UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
EGTEI Methodology
Work to update costs for LCP
SO2, NOx and PM abatement techniques
27 June 2013
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda
 General cost methodology
 Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
 Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
 Economic assessment of dedusting technologies
 Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
General information
o Draft BREF document should be available by the end of June
o NEC Directive proposal should be available at the beginning of
Autonm 2013
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
NEC Directive in preparation
Targets : reduction of the gap between the Baseline / MTFR for PM2.5 effects of
75 %
Other pollutant not yet known, but optimised scenario A5 from IIASA could be
the target
Ceiling in 2025 or in 2030
Cible en
2025
YOLL
Ozone
A3
75%
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
A4
75%
50%
50%
55%
A5
75%
60%
55%
65%
A6
75%
70%
60%
75%
Eutrophication Acidification
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda
 General cost methodology
 Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
 Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
 Economic assessment of dedusting technologies
 Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
General Cost Methodology
Introduction
Total annual
cost
Annualisation
of investment
Composition
of OPEX
Fixed
operating cost
Variable
operating cost
P = interest rate | n = equipment lifetime | unit = equipment, reagent and electricity consumption, disposal, etc.
General Cost Methodology
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment decomposition
In an ideal case, costs should include (BREF Economic and cross media effects
Pollution control equipment expenditure
 Equipment costs,
 Primary pollution control device,
 Auxiliary equipment,
 Instrumention,
 Any associated freight of equipment,
 Modification to other equipment
Installation expenditure
 project definition, design, and planning
 purchase of land
 general site preparation
 buildings and civil works (including
foundations/supports, erection, electrical, piping,
insulation, painting, etc.)
 engineering, construction and field expenses
 contractor selection costs and contractor fees
 performance testing
 start-up costs
 cost of working capital
Contingency allowance:
In estimates of investment expenditure, a sum of money, or ‘contingency allowance’
included to cover expenses that cannot be estimated precisely. These are things that
are known will happen but cannot be defined in such detail that they can be valued and
added into the estimate.
General Cost Methodology
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment decomposition
In an ideal case, costs should include (BREF Economic and cross media effects)
When literature data are available, such a level of details on what is included or not
is rarely provided
Comparison of costs is difficult as it is difficult to know what is included or not
Questionnaires : total costs have been provided but we do not know exactly what is
included (no anwsers to the questions on costs items included.
General Cost Methodology
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment decomposition
In an ideal case, costs should include (BREF Economic and cross media effects)
In US cost estimation tools developed by EPA for FGD for instance, we have:
Equipment costs:
BMR = Base absorber island cost
BMF = Base reagent preparation cost
BMW = Base waste handling cost
BMB = Base balance of plan costs including: ID or booster fans, new wet chimney,
piping, ductwork, minor WWT, etc.
BMWW = Base wastewater treatment facility for future use.
Total base installed cost BM = BMR + BMF + BMW + BMB
The total base installed cost (BM) is then increased by:
• A1: Engineering and construction management costs at 10% of the BM cost;
• A2: Labour adjustment for 6 x 10 hour shift premium, per diem, etc., at 10% of
the BM cost;
• A3: Contractor profit and fees at 10% of the BM cost.
To obtain the capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC)
General Cost Methodology
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment decomposition
In an ideal case, costs should include (BREF Economic and cross media effects)
The capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC) is :
CECC = BM and the additional engineering and construction fees (A1 + A2 + A3).
Additional costs and financing expenditures for the project are computed based on the
CECC. Financing and additional project costs include:
• Owner's home office costs (owner's engineering, management, and procurement) at
5% of the CECC;
• Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) at 10% of the CECC and
owner's costs. The AFUDC is based on a three-year engineering and construction
cycle.
Escalation is not included in the estimate.
The total project cost (TPC) = CECC + additional costs and financing expenditures.
General Cost Methodology
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda
 General cost methodology
 Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
 Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
 Economic assessment of dedusting technologies
 Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Current Implementation
Fuels
Fuel
approach
Plants
Pollutants
Technologies
Coal, oil, gas, solid biomass (wood)
Detailed and general approach
Boilers, Gas Turbines
NOx, SO2, PM
NOx: LNB, SCR, SNCR
SO2: wet FGD, dry FDG, spray dry absorption
PM: FF, ESP
Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Emission load calculation
Approach
Plant and fuel data input
External input
Calculation of boiler
outlet emission loads
Chapter SSB
Setting stack emission
goals
Pollutant specific
chapters NOx
(AKM), PM (JBV),
SO2 (NA)
Choice of potential
abatement technologies
Economic assessment
Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Emission load calculation
Approach
Plant and fuel data
input
External input
Calculation of boiler
outlet emission loads
Chapter SSB
Setting stack emission
goals
Pollutant specific
chapters NOx
(AKM), PM (JBV),
SO2 (NA)
Choice of potential
abatement technologies
Economic assessment
Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Emission load calculation
required external input
External input
Plant and fuel data
input
Plant: thermal capacity, annual operating hours, electric efficiency
Combustion Characteristics: carbon-in-ash, bottom-to-fly-ash ratio, Sretained-in-boiler, excess air, NOx boiler outlet emission load
Fuel:
elementary mass analysis (CHONS+ash+moisture)
or
LHV+S+ash+moisture
Calculation of boiler
outlet emission loads
Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Emission load calculation
Interface to economic assessment
Plant and fuel data input
Calculation of boiler
outlet emission loads
Spec. wet flue gas volume [vflue gasλ,wet]
flue gas
Annual wet flue gas volume [v
Oxygen correction factor [fO2,corr]
λ,wet,year] SO2
Spec. dry flue gas volume [vflue gasλ,dry]
boiler outlet emissions [loadboSO2,dry]
NOx boiler outlet emissions [loadboNOx,dry]
Annual dry flue gas volume [vflue gasλ,dry,year] Dust boiler outlet emissions [loadboash,dry]
Economic assessment
Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda
 General cost methodology
 Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
 Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
 Economic assessment of dedusting technologies
 Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Introduction
Challenge
mass balancing is not possible!
Approach
guidance with technology and fuel specific
„typical“ NOx values from literature
NOx Boiler outlet emissions according to technology [mg/Nm³]
1st Gen. LNB
2nd Gen. LNB
3rd Gen. LNB
Hard Coal / Bituminous Coal
TangentiallyWall-Fired
Fired
600-800
500-600
500-600
400-500
400-500
350-400
Lignite
Wall-Fired
Tangentially-Fired
300-400
200-300
150-200
300-400
200-300
150-200
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Low NOx Boilers (LNB)
Option
Investment
Var. Cost
upgrade of existing LNB to newest generation
few data from literature, old EGTEI values
no quantification of costs could be obtained => Cop,var = 0
Illustrative example:
Boiler Size
1,000 MWth
Flue gas flow
1E+09 Mio. Nm³/year
LoadNOx,dry,O2-ref
800 mg/Nm³
New LoadNOx,dry,O2-ref
400 mg/Nm³
Spec. Investment
5 €/kWth
Total Investment
5,000,000 €
Ccap
Cop,fix
Ctot = Ccap + Cop
NOx mass abated
Cost per ton NOx
500,000 €/year
100,000 €/year
600,000 €/year
400 t/year
1,500 €/t NOx
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
10% p. a. of total
investment
2% p. a. of total
investment
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Secondary Abatement Techniques
Decision
SCR or SNCR?
Reference Box - SNCR Efficiency
Maximum Achievable SNCR Reduction Rates
Plant Size
Max. Reduction
< 100 MWth
60%
100 - 300 MWth
55%
300 - 500 MWth
47,5%
500 - 700 MWth
40%
> 700 MWth
35%
SCR Efficiency: 70-90%
Sources:
Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, US EPA
SNCR Guidelines, EPRI
Emission Control at Stationary Sources in Germany, KIT
EGTEI Questionnaires 2012
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Secondary Abatement Techniques
current emissions
Logic Tree
Upgrade 1°?
Derive new 2° inlet
emissions
Determine required
2° efficiency
Is SNCR feasible?
Yes
No
Details SNCR
Details SCR
Econonmic
Analysis SNCR
Econonmic
Analysis SCR
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Secondary Abatement Techniques
Investment
few data from literature, old EGTEI values
Var. Cost
reagent and electricity consumption, catalyst (SCR only)
Catalyst
cost depending on management strategies, literature values
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Secondary Abatement Techniques
Example analysis:
Effect of SCR operation (annual capacity factor) on cost
composition (left) and spec. NOx reduction cost (right) of an SCR
100
120
140
160
180
200
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Share of Total Costs p. a.
100%
spec. NOx reduction costs [€/t
abated]
NOx emissions at stack [mg/Nm³]
4,000
3,600
3,200
2,800
2,400
2,000
200
Capital Costs
Fixed Operating Costs
Variable Operating Costs
180
160
140
120
NOx emission load at stack (mg/Nm³]
100
1,000 MWth | 80 €/kWth SCR investment | 2% fixed O&M costs | 9% CRF | 6,000 h/a full load hours | SCR inlet emission load: 400 mg/Nm³
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Economic assessment for boilers and process heaters
Secondary Abatement Techniques
Example analysis:
Effect of plant operation (annual capacity factor) on cost
composition (left) and spec. NOx reduction cost (right) of an SCR
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
Capital Costs
20%
40%
60%
80%
Share of Total Costs p. a.
Fixed Operating Costs
100%
Variable Operating Costs
Spec. NOx reduction costs [€/t
abated]
Annual Capacity Factor
25,000
0%
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
100%
80%
60%
40%
Annual Capacity Factor
20%
Calculation Basis: 1,000 MWth | 80 €/kWth SCR investment | 2% fixed O&M costs | 9% CRF | 80% reduction (400 to 120 mg/Nm³)
Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda
 General cost methodology
 Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
 Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
 Economic assessment of dedusting technologies
 Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Specific cost methodology for Deduster
Adapted methodogy from US EPA Air pollution cost control manual
Investment
cost
Cinv € = f inst ∗ C equip €
Variable
operating cost
Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Precipitator
finst
1.74
1.67
Cequip
1.Baghouse compartments
2.Bags
3.Cages (only for Pulse Jet)
General equipment
Cunit
1.Bag replacement
2.Compressed air consumption
(only for Pulse Jet)
ESP power requirement
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
General approach for Fabric Filter equipment cost
Fabric Filter type
Logic Tree
Y
N
Pulse jet ?
Eq. 4-1 and
ref.box FF-2
Ref.box FF-1
Gas-to-Cloth ratio [m/s]
Eq. 4-3
Net Cloth Area (m2)
Eq. 4-4 and ref.box FF-3
If Pulse Jet = Y
Ref.box FF-6
Cages cost (€)
Gross Cloth Area (m2)
Eq. 4-6
Ref.box FF-4
Baghouse compartment
cost (€)
Bag cost (€)
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Net Cloth Area determination
Correlation and graph example
𝐺/𝐶
𝑚
= 𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑡 ∗ 𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝑇 𝐾 − 256
𝑠
−0.2335
∗
𝑚𝑔
𝑁𝑚3
𝑚𝑔
106
𝑘𝑔
−0.06021
𝑏𝑜
𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠ℎ,𝑑𝑟𝑦
∗ 0.7471 + 0.0853 ∗ 𝑙𝑛 𝑀𝑀𝐷 µ𝑚
𝑁𝑚3
𝑠
𝑚
𝐺/𝐶
𝑠
𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝐴𝑁𝐶 𝑚2 =
Net Cloth Area = f (MMDin and T)
25,000
Particle Size Distribution
Cumulative Mass Fraction (%)
22,500
20,000
Net Cloth Area [ANC] (m2)
𝑣𝜆,𝑑𝑟𝑦 ,𝑠𝑒𝑐
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
T (K)
400
450
500
550
600
650
1
10
Particle Diameter (µm)
5,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mass Mean Diameter [MMDin] (µm)
100
80
90
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
100
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Evolution of Net Cloth Area as a function of MMDin and T
ANC increases when MMD decreases
ANC increases when T increases
For MMD inlet between 5 and 20 µm
and T between 400 and 650 K :
11 500 m2 < ANC < 16 500 m2
Over 45 µm, influence of MMD value is
insignificant
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Cost comparison for Pulse Jet Fabric Filter units
Variable input parameters
Range choice
Temperature [T] (K)
[400-500]
Mass Mean diameter
[MMDin] (µm)
[3-21]
Pulse Jet housing
{Cartridge ; Modular}
Compartement
baghouse in stainless
steel
{Yes ; No}
Insulation for
compartment
baghouse
{Yes ; No}
Filtering media
{PE;CO;PP;FG;NO;
RT; P8;TF}
Cage size
{11,4cm*2,44m;
14,3cm*3,04m}
12,000
10,000
Investment (k€)
Parameter
8,000
inv min
inv max
6,000
inv norm
4,000
2,000
0
500
750
1000
1250
1500
Power (MWth)
inv min : T=400K ; MMDin=21µm ; Cartridge ; without SS ; without
insulation ; PE media ; cage size 2
inv max : T=500K ; MMDin=3µm ; Modular; with SS ; with insulation ;
TF media ; cage size 1
inv norm : T=450K ; MMDin=12µm ; Cartridge ; with SS ; with insulation
; RT media ; cage size 2
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Cost comparison for Pulse Jet Fabric Filter units
Comparison with literature data
50,000
45,000
References
25,15
AEP
30,28
IEA
22,45
World bank
19,48
Balcke Durr
27,55
EGTEI
UNECE
40,000
Investement costs ( 2010 k€)
2010 (k€/MWth)
35,000
inv norm
30,000
AEP
25,000
IEA
World bank
20,000
Balcke Durr
15,000
EGTEI-UNECE
10,000
inv max
5,000
0
500
750
1000
1250
Power (MWth)
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
1500
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Logic Tree
General approach for ESP equipment cost
Method 1
Particle source
Ref.boxes
ESP-1 and 2
Eq.
4-10
Net Cloth Area (m2)
Efficiency
Effective Collecting
Plate Area (m2)
Eq. 4-23
and ref.box
ESP-4
BC ?
Efficiency (%)
Method 2
T (K)
MMDin (µm)
Factor values
Eq. 4-11
to 4-21
And ref.
box ESP-3
Volumetric gas flow
(m3/s)
Specific Plate Area (s/m)
Equipment cost (€)
Effective Collecting
Plate Area (m2)
MMDp (µm)
MMDr (µm)
BC ?
Eq. 4-22
Volumetric gas flow
(m3/s)
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
Eq. 4-23
and ref.box
ESP-4
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Effective collecting plate area determination from method 2
k=1
MMD1=MMDin
k=n
MMDn
SCA1
AECP,1
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝑘+1,𝑖𝑛 µ𝑚 =
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝑘,𝑖𝑛 µ𝑚 ∗ 𝑓 𝑆𝑁 + 𝑝𝑒𝑐 ∗
SCAn
AECP,n
1 − 𝑝𝑒𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝑝 µ𝑚 + 𝑝𝑒𝑐 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝑘,𝑖𝑛 µ𝑚
𝑝𝑒𝑠
𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑘
𝑘𝑔
𝜈𝐺 𝑚. 𝑠
𝑠
=−
∗ 1 − 𝑓 𝑆𝑁 ∗
𝐶
𝑚
𝑉
𝜀0 𝑉. 𝑚
𝐸𝑎𝑣𝑔 𝑚
𝑛
𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑃 𝑚
2
=
𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑘
𝑘=1
ln⁡𝑝𝑒𝑐
2
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝑘,𝑖𝑛 µ𝑚 ∗ 10−6
3
𝑠
𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑁𝑚
∗ 𝑣𝜆,𝑑𝑟𝑦 ,𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝑚
𝑠
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
+ 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝑟𝑝 µ𝑚
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Evolution of SCA as a function of MMDin and T
SCA = f ( MMDin and T)
3,500
Specific collecting Area [SCA] (s/m)
3,000
2,500
T (K)
400
450
500
550
600
650
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mass Mean Diameter [MMDin] (µm)
CUECost workbook : 50 s/m < SCA <190 s/m
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
100
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Evolution of AECP as a function of MMDin and T
AECP = f (MMDin and T)
1,400,000
Effective collecting plate area [AECP] (m2)
1,200,000
1,000,000
T (K)
400
800,000
450
500
550
600,000
600
650
400,000
200,000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mass Mean Diameter [MMDin] (µm)
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
90
100
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Evolution of AECP as a function of MMDin and T
AECP increases when MMD decreases
AECP increases when T increases
For MMD inlet between 5 and 20 µm
and T between 400 and 650 K, AECP is
ranged between 46 700 m2 to 475 200 m2
 T has a more significant influence on
ESP
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Cost comparison for ESP units
Variable input parameters
Range choice
Efficiency [η] (%)
[99,0-99,99]
Temperature [T] (K)
[400-500]
Mass Mean diameter
[MMDin] (µm)
[3-21]
ESP specific
equipment
{Yes ; No}
ESP material
{Carbon steel; Stainless
steel 304; Stainless
steel 316; Carpenter;
Monel; Nickel;
Titanium}
35,000
30,000
Investment costs (2010 k€)
Parameter
25,000
20,000
inv min
15,000
inv norm
10,000
5,000
0
Investment cost for 1000
MWth unit (2010 k€)
Invmin
6 300
Invnorm
21 900
Invmax
224 700
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Power (MWth)
inv min : η = 99,0% ; T=400K ; MMDin=21µm ; without equipment ; Carbon steel
inv max : η = 99,99% ; T=500K ; MMDin=3µm ; with equipment ; Titanium
inv max : η = 99,5% ; T=450K ; MMDin=12µm ; with equipment ; Stainless steel 316
125 M€ < Invcost,max < 315 M€
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Cost comparison for ESP units
Comparison with literature data
55,000
2010 (k€/MWth)
References
23,39
AEP
25,23
IEA
50,000
19,33
World bank
32,35
Balcke Durr
6,04
Questionnary
Plant B
3,95
Questionnary
Plant C
4,47
Questionnary
Plant D
investment costs (2010 k€)
45,000
inv min
40,000
inv norm
35,000
AEP
30,000
IEA
World bank
25,000
Balcke Durr
20,000
Questionnary Plant B
15,000
Questionnary Plant C
Questionnary plant D
10,000
5,000
0
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Power (MWth)
Economic assessment of Dedusting technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda
 General cost methodology
 Calculation of boiler outlet emission loads
 Economic assessment of DeNOx technologies
 Economic assessment of dedusting technologies
 Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : questionnaires
Boilers
Size
MWth
Plant A
2464
Plant B
632
Plant C
620
Plant D
1500
Fuel and
sulphur
content
Hard coal
1.2%
Brown coal
1%
Hard coal
0.9%
Hard coal
0.6%
Costs €/MWth
Total
Costs €
as provided
Investment 2010/MWt
in
costs M€
h
questionnaire
77 922
192
77 922
(2008)
104 754
66.2
175 056
(1998)
80 042
49.6
111 811
(2001)
66 666
99.999
111 407
(1998)
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : questionnairesdata in Euro 2010
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
Questionnaires
100
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : IEA data
Plant
Capacity MWe Investments $/kWe
Investments €
2010/kWth
Petersburg
657
(assumed 1995)
[IEA]
317
Cumberland
1300
200
97
Conemaugh
1700
195
94
Ghent
511
215
104
Bailly
668
180
87
Milliken
316
348
168
Navajo
750
236
114
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
153
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : IEA data
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
IEA
100
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : comparison IEA data and questionnaires
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
IEA
100
Questionnaires
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
Installed process capital cost named A
$ 2008
FSFO process
equipment
ID fans and
ductwork
Chimney
Support
equipment
x
MWe
Equation
(X x 1000 x A x
X^B)/1.3
A
B
4456.5
-0.6442
Chimney afcm
(A x X + B)/1.3
1.6225
3 000 000
Chimney afcm
(A x X + B)/1.3
3.4736
5 000 000
MWe
0.0003 x X^3-1.0667 x X^2+1993.8 x X
+1177674) x 1.22
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
CUECost model consider also
additional Convention
items of costs to on
derive
the total capitalTransboundary
requirement:
UNECE
Long-range
Air
Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
Additional cost items have to be included as follows
Installed process capital cost
General facilities at % of A
Engineering and home office fees at % of A
Contingency as % of (A + B + C)
Total plant cost (TPC)
Total Cash Expended (TCE)
Allowance for funds during construction (AFDC)
Total plant investment (TPI)
Reproduction costs
Inventory capital
Total capital requirement
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
A
B
C
D
A+B+C+D
TPC * adjustment factor1
AFDC % input * TPC
TCE + AFDC
F
G
TPI + F + G
Total Plant Cost (TPC) - Equivalent to the total installed cost for all plant equipment,
including all direct and indirect construction costs, engineering, overheads, fees, and
contingency.
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
Additional cost items have to be included as follows
Installed process capital cost
General facilities at % of A
Engineering and home office fees at % of A
Contingency as % of (A + B + C)
Total plant cost (TPC)
Total Cash Expended (TCE)
Allowance for funds during construction (AFDC)
Total plant investment (TPI)
Reproduction costs
Inventory capital
Total capital requirement
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
A
B
C
D
A+B+C+D
TPC * adjustment factor1
AFDC % input * TPC
TCE + AFDC
F
G
TPI + F + G
General Facilities - Includes costs for items such as roads, office buildings, maintenance
shops, and laboratories. The indirect cost for these facilities typically ranges from 5 to 20%
of the Process Capital.
Engineering and Home Office Costs - This indirect cost includes the costs for an
architectural/engineering company and for home office engineering expenses by the user’s
company. This value typically ranges from 5 to 20% of the Process Capital
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
Additional cost items have to be included as follows
Installed process capital cost
General facilities at % of A
Engineering and home office fees at % of A
Contingency as % of (A + B + C)
Total plant cost (TPC)
Total Cash Expended (TCE)
Allowance for funds during construction (AFDC)
Total plant investment (TPI)
Reproduction costs
Inventory capital
Total capital requirement
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
A
B
C
D
A+B+C+D
TPC * adjustment factor1
AFDC % input * TPC
TCE + AFDC
F
G
TPI + F + G
Contingency - A capital cost included in the estimate to cover the costs for additional
equipment or other costs that are expected to be incurred during a project after the detailed
design is completed. These are funds that are expected to be spent during implementation of
the final project.
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
Additional cost items have to be included as follows
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) - Represents the time value
of money during the construction period
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
The CUECost model is able to reproduce IEA data with
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : CUECost model
The CUECost model used to estimated costs for different sizes of plants but just the
Total plant cost (TPC) as information is insufficiently developed to include
other cost items
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : comparison IEA data, questionnaires and CUECost
model
Investment costs
250
Bad representation of the
costs from questionnaire and
IEA
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
IEA
Questionnaires
100
CUE COST MODEL
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : comparison IEA data, questionnaires and CUECost
model
Investment costs
250
Better representation if
installed capital cost is
multiplied by a factor 2
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
IEA
Questionnaires
100
CUE COST MODEL
CUECost adapted
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5
Equipment costs:
BMR = Base absorber island cost
BMF = Base reagent preparation cost
BMW = Base waste handling cost
BMB = Base balance of plan costs including: ID or booster fans, new wet chimney,
piping, ductwork, minor WWT, etc.
BMWW = Base wastewater treatment facility for future use.
Total base installed cost BM = BMR + BMF + BMW + BMB
The total base installed cost (BM) is then increased by:
• A1: Engineering and construction management costs at 10% of the BM cost;
• A2: Labour adjustment for 6 x 10 hour shift premium, per diem, etc., at 10% of
the BM cost;
• A3: Contractor profit and fees at 10% of the BM cost.
To obtain the capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC)
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5
The capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC) is :
CECC = BM and the additional engineering and construction fees (A1 + A2 + A3).
Additional costs and financing expenditures for the project are computed based on the
CECC. Financing and additional project costs include:
• Owner's home office costs (owner's engineering, management, and procurement) at
5% of the CECC;
• Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) at 10% of the CECC and
owner's costs. The AFUDC is based on a three-year engineering and construction
cycle.
Escalation is not included in the estimate.
The total project cost (TPC) = CECC + additional costs and financing expenditures.
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5
Equipment costs:
Functions depending on :
o Unit size MWE
o Retrofit factor complexity,
o Gross heat rate
o SO2 rate
o Type of coal and coal factor
Functions tested for plants from 350 MWth to 5000 MWth assuming bituminious
coal with a coal factor of 1 and 1 % S content, a plant efficiency of 40 % to derive
the total project cost with default parameter for the different cost components to be
added to the Total base installed cost
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5
Test for a 500 MWe plant 40 % efficiency,
Coal :
1% S, 28 GJ/t
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
unit size
retrofit factor
gross heat rate
SO2 rate
Type of coal
coal factor
heat rate factor
500MWe
1
8531.6Btu/kWh
1.7lb/MMbtu
0.009
1%
0.714
1
0.853
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
GJ/kWh
S
Kg SO2/GJ
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5
Test for a 500 MWe plant 40 % efficiency : €2010
Absorber cost
Reagent preparation cost
Waste handling cost
Plant costs including ID, new chimney, piping duct work
Total base installed cost
Engineering and construction management costs
Labour adjustment for 6*10 hour shift premium per dien
Contractor profit and fees
30 588 772
12 950 446
7 181 196
58 201 424
108 921 837
10%
10%
10%
Capital, engineering and construction cost subtotal
Owners costs including all home office costs (owners
engineering, management and procurement activities
Total project cost
10 892 184
10 892 184
10 892 184
141 598 388
5%
7 079 919
148 678 308
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
EPA
100
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5comparison with other
sources
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
IEA
Questionnaires
CUE COST MODEL
100
EPA
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : US EPA cost manual chapter 5 - comparison with other
sources
Investment costs
250
Test with reduced % of
additional cost (+15 %
instead of + 35%)
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
EPA
100
EPA woth +15 % instead of +35
%
50
0
0
2000
4000
6000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : comparision with IEA and questionnaires
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
IEA
150
Questionnaires
100
EPA
EPA woth +15 % instead of
+35 %
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : Remarks on IEA data
Effect of learning effect
IEA data collected
probably in the year
1990.
Assumed to be 1995 on
average
According to
information provided
by IEA costs could
have been reduced by
40 % from 1995 to
2000
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : Remarks on IEA data
Investment costs
250
iNV EURO 2010/kWth
200
150
IEA
Questionnaires
EPA
100
EPA woth +15 % instead of +35 %
IEA with learning effect
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MWth
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Investment : Conclusions
The EPA model is able to represent correctly costs encountered in Europe if some
component of costs provided by this methodology are adapted :
Proposal : use the EPA model to estimate investment with adapted % for
• A1: Engineering and construction management costs at 10% of the BM cost;
• A2: Labour adjustment for 6 x 10 hour shift premium, per diem, etc., at 10% of the
BM cost;
• A3: Contractor profit and fees at 10% of the BM cost.
To obtain the capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC)
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Operating costs
At the previous meeting :
Validation of the reagent consumption and waste amount generated.
Electricity consumption and water consumption still to be validated
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Electricity consumption
Electricity consumption has two components in a FGD:
o The operating power of the fans to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling)
o The operating power of other auxiliaries such spray headers, mist eliminators, by
products handling, slurry pumps...).
From questionnaire s:
The average power for all auxiliaries on average of 1.5 % of capacity of the plant.
Proposal : take this into account to estimate costs of electricity consumption from
auxiliaries.
To overcome the pressure drop, the consumption of electricity depends on this
pressure drop. Reference [CUEcost] provides an average pressure drop of 6 in H2O or
15 mbar for a LSFO unit with an efficiency of 95 %.
Proposal: take this factor into account by default for the electricity consumption
determination to over come the pressure drop
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
The following data from IEA have to be kept in mind for comparison)
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Electricity consumption
Sulphur content of coal
1%
2.25 %
Capacity of fans and auxiliaries
to be used
1 % of net generation
1.5 % of net generation
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Water consumption
FGD
Efficiency
S%
m3/hour
annual
m3/t**
consumption reagent
Plant A
94
1.2
200
1500000
21
Plant B
96
2
51
355245
7
Plant C
95
0.9
25 à 60
66300*
8*
Plant D
86.4
0.62
61
334700
24
*Calculated by the secretariat based on 50 m3/h
** Calculated by the secretariat to try to derive parameter easily usable in cost functions
Water consumption has not a major impact on operating costs as it is rarely highlighted by the
literature.
However [IEA] provides one example of 7 m3/t reagent.
Proposal to take this water demand into account by EGTEI
Economic assessment of DeSOx technologies