, field
contract administration, field inspection and quality assurance,
project control, technical direction and management of start up.
Other costs include testing, cleanup expense for the portion not
included in the direct-cost construction contracts, safety and
medical services, guards and other security services, insurance
premiums, other required labor related insurance, performance
bond and liability insurance for equipment and tools.
4. The project is assumed to be duty & tax exempt.
5. No permit and licensing fee costs are included.
6. No acquisition of land cost is included.
7. A project total cost includes an allowance for contingency and

profit.
8. Startup spares parts are included in the estimate, but no operating

spare parts are included.

Figure A-1
Cost of Coal Fired Power Plants
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Net Plant Output (MW)
Note: Simultaneous engineering, procurement, and construction of additional boilers will result in a lower capital cost per MW. Black & Veatch estimates that
construction of two identical units can reduce plant costs by 2 percent on a cost per MW basis. Additional savings are estimated as follows:
• 4 units = 4 percent cost reduction
• 6 units = 6 percent cost reduction
22 August 2000 10 Black & Veatch

Table A-3
O&M Costs
Table A-3
O&M Costs
Plant Load 85% 68.5%
Factor
Fixed Costs
Labor & $000 $000
Routine
Expenses
Labor
Labor Sub-Total $5,896 $5,721
Routine Cost/Unit Station Total

Maintenance
Routine $17,935 $16,980
Maintenance
Sub-Total
Other
Expenses
Insurance- All $15,700 $15,000
risk property,
Business
Interruption,
liability and misc
coverage
(estimated)
22 August 2000 8-11 Black & Veatch Black

Table A-3
O&M Costs
Other Fixed $15,700 $15,000
Expenses Sub-
total
Total Labor & $39,531 $37,701
Routine Costs

Variable Costs
Outage maintenance $/Occurance Annual Ave Annual Ave
Turbine (once $ 3,000 $3,000 $2,489
every 6 years x
6 units)
Boiler (once $ 2,000 $4,000 $3,319
every 3 years x
6 boilers)
Balance of unit $ 750 $4,500 $3,734
(annual) per unit
Annualized $11,500 $9,542
Sub-Total
Outage
Maintenance
Others
Coal supply system maintanance, chemicals, ash disposal, $36,101 $28,997
scrubber reagent, by-product disposal, and others
Total Variable Costs $47,601 $38,539
Total O&M Costs $87,132 $76,240

Annual Generation (MWHr) 29,486,160 23,762,376
Cost/Unit of Cents/kWh 0.296 0.321
Output
Does not include any taxes
All figures expressed in year 2000 US$

Table A-4
Estimated Startup
Characteristics
Fuel Oil consumptions
Boiler Efficiency 84%
NTHR, Btu/KWh 7,703
Oil Shale HHV, Btu/lb 3,900
Fuel Oil, Btu/gal. 144,000
Full Load Fuel Heat 1,658
Input, MBtu/hr
Auxiliary Power, MW 57,391
Net Plant Output, MW 660
% Makeup Water 3%
Number of hot starts 10
Number of warm starts 3
Number of cold starts 1
Estimated start-up fuel oil consumption
Fuel Oil
Time, hrs Igniter Igniter FBR, Total Fuel, Total gallons
Load MBtu/hr MBtu
Cold Start (1)

10% Load 6.00 10.0% 165.77 994.61 6,907.0
20% Load 4.00 20.0% 331.54 1,326.15 9,209.4
30% Load 0.33 25.0% 414.42 138.14 959.3
40% Load 0.33 25.0% 414.42 138.14 959.3
50% Load 1.00 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
TOTAL PER UNIT PER STARTUP 18,035.0
FINAL TOTAL 18,035.0

Table A-4
Warm Start (3)

10% Load 2.50 10.0% 165.77 414.42 2,877.9
20% Load 0.17 20.0% 331.54 55.26 383.7
30% Load 0.17 25.0% 414.42 69.07 479.7
40% Load 0.17 25.0% 414.42 69.07 479.7
50% Load 0.33 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Hot Start (10)

10% Load 1.08 10.0% 165.77 179.58 1,247.1
20% Load 0.13 20.0% 331.54 42.50 295.2
30% Load 0.13 25.0% 414.42 53.13 369.0
40% Load 0.13 25.0% 414.42 53.13 369.0
50% Load 0.13 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0

SBI Capital For Super Critical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBI Capital For Super Critical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consultants Technical Consultant

SBI Capital Markets Limited

Hirma Power Project

Technology Characterization Study

11401 Lamar, Overland Park, Kansas, 66211, USA (913) 458-2000

Chapter 1 Executive Summary .....................................................................................1-1

Chapter 2 Introduction .................................................................................................2-1

Chapter 3 Pulverized Coal Technology ........................................................................3-1

Chapter 4 Plant Descriptions ........................................................................................4-1

22 August 2000 TC-3 Black & Veatch

Steam Generator. ..............................................................................................4-9

Chapter 5 Summary Comparison..................................................................................5-1

Chapter 6 Operational Comparison...............................................................................6-1

Chapter 7 Conclusions .................................................................................................7-1

Chapter 8 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................8-1

22 August 2000 TC-4 Black & Veatch

Table 1-1 Conventional Technology Summary............................................................1-2

22 August 2000 TC-5 Black & Veatch

Figure 4-1 Basic PC Power Generation Cycle. .............................................................4-2

22 August 2000 TC-6 Black & Veatch

Chapter 1 Executive Summary

22 August 2000 1-1 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 1-2 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 1-3 Black & Veatch

Black & Veatch performed a preliminary Technology Characterization feasibility

22 August 2000 2-1 Black & Veatch

Chapter 3 Pulverized Coal Technology

Definition of Subcritical and Supercritical

Advances in Supercritical Technology

First and Second Generation Supercritical Units

22 August 2000 3-1 Black & Veatch

Current Supercritical Designs

Capital Cost. Most sources indicate that supercritical technology, compared to

Efficiency. Assuming similar plant configurations, conventional supercritical steam

22 August 2000 3-2 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-3 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-4 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-5 Black & Veatch

Startup, Cycling, and Partload Operation.

22 August 2000 3-6 Black & Veatch

Supercritical Steam Experience List

22 August 2000 3-7 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-8 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-9 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-10 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-11 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-12 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-13 Black & Veatch

22 August 2000 3-14 Black & Veatch

Chapter 4 Plant Descriptions

22 August 2000 4-1 Black & Veatch

STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR - PRELIMINARY CYCLE SCHEMATIC

HTR8 HTR7 HTR6

STEAM SEAL FLOWS AND GLAND STEAM CONDENSERS NOT SHOWN

Figure 4-1 Basic PC Power Generation Cycle.

22 August 2000 4-2

22 August 2000 4-3 Black & Veatch

Combustion Air System.

22 August 2000 4-4 Black & Veatch

Compressed Air Systems.

Service Air System.

Auxiliary Cooling Water System.