<
p>
Increasing the competitiveness of the existing pulverized-coal utility fleet in the United States may be achieved by decreasing heat rate, via increases in steam cycle efficiency through upgraded steam temperatures and use of latest technology available in steam turbine and blading design. The average net plant efficiency of the US coal-fired fleet is approximately 33% (HHV). Plant efficiency increases to approximately 41.4% (HHV) at 1,350�F (732�C) steam temperature. However, achieving these Advanced Ultra-Super Critical (AUSC) steam conditions requires the use of advanced high-temperature materials. While there has been a significant amount of DOE-funded materials R&D, most of the related design work has focused on new (greenfield) units, rather than on opportunities to retrofit this advanced technology to the existing utility fleet. If technology, based upon the advanced materials required for AUSC steam conditions, may be applied to the existing fleet, using an economically viable retrofit, a higher capacity factor can be expected as a result of the increased plant competitiveness.<
/p>
<
p>
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) was awarded a project by the US Department of Energy to examine the technical and economic feasibility of a series of steam cycle upgrades to the two most prevalent types of U.S. coal power plants: 2,400 psig (16.6 MPa) subcritical and 3,500 psig (24.1 MPa) supercritical pulverized coal units. The nine upgrade options that were originally being considered included increasing the main and reheat steam temperatures from 1,000�F (538�C) to 1,100�, 1,200�, and 1,350�F (593�C, 649�C, and 732�C) while holding the steam pressures constant at their original design values, and cases where just the main steam or reheat steam temperatures were increased. The objective was to minimize the modifications required to the existing power plant while still providing a significant improvement in heat rate. The upgrade options assumed that the boiler enclosure envelope remained unchanged from each base case, and that all applicable OEM design guidelines for normal commercial units were imposed. For the highest temperature supercritical case, an option of using a low-pressure molten salt loop to transfer heat from the furnace to the steam was examined.<
/p>
<
p>
The first major task of the work scope was designed to examine the technical feasibility of various upgrade options, while the subsequent work determined economic viability of the technically feasible upgrade options. Prior to evaluating the effect of these increased temperatures, a ?base case? model of a subcritical and supercritical PC boiler was created, which was used for comparative purposes. Upgrade options were evaluated at full-load, part-load and dynamic transient conditions. Once the technical feasibility of each upgrade option was evaluated, the economic value of the heat rate improvement of each feasible option was determined by detailed modeling of unit dispatch in several regional power markets. The dispatch model was used to estimate the amount of revenue from power sales the upgraded unit would receive in comparison to a non-upgraded version of the same power plant. As a parallel task to the dispatch analysis, the capital cost of implementing the upgrades was estimated. The capital cost estimates were then compared to the increased revenue estimated by the dispatch modeling to determine the economic attractiveness of each upgrade option.<
/p>
<
p>
Several upgrade options were determined to be technically feasible. The net present value (NPV) of the costs for steam cycle upgrades considered in this study ranged from approximately $111 to $130 million. The economic modeling results show that the unit dispatch changes resulting from steam cycle upgrades are relatively small, due largely to heat rate (and operating cost) changes being relatively small. Additionally, the cost of each upgrade exceeds the net revenue increases associated with the upgrade case. Note that the breakeven values are higher for subcritical retrofits, but the capital costs for the subcritical upgrades are also slightly higher. In typical new pulverized coal plants, fuel accounts for approximately 25% of the cost of electricity (COE), while capital costs represent around 50% of the COE. Therefore, in order to improve the heat rate by 4% one can only afford to increase the capital cost by 2%, at the same cost of electricity. The conclusion of this study is that without a cost for emitting CO2, it will be difficult to pay for significant efficiency improvements on plants firing low cost coals.<
/p>