....... Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impact On Heat Rate

2010 TECHNICAL REPORT
Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impacts on Heat Rate
10055141
10055141
Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impacts
on Heat Rate
1019703
Final Report, December 2010
EPRI Project Manager

J. Stallings
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
10055141
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION, UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Black & Veatch Inc.
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
10055141
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organization, under contract to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
prepared this report:
Black & Veatch

11401 Lamar
Overland Park, KS 66211
Principal Investigator
K. Nowling
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impacts on Heat Rate. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1019703.
iii
10055141
10055141
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The drive to leverage fuel switching to meet more stringent SO2 and NOX emissions requirements
has led to both a reduction in power station efficiency and a poorer net plant heat rate (NPHR) in
many cases. The root causes include higher fuel moisture content, lower fuel energy content,
poorer combustion efficiency, increased station service, and decreased unit capability. This
report demonstrates the sensitivity of the key metrics of power station efficiency and heat rate to
coal quality parameters, variations among “specification coals,” and plant equipment
configuration and condition using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Vista coal quality
impact model.
Results and Findings

The project team examined thousands of coal quality cases using the EPRI Vista coal quality
impact model. Some of the most critical results include:
• A considerable range of sensible and latent heat losses, boiler efficiency, auxiliary power,
and NPHR can be found among groups of “equivalent” specification coals, and the
differences in total fuel-related costs among specification coals can be profound.
• Generally speaking, higher heating value, moisture, and ash content had linear impacts on
unit efficiency and costs; but the influences of sulfur content and ash minerals exhibited non-
linear (or at best, difficult-to-predict) effects, impacting many parts of the unit
simultaneously, and sometimes inversely.
• Changes in plant performance because of changes in ambient conditions, operations
setpoints, and equipment condition can be significant and vary considerably even across a
selection of “equivalent” specification coals.
• The tangential-fired unit was better able to accommodate changes in fuel quality than the
wall-fired unit.
• Differences in furnace size can impact boiler efficiency and NPHR.
• While these differences can sometimes be related by simple trends in individual coal quality
factors (such as ash, moisture, and higher heating value), specific coal quality factors or
combinations of various coal quality factors can yield surprising outliers. As a result, buying
specification coals, or any coals, without performing additional due diligence appears to be a
risky strategy in some cases.
v
10055141
Challenges and Objectives
This report should be most useful to fuel buyers, performance and plant engineers and plant
operators and management. It demonstrates how seemingly similar coals can have very different
impacts on plant efficiency, heat rate, capability, and cost; how individual coal boilers can
perform differently due to differences in their furnace size and coal combustion technology; and
how the potential variation in plant operating conditions must be factored into any study of coal
quality impacts.
Applications, Values, and Use

The availability of computer-based tools such as the EPRI Vista program allows the assessment
of a large number of coals and their potential coal quality-related impacts. As the importance of
managing coal power plant heat rate is recognized, so should the importance of performing
analyses for the purpose of maximizing efficiency and minimizing costs.
EPRI Perspective
The installation of the latest generation of flue gas desulfurization systems is just the most recent
example of market forces that provide opportunities for savings by switching fuels. Expected
changes in regulations such as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and Clean
Air Transport Rule (CATR) will only give more incentives. EPRI’s Vista software tool is unique
in its ability to determine the impacts of changing fuels on the operation of a power plant and the
resulting cost of power.
Approach
The project team created two baseline conceptual unit models within the EPRI Vista coal quality
impact analysis program, representing typical 500-MW pulverized coal units. One unit employs
wall firing for combustion, and the other tangential firing. Each case included three different
variations of furnace size for a total of six conceptual unit models analyzed. The project team
performed a study on equivalent “market specification” coals to show the potential differences
between coals offered to power plants as “equivalent” coals. They also examined the sensitivity
of the conceptual unit models to changes in the trends of various coal quality components. In
addition, the study includes analyses of another set of variables – changes in plant ambient
conditions, plant performance setpoints, and plant equipment condition on “market specification”
coals.
Keywords
Coal blending
Coal quality sensitivity
Furnace size
Performance sensitivity
PRB
Specification coals
Total fuel-related costs
Vista
vi
10055141
ABSTRACT
has led to both a reduction in power station efficiency and a poorer net plant heat rate (NPHR) in
many cases. The root causes of this decrease in efficiency include higher fuel moisture content,
lower fuel energy content, poorer combustion efficiency, increased station service, and decreased
unit capability. As coal-fired power stations continue to search for new coals to comply with
environmental regulations, including pending greenhouse gas emissions limits or State
renewable portfolio standards, a better understanding of the sensitivity of the power station to
coal quality is needed. Some power stations that originally underwent a fuel switch to meet
emissions limits are now considering returning to their historical “better” fuels after installing
emissions control equipment such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. The potential risk
factors associated with a “static” coal quality analysis, such as changes in the ambient conditions,
plant performance setpoints, and plant equipment conditions can be significant and may lead to
different results when comparing coals.
This study uses the EPRI Vista coal quality impact analysis model to explore the potential risk
factors associated with changes in coal quality in six conceptual unit models (two baseline
models with three variations on each). The project team examined a selection of 813 “market
specification” coals and more than 465 coal quality sensitivity scenarios to discover the most
critical coal quality-dependent influences on boiler efficiency, net plant heat rate, generation
capability, and total fuel-related costs of the conceptual units. Adding to this, 288 performance
sensitivity scenarios were examined to quantify the potential error in performing a fuel quality
impact analysis without taking into account future variations in performance-related aspects of
the plant. The results show that on a long-term basis, there were considerable differences in
boiler efficiency, net plant heat rate, generation capability, and total fuel-related costs that could
result from even small variations in coal quality.
vii
10055141
10055141
BV QC UNITS
Parameter US Customary Metric Conversion Equation
ft2 m2 1 ft2 = 0.0929 m2

area
in2 cm2 1 in2 = 6.45 cm2
enthalpy btu/lbm kJ/kg 1 btu/lbm =2.326 kJ/kg
heat btu J 1 btu = 1055 J
heat rate btu/kWh kJ/kWh 1 btu/kWh = 1.0551 kJ/kWh
inch cm 1 inch = 2.54 cm

linear dimension
foot meter 1 foot = 0.3.048 meter
lbm kg lbm = 0.4535 kg

mass
short ton metric ton 1 st = 0.9072 mt
mass flow lbm/hr kg/s 1 lbm/hr = 0.000126 kg/s
pressure psi kPa 1 psi = 6.895 kPa
temperature °F °C 1 °F = 1.8 ∗°C + 32
ix
10055141
10055141
CONTENTS
1 OVERVIEW OF THE VISTA PROGRAM AND FUEL-RELATED IMPACTS ON HEAT

RATE .........................................................................................................................................1-1
Goals of this Technical Report ..............................................................................................1-1
The EPRI Vista Program .......................................................................................................1-1
Analysis Process and Report Organization...........................................................................1-3
Coal Quality Parameters Which Impact Boiler Efficiency and Net Plant Heat Rate – A
General Overview..................................................................................................................1-4
Boiler Efficiency ................................................................................................................1-4
Sensible Heat Losses ..................................................................................................1-4
Latent Heat Losses ......................................................................................................1-5
Unburned Combustible Losses....................................................................................1-5
Radiation and Convection Losses ...............................................................................1-5
Miscellaneous and Margin Losses...............................................................................1-5
Net Turbine Heat Rate......................................................................................................1-6
Unit Auxiliary Power .........................................................................................................1-6
Summary ...............................................................................................................................1-6
2 BASELINE CONCEPTUAL MODELS ...................................................................................2-1

Description and Characteristics of the Baseline Conceptual Vista Models ...........................2-1
The Wall-Fired Pulverized Coal Units ...................................................................................2-1
The Tangential-Fired Pulverized Coal Units..........................................................................2-1
Baseline Performance of the Conceptual Vista Models ........................................................2-5
Baseline Boiler Efficiency and Net Plant Heat Rate .........................................................2-5
Baseline Equipment Margins............................................................................................2-5
Baseline Slagging and Fouling Performance ...................................................................2-6
Baseline Unit Emissions and Emissions Limits ................................................................2-6
Economic and Operations and Maintenance Assumptions...................................................2-8
Conclusions.........................................................................................................................2-10
xi
10055141
3 MARKET “SPEC” COAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .............................................................3-1
The Purpose, Advantages, and Dangers of a Fuel Quality Specification..............................3-1
Use of Monte Carlo Analysis for Predicting Unit Operations Limitations...............................3-2
Northern Appalachian "Spec" Coals......................................................................................3-3
Central Appalachian "Spec" Coals ........................................................................................3-3
Illinois Basin "Spec" Coals ....................................................................................................3-4
Powder River Basin "Spec" Coals.........................................................................................3-5
Analyses Performed on the Wall-Fired and Tangential-Fired Units ......................................3-5
Results from the Wall-Fired Unit ...........................................................................................3-6
Alternate NAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Wall-Fired Unit...................................................3-7
Potential Operating Limitations of the NAPP Specification Coals..............................3-15
Alternate CAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Wall-Fired Unit.................................................3-15
Potential Operating Limitations of the CAPP Specification Coals..............................3-18
Alternate Illinois Basin Coal Sensitivity for the Wall-Fired Unit.......................................3-18
Potential Operating Limitations of the IB Specification Coals ....................................3-22
The Influence of Furnace Size on Boiler Efficiency, Heat Rate, and Costs....................3-23
Results from the Tangential-Fired Unit................................................................................3-31
Alternate Illinois Basin/PRB Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit ....................3-32
Potential Operating Limitations of the IB Specification/PRB Coals............................3-40
Alternate NAPP/PRB Blend Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit ....................3-40
Potential Operating Limitations of the NAPP Specification/PRB Blend Coals ...........3-44
Alternate Low-Sulfur CAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit .....................3-44
Potential Operating Limitations of the CAPP Specification Coals..............................3-48
Alternate High-Sulfur NAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit ....................3-48
Potential Operating Limitations of the NAPP Specification Coals..............................3-51
Alternate High-Sulfur Illinois Basin Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit ..........3-51
Potential Operating Limitations of the IB Specification Coals ....................................3-54
Impacts of Blend Coal Variability: Baseline Coal and Many PRB Blends ......................3-54
Conclusions.........................................................................................................................3-66
4 COAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...........................................................................4-1

Determination of Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges: The Wall-Fired Unit................................4-2
Results from the Wall-Fired Unit ...........................................................................................4-2
Higher Heating Value .......................................................................................................4-3
xii
10055141
Coal Moisture Content......................................................................................................4-5
Coal Ash Content .............................................................................................................4-8
Coal Sulfur Content ........................................................................................................4-11
Ash Iron Oxide Content ..................................................................................................4-13
Ash Sodium Content.......................................................................................................4-15
The Influence of Furnace Size on Operations Limitations..............................................4-20
Determination of Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges: The Tangential-Fired Unit ....................4-26
Results from the Tangential-Fired Unit................................................................................4-26
Higher Heating Value .....................................................................................................4-26
Coal Moisture Content....................................................................................................4-29
Coal Ash Content ...........................................................................................................4-31
Coal Sulfur Content ........................................................................................................4-34
Ash Calcium Content......................................................................................................4-36
Ash Sodium Content.......................................................................................................4-38
The Influence of Furnace Size on Boiler Efficiency and Heat Rate ................................4-40
The Influence of Furnace Size on Operations Limitations..............................................4-43
Conclusions.........................................................................................................................4-48
5 PLANT EQUIPMENT CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE SENSITIVITY .........................5-1

The Impact of Varying Ambient Temperature .......................................................................5-1
The Impact of Varying Excess Oxygen Setpoints ...............................................................5-10
The Impact of Varying Air Heater Leakage .........................................................................5-15
Conclusions.........................................................................................................................5-21
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................6-1

The Market Specification Coal Sensitivity Analysis: Conclusions .........................................6-1
Coal Quality Sensitivity Analysis: Conclusions......................................................................6-2
Plant Equipment Conditions and Performance Sensitivity: Conclusions...............................6-3
xiii
10055141
10055141
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Screen Shot of the EPRI Vista Program...................................................................1-3

Figure 3-1 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency...................3-7
Figure 3-2 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Latent Heat
Efficiency Losses ...............................................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-3 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Sensible Heat Efficiency
Losses................................................................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-4 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Boiler Efficiency.............3-9
Figure 3-5 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency ....................3-9
Figure 3-6 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Auxiliary Power ...........3-10
Figure 3-7 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Auxiliary Power ...................3-10
Figure 3-8 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Auxiliary Power..................3-11
Figure 3-9 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus NPHR ..........................3-12
Figure 3-10 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus NPHR................................3-12
Figure 3-11 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus NPHR ..............................3-13
Figure 3-12 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs ................................................................................................................................3-13
Figure 3-13 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs ................................................................................................................................3-14
Figure 3-14 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs ................................................................................................................................3-14
Figure 3-15 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency...............3-15
Figure 3-16 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Auxiliary Power................3-16
Figure 3-17 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus NPHR ..............................3-17
Figure 3-18 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs ................................................................................................................................3-18
Figure 3-19 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Moisture versus Boiler Efficiency ...............3-19
Figure 3-20 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency.......................3-19
Figure 3-21 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency .....................3-20
Figure 3-22 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus Auxiliary Power ......................3-21
Figure 3-23 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus NPHR.....................................3-21
Figure 3-24 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs .......3-22
Figure 3-25 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................3-23
xv
10055141
Figure 3-26 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace
Size ..................................................................................................................................3-24
Figure 3-27 Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-
Related Cost to Furnace Size ..........................................................................................3-25
Figure 3-28 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................3-26
Figure 3-29 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace
Size ..................................................................................................................................3-27
Figure 3-30 Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-
Related Cost to Furnace Size ..........................................................................................3-28
Figure 3-31 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................3-29
Figure 3-32 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace Size .........3-30
Figure 3-33 Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-Related
Cost to Furnace Size........................................................................................................3-31
Figure 3-34 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Boiler
Efficiency..........................................................................................................................3-32
Figure 3-35 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus
Latent Heat Efficiency Losses..........................................................................................3-33
Figure 3-36 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Sensible
Heat Efficiency Losses.....................................................................................................3-34
Boiler Efficiency................................................................................................................3-34
Figure 3-38 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Boiler
Efficiency..........................................................................................................................3-35
Auxiliary Power ................................................................................................................3-35
Figure 3-40 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Auxiliary
Power ...............................................................................................................................3-36
Figure 3-41 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus
Auxiliary Power ................................................................................................................3-36
NPHR ...............................................................................................................................3-37
Figure 3-43 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus NPHR ........3-38
Figure 3-44 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus NPHR.......3-38
Total Fuel-Related Costs .................................................................................................3-39
Figure 3-46 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Total
Fuel-Related Costs ..........................................................................................................3-39
Figure 3-47 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Total
Fuel-Related Costs ..........................................................................................................3-40
Figure 3-48 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus
xvi
10055141
Figure 3-49 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus
Figure 3-50 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus
Auxiliary Power ................................................................................................................3-42
NPHR ...............................................................................................................................3-43
Figure 3-54 Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: Moisture versus Boiler
Efficiency..........................................................................................................................3-45
Figure 3-55 Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency.....3-45
Figure 3-56 Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Boiler
Efficiency..........................................................................................................................3-46
Figure 3-57 Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Auxiliary Power ....3-46
Figure 3-58 Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus NPHR...................3-47
Figure 3-59 Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Total Fuel-
Related Costs...................................................................................................................3-48
Figure 3-60 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Boiler
Efficiency..........................................................................................................................3-49
Figure 3-61 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Auxiliary Power ....3-49
Figure 3-62 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus NPHR...................3-50
Figure 3-63 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Total Fuel-
Related Costs...................................................................................................................3-51
Figure 3-64 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency..........3-52
Figure 3-65 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus Auxiliary Power ..........3-52
Figure 3-66 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus NPHR .........................3-53
Figure 3-67 Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs ................................................................................................................................3-54
Figure 3-68 Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus Boiler
Efficiency..........................................................................................................................3-56
Figure 3-69 Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus NPHR..............3-57
Figure 3-70 Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus Derate .............3-59
Figure 3-71 Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus Annual
Figure 3-72 Tangential-fired Unit IB Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Boiler
Efficiency to Furnace Size................................................................................................3-61
Figure 3-73 Tangential-fired Unit IB Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of NPHR to
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................3-62
Figure 3-74 Tangential-fired Unit IB Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Annual Total
Fuel-Related Cost to Furnace Size ..................................................................................3-63
xvii
10055141
Figure 3-75 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Boiler
Efficiency to Furnace Size................................................................................................3-64
Figure 3-76 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of NPHR to
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................3-65
Figure 3-77 Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Annual
Total Fuel-Related Cost to Furnace Size .........................................................................3-66
Figure 4-1 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV.............................................4-3
Figure 4-2 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to HHV .............................................4-4
Figure 4-3 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to HHV ............................................................4-4
Figure 4-4 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to HHV ..............................4-5
Figure 4-5 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Latent Heat Losses to Moisture .................................4-6
Figure 4-6 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Moisture ......................................4-6
Figure 4-7 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Moisture .......................................4-7
Figure 4-8 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Moisture......................................................4-7
Figure 4-9 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Moisture ........................4-8
Figure 4-10 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Losses to Ash...................................4-9
Figure 4-11 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Ash ............................................4-9
Figure 4-12 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Ash...........................................4-10
Figure 4-13 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash .........................................................4-10
Figure 4-14 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash............................4-11
Figure 4-15 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Sulfur.......................................4-12
Figure 4-16 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Sulfur ......................................................4-12
Figure 4-17 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Sulfur.........................4-13
Figure 4-18 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Unit Derate to Ash Iron Content.............................4-14
Figure 4-19 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Iron Content.....................................4-14
Figure 4-20 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Iron Content .......4-15
Figure 4-21 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Sodium Content...............................4-16
Figure 4-22 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Sodium
Content.............................................................................................................................4-16
Figure 4-23 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV and Furnace Size ...........4-17
Figure 4-24 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Loss to Ash and Furnace Size .......4-18
Figure 4-25 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Iron Content and Furnace Size .......4-19
Figure 4-26 Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Moisture and
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................4-20
Figure 4-27 Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal HHV vs. Furnace Size.......................................4-21
Figure 4-28 Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Moisture Content vs. Furnace Size ...................4-22
Figure 4-29 Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Content vs. Furnace Size...........................4-23
Figure 4-30 Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Sulfur Content vs. Furnace Size .......................4-24
Figure 4-31 Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Iron Content vs. Furnace Size ...................4-25
Figure 4-32 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV...............................4-27
xviii
10055141
Figure 4-33 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to HHV................................4-27
Figure 4-34 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to HHV ..............................................4-28
Figure 4-35 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to HHV.................4-28
Figure 4-36 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Latent Heat Losses to Moisture ...................4-29
Figure 4-37 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Moisture.........................4-30
Figure 4-38 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Moisture .........................4-30
Figure 4-39 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Moisture ........................................4-31
Figure 4-40 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Moisture ..........4-31
Figure 4-41 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Losses to Ash .......................4-32
Figure 4-42 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Ash ................................4-32
Figure 4-43 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Ash .................................4-33
Figure 4-44 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash ...............................................4-33
Figure 4-45 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash ..................4-34
Figure 4-46 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Sulfur .............................4-35
Figure 4-47 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Sulfur ............................................4-35
Figure 4-48 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Sulfur...............4-36
Figure 4-49 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Unit Derate to Ash Calcium Content ............4-37
Figure 4-50 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Calcium Content ....................4-37
Figure 4-51 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Calcium
Content.............................................................................................................................4-38
Figure 4-52 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Sodium Content.....................4-39
Figure 4-53 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Sodium
Content.............................................................................................................................4-39
Figure 4-54 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV and Furnace
Size ..................................................................................................................................4-40
Figure 4-55 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Loss to Ash and Furnace
Size ..................................................................................................................................4-41
Figure 4-56 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to HHV and Furnace Size .................4-42
Figure 4-57 Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to HHV and
Furnace Size ....................................................................................................................4-43
Figure 4-58 Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal HHV vs. Furnace Size .............................4-44
Figure 4-59 Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Moisture Content vs. Furnace Size .........4-45
Figure 4-60 Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Content vs. Furnace Size.................4-46
Figure 4-61 Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Calcium Content vs. Furnace
Size ..................................................................................................................................4-47
Figure 4-62 Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Sodium Content vs. Furnace
Size ..................................................................................................................................4-48
Figure 5-1 Boiler Efficiency versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
Specification Coals.............................................................................................................5-3
Figure 5-2 Auxiliary Power versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
xix
10055141
Figure 5-3 NPHR versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals ........5-6
Figure 5-4 Maximum Potential Derate versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
Figure 5-5 Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
Specification Coals...........................................................................................................5-10
Figure 5-6 Boiler Efficiency versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification
Coals ................................................................................................................................5-11
Figure 5-7 Auxiliary Power versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification
Coals ................................................................................................................................5-12
Figure 5-8 NPHR versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals ................5-13
Figure 5-9 Maximum Potential Derate versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin
Figure 5-10 Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin
Figure 5-11 Boiler Efficiency versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin
Figure 5-12 Auxiliary Power versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin
Figure 5-13 NPHR versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals ........5-19
Figure 5-14 Maximum Potential Derate versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin
Figure 5-15 Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin
xx
10055141
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Baseline Coal Quality of the Two Conceptual Models: Heat Content,
Proximate, and Ultimate Analyses .....................................................................................2-2
Table 2-2 Baseline Coal Quality of the Two Conceptual Models: Ash Mineral and Other
Analyses.............................................................................................................................2-3
Table 2-3 Comparison of the Baseline Performance of the Two Conceptual Models ...............2-4
Table 2-4 Comparison of the Furnace Sizes of the Wall-Fired and Tangential-Fired Units.......2-7
Table 2-5 Economic Assumptions .............................................................................................2-9
Table 2-6 Fuel Cost Assumptions............................................................................................2-10
Table 3-1 Example of a Coal Power Plant Fuel Quality Specification .......................................3-1
Table 3-2 Northern Appalachian Coal Specification for this Study ............................................3-3
Table 3-3 Central Appalachian Coal Specification for this Study...............................................3-4
Table 3-4 Illinois Basin Appalachian Coal Specification for this Study ......................................3-4
Table 3-5 Powder River Basin Coal Specification for this Study ...............................................3-5
Table 3-6 Number of Analyses Performed on the Wall-Fired and Tangential-Fired Units .........3-6
Table 3-7 Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on Boiler
Efficiency for the Tangential-Fired Unit, % .......................................................................3-55
Table 3-8 Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on NPHR for the
Tangential-Fired Unit, Btu/kWh ........................................................................................3-57
Table 3-9 Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on Maximum
Potential Derate for the Tangential-Fired Unit, MW .........................................................3-58
Table 3-10 Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on the Annual
Total Fuel-Related Costs for the Tangential-Fired Unit, $M/year.....................................3-60
Table 4-1 Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges.....................................4-2
Table 4-2 Tangential-Fired Conceptual Unit Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges .........................4-26
Table 5-1 Boiler Efficiency versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
Specification Coals with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit ...................................................5-2
Table 5-2 NPHR versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit ...................................................................................5-5
Table 5-3 Potential Derate versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
Specification Coals with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit ...................................................5-7
Table 5-4 Annual Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois
Basin Specification Coals with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit .........................................5-9
xxi
10055141
10055141
1
OVERVIEW OF THE VISTA PROGRAM AND FUEL-
RELATED IMPACTS ON HEAT RATE
Goals of this Technical Report
has in many cases led to both a reduction in power station efficiency and a poorer net plant heat
rate (NPHR) at the power station. The root causes of this decrease in efficiency include higher
fuel moisture content, lower fuel energy content, poorer combustion efficiency, increased station
service, and decreased unit capability. As coal-fired power stations continue to search for new
coals to comply with environmental regulations, including pending greenhouse gas emissions
limits or State renewable portfolio standards, a better understanding of the sensitivity of the
power station to coal quality impacts is needed. In addition to these cases, some power stations
which originally underwent a fuel switch to meet emissions limits now are considering a return
to their historical “better” fuels after bringing on line emissions control equipment such as flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. Finally, the potential risk factors associated with a "static"
coal quality analysis, such as changes in the ambient conditions, plant performance setpoints, and
plant equipment condition, can lead to different results when comparing coals.
The objectives of this study are to demonstrate the sensitivity of the key metrics of power station
efficiency and heat rate to coal quality parameters, variations among “specification coals”, and
plant equipment configuration and condition. To perform this study the EPRI Vista coal quality
impact model was utilized.
The EPRI Vista Program
The EPRI Vista fuel quality impact model is a computer program which specializes in predicting
how changes in fuel quality or fuel sources at a coal-fired power plant will impact plant
performance, derates, emissions, maintenance and availability, and economics. Originating from
the earlier EPRI Coal Quality Impact Model (CQIM), the EPRI Vista program has been
developed over 13 years and is currently supported by 26 utility companies in the United States
and abroad. The Vista program focuses on all parts of the power plant which are impacted by
coal quality:
• Coal handling systems.
• Pulverizers, cyclone combustors, and stoker firing systems.
• Steam generator effects, such as steaming capability, slagging and fouling, and tube failure
mechanisms.
1-1
10055141
Overview of the Vista Program and Fuel-Related Impacts on Heat Rate
• Air and gas fans, preheat coils, and air heater systems.
• Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and fabric filter bag houses.
• Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems.
• Wet, semi-dry, and dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers.
• Bottom ash, fly ash, gypsum, and scrubber waste disposal systems.
Vista can be used to perform studies for many different fuel-quality-related situations which
could impact a coal-fired power plant, such as coal blending scenarios, biomass and opportunity
fuel firing, oil or gas co-firing with coal, coal specification variability analysis using sensitivity
coals, Monte Carlo probability analyses, operations and maintenance sensitivity, and capital
upgrades to the power plant. The output from a Vista analysis consists of performance,
emissions, operations and maintenance, availability, and economic results which are presented in
Excel spreadsheet form in either pre-defined or custom-created spreadsheets. More than 2,000
results are available from each fuel which is analyzed.
The Vista modeling process typically consists of the following steps:

1. Initial interviews with plant personnel for high-level data gathering and familiarity.
2. A site visit for detailed data collection.
3. Collection of performance and coal quality data to tune or “calibrate” the Vista model of the
plant to a set of baseline conditions.
4. Validation of these baseline conditions.
5. Analysis of alternate fuels or scenarios which deviate from the baseline conditions.
Figure 1-1 shows a screenshot of the EPRI Vista program.
1-2
10055141
Figure 1-1
Screen Shot of the EPRI Vista Program
Analysis Process and Report Organization
The analysis undertaken for this effort begins with establishing a baseline analysis for two
conceptual pulverized coal units: a 500-MW wall-fired unit, and a 500-MW tangential-fired unit.
Both units are 1960’s-vintage design and were designed for high-sulfur bituminous coal, and are
equipped with overfire air and low-NOx burners, an electrostatic precipitator, and wet limestone
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. One unit is equipped with a selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) system for NOX control. One unit burns bituminous coal in its baseline configuration, and
the other unit burns a compliance blend of low-sulfur and high-sulfur coal (and intends to switch
back to high-sulfur coal.) Furthermore, both units were developed in three different furnace size
variations to account for the potential impacts of differences in the heat release per plan area on
the sensitivity of the unit to coal quality from an efficiency and heat rate standpoint.
After the baseline models were established, the first task was to study and quantify the potential
impacts of accepting coals delivered under a “fuel specification contract.” The purpose of this
was to demonstrate the potential impacts coal quality uncertainty from spot market purchases
could have on unit efficiency and heat rate, capability, emissions, operations, and economics. To
accomplish this task, a suite of specification coals was developed for each conceptual unit,
including an analysis of several different blends of low- and high-sulfur coals. While all coal
quality data was based on actual analyses or specifications, no proprietary names or identifiers
are referenced in this report.
1-3
10055141
Based on the results of the "spec coal" analysis, an assessment was made of the most critical coal
quality parameters which could impact unit efficiency and heat rate, capability, emissions,
operations, and economics at each unit. These critical fuel quality parameters (such as coal heat
content, moisture, ash, sulfur, etc.) were varied over realistic ranges to demonstrate how sensitive
each of the conceptual units was to changes in coal quality.
The next task of this effort was to assess the potential risk to the units of a combination of
variations in ambient conditions or plant performance along with variations in coal quality. This
included both plant equipment condition changes (such as changes in air heater performance and
leakage) and plant operations decision changes (such as changes in excess oxygen setpoints).
The final task of this effort was to discuss good practices for analysis of fuel quality impacts on
plant efficiency and heat rate, capability, emissions, operations, and economics. This includes
some of the most important data collection efforts, coal quality validation for internal and
external consistency, and establishment of a proper test burn analysis process.
Coal Quality Parameters Which Impact Boiler Efficiency and Net Plant Heat
Rate – A General Overview
The net plant heat rate (NPHR) is a measure of the overall thermal efficiency of the unit, and is
composed of the efficiency of the boiler, the turbine cycle, and the station power utilization.
Each of these components and the general effect which fuel quality has upon them is described
following.
Boiler Efficiency
Boiler efficiency represents the efficiency of the steam generator of taking the energy contained
within the fuel and transferring it to the water, main steam, and reheat steam cycles of the power
plant. Boiler efficiency is not the same as the combustion efficiency, and is made up of several
different components.
Sensible Heat Losses
Sensible heat losses are losses resulting from the sensible heat contained in flue gas as it leaves
the last heat transfer surfaces of the steam generator (normally, the air heater). These losses are
primarily a function of the ambient temperature, the air heater gas outlet temperature, and the
stoichiometric and excess air required for combustion. They are often thought of collectively as
being an operations-related factor, as the way the unit operates is a larger factor than the fuel
quality in most cases. However, should a fuel cause a large amount of slagging or fouling, or
have a reflective ash, then furnace exit temperatures and air heater gas outlet temperatures will
be increased, thus increasing the sensible heat losses. In modern coal-fired units, these sensible
heat efficiency losses are typically on the order of 2.0 to 5.0%.
1-4
10055141
Latent Heat Losses
Latent heat losses are losses resulting from the heat contained in water vapor which is required
for it to change phase from liquid to gas. Since almost no power plants exhaust their flue gas at
less than 212ºF, this phase transition energy is lost to the environment. Although influenced by
the ambient relative humidity, the primary contributors to latent heat losses are the fuel moisture
content and the moisture formed by the combustion of hydrogen within the fuel. In modern coal-
fired units, these latent heat efficiency losses are typically on the order of 3.0 to 8.0%.
Unburned Combustible Losses
Unburned combustible losses are the losses of energy due to unburned fuel which is disposed of
with the bottom ash, fly ash, or slag. These losses are strongly influenced by both operations and
fuel quality. Major influences on the level of unburned combustibles produced include:
• Operations: Excess air level, burner design, overfire air use, burner tilt, pulverizer fineness,
and the ratio of primary air to fuel.
• Fuel: Fixed carbon and volatile matter content, heating value, and grindability.
• Firing technology: Pulverized coal, cyclone, stoker, or fluidized bed.
Unburned combustible losses are expressed as a percentage efficiency loss, but in practice they
are often thought of in terms of either loss on ignition (LOI) or carbon in ash (CIA) losses. Both
of these metrics are mass measurements of either the total unburned combustibles (LOI) or the
carbon (CIA) contained within a sample of fly or bottom ash which is collected (typically fly
ash). In modern pulverized coal-fired units, these unburned combustible efficiency losses are
typically on the order of 0.1 to 2.0%.
Radiation and Convection Losses
These losses are heat transfer losses from the steam generator, which result from losses through
the insulation, through un-insulated portions of the steam generator, air leaks, and other factors.
They are only rarely measured or estimated, with most plant engineers either relying upon the
original boiler manufacturer's estimates, or charts from the American Boiler Manufacturers
Association (ABMA). In modern coal-fired units, these radiation and convection efficiency
losses are typically on the order of 0.2 to 0.5%.
Miscellaneous and Margin Losses
A boiler and its related systems are a very large piece of equipment, which has numerous places
for heat and energy loss to occur that cannot be accurately measured without considerable effort.
As a result, boiler manufacturers typically arrive at a "miscellaneous" loss value, which includes
such items as bottom ash and fly ash sensible heat, pulverizer rejects, pulverizer motor heat
credits, etc. In modern coal-fired units, these miscellaneous efficiency losses are typically on the
order of 0.5 to 1.5%.
1-5
10055141
Net Turbine Heat Rate
Net turbine heat rate is a measure of the ability of the turbine to convert the energy contained
within the main steam and reheat steam cycles into work input to the generator(s). Since the
turbine system does not directly contact the coal, one would think that the net turbine heat rate
would be relatively unaffected by coal quality. But there are exceptions, including the following:
• Steam sootblowers.
• Steam required for primary and secondary combustion air preheat.
• Differences in main steam and reheat steam outlet enthalpy (temperature- and pressure-
influenced) resulting from differences in combustion efficiency and heat transfer in the
boiler.
• Differences in the main steam and reheat steam attemperation sprays, resulting from
differences in heat transfer in the boiler.
As a result, the coal plant engineer should never discount the ability of changes in coal quality to
impact the overall net plant heat rate in a variety of ways.
Unit Auxiliary Power
Unit auxiliary power is the power consumed by the unit to sustain its generation, and as a result
auxiliary power is counted as an efficiency loss on a net basis (the gross plant heat rate does not
consider unit auxiliary power). Coal quality can have significant impacts on unit auxiliary power
consumption, primarily as a result of the differences in the fuel burn rate of the unit (which is
most directly tied to coal higher heating value, moisture, and ash content). However, other coal
quality parameters can cause significant changes in the unit auxiliary power – for example, a
low-sulfur coal which allows a unit with a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system to operate with
one or more modules off line may save more than a megawatt of energy from that effect alone.
Summary
There are many aspects of coal power plant efficiency which can be impacted by changes in coal
quality, and an attempt to show the magnitude of these changes is made, using the EPRI Vista
program. The impacts of variations in coal quality due to real-world market conditions, coal
quality sensitivity of several different coal quality parameters, and blend level variations will be
examined. Finally, the impacts due to changes in some operations parameters and ambient
conditions will be evaluated.
1-6
10055141
2
BASELINE CONCEPTUAL MODELS
Description and Characteristics of the Baseline Conceptual Vista Models
To accomplish the goals of modeling the fuel quality impacts on plant efficiency, heat rate, and
performance, two conceptual models were developed within the EPRI Vista program. It was
decided that these two models should represent the most common coal-fired technologies
currently utilized within the United States, and to that end a wall-fired pulverized coal and a
tangential-fired pulverized coal unit were selected to be modeled. Furthermore, to attempt to
capture the impacts on plant operations and fuel quality sensitivity resulting from differences in
furnace size, three different versions of each conceptual model were developed, featuring
different furnace sizes. All of these unit models were assumed to be sited in the upper mid-
western portion of the United States, and to receive all coal shipments via rail delivery. Each of
these conceptual unit models is described here.
The Wall-Fired Pulverized Coal Units
The wall-fired pulverized coal unit is a 550-MW-gross/500-MW-net unit composed of a standard

two-pass single-reheat furnace, using spray attemperation as its primary method of both
superheat and reheat temperature control. Coal is supplied to the unit via five vertical spindle
mills of 50 ton/hr capacity. Combustion air is provided by three primary air and two forced-draft
fans, and flue gas is removed via two induced-draft fans. The furnace was designed for a high-
sulfur bituminous coal, and is currently firing the same. Details of the current baseline coal
quality may be found in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
The emissions control devices on this unit consist of the following:

• Particulates: a cold-side ESP and passive removal via the wet FGD scrubber.
• NOX: Low-NOX burners, overfire air, and a hot-side SCR system.
• SO2: A wet limestone FGD system with a gypsum production plant.
Some details of the wall-fired pulverized coal conceptual model may be found in Table 2-3.
The Tangential-Fired Pulverized Coal Units
The tangential-fired pulverized coal unit is a 550-MW-gross/500-MW-net unit composed of a

standard two-pass single-reheat furnace using tilting burners as its primary method of both
superheat and reheat temperature control, with spray attemperation as the secondary method of
2-1
10055141
Baseline Conceptual Models
superheat and reheat temperature control. Coal is supplied to the unit via five vertical spindle
mills of 53 ton/hr capacity. Combustion air is provided by three primary air and two forced-draft
fans, and flue gas is removed via two induced-draft fans. The furnace was designed for a high-
sulfur bituminous coal, and is currently firing a mass-basis blend of 50% high-sulfur bituminous
coal and 50% 8,800 Btu/lbm Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. Details of the current baseline coal
quality may be found in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
The emissions control devices on this unit consists of the following:

• Particulates: a cold-side ESP and passive removal via the wet FGD scrubber.
• NOX: Low-NOX burners and overfire air.
• SO2: A wet limestone FGD system with a gypsum production plant.
Some details of the tangential-fired pulverized coal conceptual model may be found in Table 2-3.
Table 2-1
Baseline Coal Quality of the Two Conceptual Models: Heat Content, Proximate, and
Ultimate Analyses
Coal Quality Parameter Wall-Fired Unit Tangential-Fired Unit
Higher Heating Value, Btu/lbm 11,700 10,250
Lower Heating Value, Btu/lbm 11,176 9,688

Proximate Analysis (as-received)
Moisture, % 12.00 19.65
Ash, % 9.00 6.75

Volatile Matter, % 34.41 33.26
Fixed Carbon, % 44.59 40.35
Ultimate Analysis (as-received)

Carbon, % 63.53 57.39
Hydrogen, % 4.39 3.94
Nitrogen, % 1.07 0.86

Sulfur, % 2.60 1.41
Chlorine, % 0.24 0.12
Moisture, % 12.00 19.65
Ash, % 9.00 6.75

Oxygen, % 7.17 9.88
2-2
10055141
Table 2-2
Baseline Coal Quality of the Two Conceptual Models: Ash Mineral and Other Analyses
Coal Quality Parameter Wall-Fired Unit Tangential-Fired Unit
Silica, % 48.40 43.17
Alumina, % 21.30 19.77
Titania, % 1.00 1.10

Iron Oxide, % 17.60 13.60
Lime, % 3.20 10.37
Magnesia, % 1.10 2.67

Potassium Oxide, % 2.49 1.76
Sodium, % 0.77 1.18
Sulfur Trioxide, % 2.30 4.43
Phosphorus Pentoxide, % 0.13 0.49
Undetermined, % 1.71 0.81
Miscellaneous Properties
Ash Initial Deformation Temperature, 2,070 2,113
Reducing, ºF
Ash Softening Temperature, 2,270 2,175

Reducing, ºF
Ash Hemispherical Temperature, 2,410 2,361

Oxidizing, ºF
T250 Temperature, ºF 2,469 2,361

Hardgrove Grindability 52.0 56
Calculated SO2, lbm/MBtu 4.44 2.74
2-3
10055141
Table 2-3
Comparison of the Baseline Performance of the Two Conceptual Models
Performance Parameter Wall-Fired Unit Tangential-Fired Unit
Gross Output, MW 550.00 550.00
Net Output, MW 500.00 500.00
Boiler Efficiency, HHV, % 88.07 87.09

Full Load NTHR, Btu/kWh 8,200 8,200
Full Load NPHR, Btu/kWh 10,242 10,357
Full Load Coal Burn Rate, ton/hr 218.85 252.60

Ambient Temperature, ºF 80.0 80.0
Excess Oxygen, % 3.50 3.00
Air Heater Leakage, % 10.00 10.00
Air Heater Gas Outlet Temperature, ºF 328.3 328.3
Primary Air Fan Margin, % 16.5 7.5
Forced Draft Fan Margin, % 21.8 24.9

Induced-draft Fan Margin, % 7.5 9.4
Mill Air Inlet Temperature, ºF 500.0 500.0
Mill Air Outlet Temperature, ºF 135.0 (130.0) 135.0 (130.0)

(minimum)
Mills in Service (total mills) 5 (5) 5 (5)

Mill Margin, % of Load 12.5 4.7
Main Steam Temperature, ºF 993 993
Reheat Steam Temperature, ºF 1,009 1,009
Slagging Level Medium Medium

High-Temperature Fouling Level Low/Medium Medium/High
Stack/Post-ESP Opacity, % 8.0 8.0

Fly Ash LOI, % 0.5 0.6
Boiler NOX Emissions, lbm/MBtu 0.45 0.15
Stack NOX Emissions, lbm/MBtu 0.10 0.15

Boiler SO2 Emissions, lbm/MBtu 4.44 2.74
Stack SO2 Emissions, lbm/MBtu 0.20 0.20
Annual CO2 Emissions, ton/year 3,474,120 3,599,380
2-4
10055141
Baseline Performance of the Conceptual Vista Models
Each conceptual model was designed to be able to burn the baseline coal without significant risk
of unit limitations due to derates or excessive maintenance outages. Although summary-level
information may be found in Table 2-3, details of the baseline performance of the conceptual
units are described in the following section.
Baseline Boiler Efficiency and Net Plant Heat Rate
Since both of these units were designed for a bituminous coal, their heat transfer areas within the
boiler and air heater were optimized for bituminous coal combustion. This means that in the case
of the tangential-fired unit, burning the blend of bituminous and PRB coal results in less than
optimum heat transfer, and a concomitant decrease in boiler efficiency. To accommodate this
and attempt to keep the units on an equal footing, the air heater of the tangential-fired unit was
assumed to be upgraded, which kept the difference in sensible heat losses leaving the boiler/air-
heater envelope to a minimum. However, what cannot be corrected for is the increase in latent
heat losses for the tangential-fired unit, due to the higher moisture content of the
bituminous/PRB coal blend. As a result, the tangentially fired unit has a baseline boiler
efficiency of 87.09%, which is nearly 1% lower than the baseline boiler efficiency of the wall-
fired unit, 88.07%.
Each unit was assumed to have equal turbine cycle conditions (same turbine arrangement and
condition, same condenser backpressure, same feedwater heater performance, etc.) to focus on
the fuel-quality-related impacts. As a result, the net turbine heat rate (NTHR) for each unit was
identical, at 8,200 Btu/kWh. Baseline gross and net power loads were assumed to be the same for
each unit (which in reality would not be realistic unless equipment efficiency upgrades were
done during the PRB blend fuel switch, such as moving to variable-frequency-drive motors). The
total impact of all the efficiency and fuel-related impacts on the net plant heat rate resulted in a
baseline net plant heat rate (NPHR) of 10,242 Btu/lbm for the wall-fired unit, and 10,357
Btu/kWh for the tangential-fired unit.
Baseline Equipment Margins
The air-side fans (primary and secondary) were originally designed to have at least a 30%
capacity margin for the units, but over time the decline in coal quality has led to a reduction in
the capacity of the fans. Furthermore, the switch to a 50/50 blend of PRB coal for the tangential-
fired unit has resulted in a significant increase in the required primary air flow, further reducing
fan capacity. As a result, the primary air fan margin for the tangential-fired unit has fallen to a
relatively low 7.5%. The induced-draft fans were designed to be over-sized, such that no
scrubber booster fan would be required with the addition of the FGD scrubber system. The initial
plant goal was to have at least 10% margin on the induced-draft fans; however, in the case of the
wall-fired unit, the addition of the SCR has increased the gas-side pressure drop, which has
reduced the induced-draft fan margins to 7.5%.
2-5
10055141
The mills were initially sized to provide a good grinding/throughput capacity margin at the units,
on the order of approximately 20%, which would have allowed for one mill to remain out of
service as a rotating spare to facilitate maintenance. However, a decline in coal quality over time
has reduced this mill capacity margin, and in the case of the tangential-fired unit, blending the
lower-energy PRB coal has significantly reduced the mill baseline capacity. As a result, the wall-
fired unit has a baseline mill capacity margin of 12.5%, and the tangential-fired unit has a
baseline mill capacity margin of 4.7%.
The mills were designed to have sufficient drying capability to accommodate a 50/50 blend of
bituminous coal and PRB coal, but at that blend level, only a relatively small operations margin
remains. The required mill inlet temperature for the tangential-fired unit burning its 50/50 blend
was 500ºF, which is very close to the maximum primary air heater air outlet temperature of
527ºF. Any significant increase in coal moisture content over the baseline value for the
tangential-fired unit (19.65%) will likely result in a reduction of the mill coal/air outlet
temperature, which could result in a potential unit derate.
Baseline Slagging and Fouling Performance
Both units are outfitted with steam sootblowers for both the furnace wall blowers and the long
retractable blowers used in the upper furnace, pendent pass, and convective pass zones of the
boiler. The steam sootblowers operate at a pressure of 2,750 psi and 750ºF, for a steam cleaning
enthalpy of 1,225 Btu/lbm. In the case of the wall blowers, a baseline blowing time of one
minute per blower was assumed for every sootblowing cycle, at a steam flow rate of 10,000
lbm/hr. In the case of retractable sootblowers, a baseline blowing time of seven minutes per
blower was assumed for every sootblowing cycle, with 12,900 lbm of steam per hour.
Both units were assumed to require a heavy sootblowing demand with their baseline coals. For
the wall-fired unit, the baseline bituminous coal has a high level of slagging due to iron and
sulfur in the coal, and for the tangential-fired unit the baseline blend of bituminous and PRB coal
suffers from iron, sulfur, calcium, and magnesium impacts from the combined coal ash. The
upper furnace retractable sootblowers were assumed to be operating at near maximum capacity
as well, due to moderate levels of upper furnace tube fouling. The pendent pass and convective
backpass regions of the boilers were assumed to be operating with two total sootblowing cycles
per day, or at a relatively low demand rate.
Baseline Unit Emissions and Emissions Limits
Both of the conceptual units are required to meet an SO2 limit of 0.20 lbm/MBtu at the stack.
Sulfur removal was facilitated by a wet limestone FGD scrubber at each unit, operating at a
maximum SO2 removal efficiency of 96%, with 100% of the scrubber waste being converted to
gypsum for wallboard. An ash sulfur capture of 5% was assumed for all bituminous coals, and
10% for all sub-bituminous coals. No SO3 or acid gas emissions control devices were installed on
the units. As a result, the baseline SO2 emissions for both units were 0.20 lbm/MBtu (in other
words, no over-scrubbing was performed).
2-6
10055141
Both units were required to meet a particulate mass emissions limit of 0.1 lbm/MBtu, as well as
an opacity limit of 20%. Particulate removal at the units was accomplished primarily by a cold-
side ESP, with a baseline removal efficiency of 99.3%. In addition to ESP particulate removal,
FGD scrubbers were assumed to remove 90% of the fly ash which entered their systems. As a
result, the baseline mass emissions rates for the units were 0.01 lbm/MBtu for the tangential-
fired unit, and 0.004 lbm/MBtu for the wall-fired unit (the wall-fired unit benefitted from a
higher ESP removal efficiency due to a higher fuel sulfur content, which assisted via improving
the fly ash resistivity). The baseline opacity for the units was set to be 8% for each case
(although a lower opacity would normally be expected for the wall-fired unit, the value of 8%
was deliberately chosen to emphasize any differences in opacity as a result of coal quality
impacts).
The two units were required to meet different NOX emissions limits. In the case of the wall-fired
unit, a NOX limit of 0.10 lbm/MBtu was required. Given that the baseline NOX emissions level
from the wall-fired boiler was 0.45 lbm/MBtu, this required the SCR for that unit to operate at a
baseline NOX removal efficiency of 77.8% (the SCR was designed with a maximum NOX
removal efficiency of 90%). The tangential-fired unit, on the other hand, had a looser NOX
emissions limit of 0.20 lbm/MBtu, and was able to achieve this via combustion controls, low-
NOX burners, and overfire air use to a level of 0.15 lbm/MBtu.
No CO- or CO2-based emissions limits were applied to either of the units for this study.
Table 2-4
Comparison of the Furnace Sizes of the Wall-Fired and Tangential-Fired Units
Wall-Fired Unit
Performance Parameter Large Furnace Medium Furnace Small Furnace
Furnace Depth, ft 58.00 52.00 50.00

Furnace Width, ft 64.00 58.00 52.00
Furnace Plan Area, ft2 3,712 3,016 2,600
Furnace Design Heat Release, 5,087.4 5,121.0 5,141.9

MBtu/hr
Heat Input per Plan Area, MBtu/hr/ ft2 1.371 1.698 1.978
Tangential-Fired Unit
Performance Parameter Large Furnace Medium Furnace Small Furnace
Furnace Depth, ft 58.00 52.00 50.00
Furnace Width, ft 64.00 58.00 52.00
Furnace Plan Area, ft2 3,712 3,016 2,600

Furnace Design Heat Release, MBtu/hr 5,153.1 5,178.4 5,192.2
Heat Input per Plan Area, MBtu/hr/ ft2 1.388 1.717 1.997
2-7
10055141
Economic and Operations and Maintenance Assumptions
The Vista program has the ability to model a wide range of economic costs and credits to the
unit, from the F.O.B. fuel cost all the way to CO2 emissions costs. Each of these costs can be
considered on a first-year basis, in terms of $/year or mills/kWh, or can be escalated over a
multi-year period to calculate both levelized annual costs and net present value. For this study
the focus was to show all costs on a first-year basis, in terms of what is known as the total annual
fuel-related cost, which is defined as all variable costs which are somehow influenced by the
choice of fuel quality. Thus, some significant cost items at a coal power plant, such as turbine
maintenance, condenser cleaning, and cooling tower repair, as well as balance-of-plant
operations costs, are not directly predicted by the Vista program.
The Vista program has the ability to perform calculations on units not just at full unit load, but at
other lower load points which make up a load-demand curve. Up to 20 different load-demand
points can be assessed using the Vista program, and the results of the operations performance at
each load point, times the hours of operation at that point, are summed together to generate the
annual economic results. If the Vista program predicts that unit limitations with a particular fuel
result in an inability to achieve one or more load-demand points, then a generation derate is
calculated in terms of GWh/year, and a replacement power cost resulting from these derates is
also calculated. Here it must be explained that Vista is also not limited to analyzing a single year,
although admittedly that is the most common analysis basis by far which is done. The Vista
program can examine the economics of operating at any time interval from one hour to 100
years. For the purpose of this study, each of the conceptual unit models was configured to
operate on a load-demand curve which had a one-year net capacity factor of 75%, divided over
five load-demand points.
The Vista program has a very detailed maintenance and availability calculation engine, which
examines more than 600 different types of maintenance activities at the unit, some dependent on
coal quality and some not. If the user desires, the forced and scheduled outage rates, mean time
and clock time to repair, parts cost, logistics time, and other factors can be tuned for each one of
these maintenance activities. Since that is a very large effort, many users of Vista prefer to rely
on its default database of reference maintenance values, which has been developed by EPRI and
Black & Veatch over nearly 20 years of analysis and use. The default database was utilized for
the conceptual models in this report, except for the area of boiler waterwall and suspended tube
failure rates, which were set by Black & Veatch to represent realistic tube failure rates for each
specific type of unit. Moreover, the overall equivalent availability factor of the units was tuned to
90% for the baseline coal quality. If Vista calculates that a unit has a poorer equivalent
availability factor as a result of burning a particular fuel, then it will calculate a lost generation in
terms of GWh/year, and a replacement power cost resulting from this unavailability. Should a
fuel be predicted to be a better fuel for the unit in terms of maintenance and availability
concerns, and have a better equivalent availability factor, then Vista will calculate an availability
credit (negative unavailability) and apply that to the unit economic results as a credit.
The cost assumptions which were made for this study are shown in Table 2-5.
2-8
10055141
Table 2-5
Economic Assumptions
Cost Item Value
Replacement Energy Cost:
Differential Auxiliary Generation $25/MWh
Differential Unit Derate $60/MWh

Differential Unit Availability $75/MWh
Maintenance Salary (Fully-loaded) $100,000/yr
Fly Ash Disposal Cost $10/ton

Bottom Ash Disposal Cost $10/ton
SCR Reagent Cost $200/ton
Limestone Cost (Scrubber) $33/ton
Scrubber Waste Disposal Cost $12.50/ton
SO2 Allowance Cost $100/ton
NOX Allowance Cost $500/ton

CO2 Emissions Cost $0/ton
Mercury Emissions Cost $1,000/oz.
Baseline Net Capacity Factor 75%

Baseline Equivalent Availability Factor 90%
At first it was considered acceptable to specify that fly ash was a sellable product from the
conceptual unit models, or potentially to specify that the sale or disposition be based on the fly
ash LOI value (typically, this must be less than 6% on a mass basis in order for the fly ash to be
sellable for concrete use). However, due to uncertainty over reclassification of coal power plant
ash by EPA, it was decided to address fly ash from a conservative standpoint of requiring
disposal of 100% of the ash. Furthermore, while originally the intent was to allow both
conceptual units to realize a credit due to gypsum sales from their scrubbers, the collapse of the
gypsum wallboard market and housing markets in the United States, the availability of cheaper
imported wallboard, and the predicted trend towards continued scrubber construction meant that
the future of gypsum sales was in question. As a result, it was assumed that all scrubber waste
required disposal in a landfill.
Another economic factor which was highly important was the decision as to whether to apply a
CO2 emissions cost to the unit total fuel-related costs. Since each unit emits approximately 3.5
millions tons per year of CO2, even a small CO2 cost would result in a very large economic impact
which would greatly overwhelm any of the other economic factors (such as differential SO2 and
NOX emissions, differential maintenance, differential auxiliary power, etc.). Furthermore, not
only is there no CO2 cost or market scheme in place for nearly all of the coal-fired power plants
2-9
10055141
in the United States, but many analysts also believe it is unlikely, for political reasons, that there
will be one within the next six to ten years of this writing. As a result, for the baseline case no
CO2 emissions cost was assumed.
Possibly the most important assumption for the economic calculations associated with the
scenarios which were studied was the assumption for the delivered fuel cost of any alternate
fuels under consideration. Delivered fuel costs can be extremely variable from mine to mine or
plant to plant, being dependent upon anything from actual production cost to the ability of the
utility to negotiate a preferential contract cost rate. As a result, general cost values were assumed
for all coals from each region examined, and no attempt was made to perform any economic
"what if" sensitivity analysis within this study. The representative cost values used for this study
may be found in Table 2-6. (Note that due to the selected site location of the conceptual models,
Illinois Basin coals are shown to have a cost advantage on a delivered cents/MBtu basis.)
Table 2-6
Fuel Cost Assumptions
Coal Basin/Region Value, cents/MBtu
Northern Appalachian Coals: 392.0
Central Appalachian Coals 372.0

Illinois Basin Coals 243.0
Powder River Basin Coals (8,800 Btu/lbm) 256.0
Conclusions
These two conceptual unit models are just two options of many that could have been examined
with the EPRI Vista program. It is hoped that they will serve well as a foundation for
demonstrating the impacts of fuel quality on plant efficiency and heat rate. Although the reader
may have an interest in units which are a very different size, have different plant equipment, burn
different fuels, or any combination of the three cases, it is hoped that the experiments on these
conceptual models will nonetheless provide good overall guidance.
2-10
10055141
3
MARKET “SPEC” COAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate how the variation of fuel quality within a
particular specification may result in a variation in plant efficiency, heat rate, and performance.
To this end, numerous specification examples were evaluated within the Vista program, and the
range of critical results reviewed.
The Purpose, Advantages, and Dangers of a Fuel Quality Specification
Fuel quality specifications are functional or legal ranges of fuel quality used to guide fuels
buyers in selecting coal sources for use at a power plant. These specifications are typically driven
by the design of the power plant and its fuel flexibility, and most typically focus on the "top-
level" coal quality parameters. An example of an actual fuel specification used by a power plant
which was studied by the author is shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Example of a Coal Power Plant Fuel Quality Specification
Coal Quality Parameter Minimum Maximum
Higher heating value, Btu/lbm: 10,500 N/A

Moisture content, % N/A 16.00
Ash content, as-received, % N/A 13.50
Volatile matter content, as-received, % 28.00 35.00

Sulfur content, as-received, % 0.601 2.00
Hardgrove Grindability Index 40 N/A
Ash Softening Temperature, reducing basis, ºF 2,200 N/A

Mercury content, whole-coal dry basis, ppm N/A 0.10
It should be noted that many of the ranges have the designation "N/A", because reducing, or
increasing, some of these properties is considered to be advantageous for use at most power
plants (such as increasing the Hardgrove Grindability Index as much as possible).
1
The minimum restriction on sulfur is to allow the cold-side ESP to have enough SO3 content in its flue gas to meet
opacity restrictions at the unit.
3-1
10055141
Market “Spec” Coal Sensitivity Analysis
The advantage of a fuel quality specification is obvious – it allows for quick screening of
potential coal sources which are being offered to the utility or plant owner, and can greatly
simplify the effort and cost of evaluating which fuels to select as candidates for a spot purchase.
This advantage can be significant in the case of coal units located in the eastern United States,
where it is has been known for a power plant to receive hundreds of different coal bids within a
single month.
Unfortunately, there are disadvantages to excessive reliance on a fuel quality specification.
1. Operating on inertia and missing opportunities: Sometimes the power plant has been
upgraded over time and has improved its fuel flexibility, but this improved flexibility has not
been considered in making a new fuel specification. The result is that the plant may miss out
on potential bargain coals which could greatly reduce the total fuel-related costs at a minimal
risk to operations. There may also be combined effects – for example, taking the fuel quality
specification shown in Table 3-1, it may be possible for the plant to accept a coal with a
lower ash softening temperature, provided that the ash content were reduced below 6%.
2. Not capturing all the risk factors: A fuel specification does not examine the broad spectrum
of potential operating problems that could occur at a power plant. For example, in the fuel
specification in Table 3-1, no limit on ash sodium content has been directly considered,
primarily because this power plant has never burned a high-sodium coal. This means that it is
possible a high-sodium coal may be purchased which could cause problems – such as upper
furnace tube fouling – that the plant has never experienced prior. While the specification for
ash softening temperature may mitigate some of this risk, it does not capture the full potential
risk. Another example would be the failure to have an arsenic specification on a unit with an
SCR system (as SCR catalysts are often sensitive to arsenic poisoning).
For this study, several different specification coals were considered for use at both power plants,
and in every case the coals selected were based on real coals, with the names omitted for
confidentiality reasons. Each of these coal specifications is described in the following section.
Use of Monte Carlo Analysis for Predicting Unit Operations Limitations
Another factor which can assist with any evaluation of coals delivered under a specification is
the use of so-called "Monte Carlo" analysis to capture some of the effects of the delivered fuel
quality variability. Monte Carlo analysis is a method of analysis where one or more fuel quality
parameters are varied semi-randomly over a pre-determined range selected by the analyst. The
purpose of Monte Carlo analysis is to simulate the impacts of real-world variations in delivered
coal quality to the plant over the year. This type of analysis is especially important in the case of
units which operate on the margin of a derate, or which are already operating in a derated
condition, because performing an analysis using only the “typical” or “baseline” coal quality
parameters could result in either hiding a derate potential, or in underestimating the derate
operating risk to the unit.
In the Vista program, Monte Carlo analysis is performed by specifying coal quality parameter
ranges for one or more parameters of interest, and then allowing the program to generate 100
different pseudo-random sets of coal quality data which fall between these user-input ranges.
3-2
10055141
These coal quality data sets are called “pseudo-random” because the dependent coal quality
parameters are balanced by Vista to maintain internal fuel quality consistency, using relations
developed by EPRI, Exxon, and Black & Veatch. As many as 1,000 different “candidate” fuel
quality data sets are examined for each baseline case. Because detailed range data were not
available for most of the specification coals, Vista was allowed to assume typical coal quality
variability (equating to approximately a two-sigma range) for the coals.
Two key results are produced by Monte Carlo analysis – an “average Monte Carlo derate”, and a
“maximum Monte Carlo derate”. Because there are 100 different Monte Carlo fuel cases
evaluated over the annual performance period, in effect each fuel quality data set is assumed to
be seen at the unit for 87.6 hours per year. From this basis, we can determine the average derate
over the one-year period, as well as the maximum derate.
Northern Appalachian "Spec" Coals
Coals from the Northern Appalachian region typically have a high heat content, low to medium
ash and moisture contents, and most importantly, a high sulfur content. A fuel specification was
developed for Northern Appalachian coals to be used at both conceptual units, and 15 Northern
Appalachian coals were found which could meet or exceed the specification. This specification
and the ranges of the candidate coals are shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Northern Appalachian Coal Specification for this Study
Coal Quality Parameter Minimum Maximum Actual Ranges
Higher heating value, Btu/lbm: 12,200 N/A 12,200 – 13,464
Moisture content, % N/A 10.00 3.28 – 6.72
Ash content, as-received, % N/A 13.50 6.62 – 12.25

Sulfur content, as-received, % N/A 3.50 1.17 – 3.39
Hardgrove Grindability Index 45 N/A 45.0 – 91.5
For the baseline case of this study neither plant burns Northern Appalachian by itself; however,
the wall-fired unit has the ability to burn it, and the tangential-fired unit has the ability to fire it
when blended with PRB coal.
Central Appalachian "Spec" Coals
Coals from the Central Appalachian region typically have a high heat content, low to medium
ash and moisture content, and low to medium sulfur content. A fuel specification was developed
for Central Appalachian coals to be used at both conceptual units, and 25 Central Appalachian
coals were found which could meet or exceed the specification. This specification and the ranges
of the candidate coals are shown in Table 3-3.
3-3
10055141
Table 3-3
Central Appalachian Coal Specification for this Study

For the baseline case of this study neither plant burns Central Appalachian by itself; however, the
wall-fired unit has the ability to burn it, and the tangential-fired unit has the ability to fire it when
blended with PRB coal.
Illinois Basin "Spec" Coals
Coals from the Illinois Basin (IB) region typically have a medium to high heat content, medium
ash and moisture content, and medium to high sulfur content. A fuel specification was developed
for Illinois Basin coals to be used at both conceptual units, and 12 Illinois Basin coals were
found which could meet or exceed the specification. This specification and the ranges of the
candidate coals are shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4
Illinois Basin Appalachian Coal Specification for this Study


For the baseline case of this study the wall-fired unit burns Illinois Basin coal, and the tangential-
fired unit burns a blend of 50% Illinois Basin and 50% PRB coal.
3-4
10055141
Powder River Basin "Spec" Coals
The Powder River Basin (PRB) region of the United States contains several different categories
of coals:
• Central Wyoming medium heat content coals (9,000 – 10,500 Btu/lbm)
• Montana low to medium heat content coals (9,000 – 10,000 Btu/lbm) with high sodium
content.
• Southern "8,800 Btu" coals, with a heat content ranging from 8,500 to 9,000 Btu/lbm.
• Northern "8,400 Btu" coals, with a heat content ranging from 8,100 to 8,500 Btu/lbm.
Coals from the PRB region typically have a low ash content, high moisture content, and low
sulfur content. A fuel specification was developed for PRB coals to be used at both conceptual
units, and seven "8,800 Btu" PRB coals were found which could meet or exceed the specification
(Montana and higher-Btu Wyoming coals were not considered for this study, in the former case
due to concerns over the high sodium content, and in the latter case due to the relatively limited
market for these coals). This specification and the ranges of the candidate coals are shown in
Table 3-5.
Table 3-5
Powder River Basin Coal Specification for this Study
For the baseline case of this study only the tangential-fired unit burns PRB coal, blended with
50% Illinois Basin coal.
Analyses Performed on the Wall-Fired and Tangential-Fired Units
Many different combinations of specification coal analyses were performed on the wall-fired and
tangential-fired units, for all three furnace sizes. These included evaluations of the following:
• The Northern Appalachian (NAPP), Central Appalachian (CAPP), and Illinois Basin (IB)
coals individually, and
• All seven of the Powder River Basin (PRB) coals blended at levels of 10% by mass with the
design coal of the units (an Illinois Basin coal), and
3-5
10055141
• For the case of the tangential-fired unit, all specification NAPP and IB coals were tested with
a 50%/50% (mass basis) blend of its current baseline PRB fuel.
These combinations of fuel evaluations are outlined in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6
Number of Analyses Performed on the Wall-Fired and Tangential-Fired Units
Conceptual Unit NAPP CAPP IB PRB

Blends
Wall-fired, small furnace 15 25 12 70
Wall-fired, medium furnace 15 25 12 70

Wall-fired, large furnace 15 25 12 70
Tangential-fired, small furnace 30* 25 24** 70
Tangential-fired, medium furnace 30* 25 24** 70
Tangential-fired, large furnace 30* 25 24** 70
Total 135 150 108 420
* Note that for the tangential-fired unit, two situations were modeled for this case – burning each NAPP coal
blended 50%/50% on a mass basis with its baseline PRB coal (15 cases) and burning each NAPP coal
unblended (15 cases).
** Note that for the tangential-fired unit, two situations were modeled for this case – burning each IB coal
blended 50%/50% on a mass basis with its baseline PRB coal (12 cases) and burning each IB coal unblended
(12 cases).
Overall, a total of 813 coal quality specification cases were reviewed and analyzed by the Vista
program. Although this sounds like a monumental effort, the total time required to configure and
evaluate all of these cases was approximately one half of a man day.
Results from the Wall-Fired Unit
The results from the wall-fired unit evaluations are shown here, focusing specifically on the
medium-sized furnace case:
• The medium- to high-sulfur NAPP coal sensitivity.
• The low- to medium-sulfur CAPP coal sensitivity.
• The medium- to high-sulfur Illinois Basin coal sensitivity.
• The sensitivity to 50/50 blends of NAPP and the baseline PRB, as well as Illinois Basin and
the baseline PRB.
• The impacts of furnace size on boiler efficiency, heat rate, and costs.
3-6
10055141
The first example, the medium- to high-sulfur NAPP coal cases with the wall-fired unit, contains
several graphs showing the trends and relationships between factors which impact the boiler
efficiency, net plant heat rate, and total fuel-related costs. To reduce the potential volume of
graphs in this text, other cases will focus on the most critical results or any results which require
specific attention.
Alternate NAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Wall-Fired Unit
As 15 different NAPP coals were evaluated in Vista on the wall-fired unit, several observations
were made about unit performance. There was a wide variation in predicted boiler efficiency
from the coals, which was not directly related to higher heating value of the coals (as there were
variations in moisture and ash which drove the changes in higher heating value). Figure 3-1
shows the relationship between higher heating value and boiler efficiency for these cases, and
reveals a general trend towards higher boiler efficiency as higher heating value of the coal
increases. What is worth noting is that there is more than a 2% (absolute) difference in boiler
efficiency possible over the range of specification NAPP coals.
Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV
89.5
89.0
88.5
Boiler Efficiency, %
88.0
87.5
87.0
86.5
86.0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-1
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
To break down why some of this is occurring, we can look at the two largest efficiency factors –
latent and sensible heat losses resulting from burning the coals. Figure 3-2 shows the relationship
between latent heat losses of the boiler and coal moisture content, where we can see nearly a
0.75% (absolute) difference in boiler efficiency over the range of specification NAPP coals.
3-7
10055141
Latent Heat Loss vs Coal Moisture Content
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Latent Heat Loss, %

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
3.28 4.57 5.7 5.93 6 6 6 6.06 6.08 6.18 6.3 6.5 6.53 6.61 6.72
Moisture, %
Figure 3-2
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Latent Heat Efficiency Losses
Looking at sensible heat losses of the unit versus coal ash content, Figure 3-3 shows at least as
large an influence on boiler efficiency as seen with the case of coal moisture content – ranging
more than 1.0% (absolute) across the coal cases.
Sensible Heat Loss vs Coal Ash Content
8.20
8.00
7.80
7.60
Sensible Heat Loss, %
7.40
7.20
7.00
6.80
6.60
6.40
6.20
6.00
6.62 6.8 7.34 7.4 7.41 7.49 7.59 7.61 8.08 8.19 8.3 8.32 8.5 9.79 12.25
Ash, %
Figure 3-3
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Sensible Heat Efficiency Losses
3-8
10055141
If instead we examine total boiler efficiency effects as a function of coal moisture and coal ash
content, then we see the following relationships (Figures 3-4 and 3-5, respectively).
Boiler Efficiency vs Coal Moisture Content
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
86.5
86.0
3.28 4.57 5.7 5.93 6 6 6 6.06 6.08 6.18 6.3 6.5 6.53 6.61 6.72
Moisture, %
Figure 3-4
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Boiler Efficiency
Boiler Efficiency vs Coal Ash Content
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
86.5
86.0
6.62 6.8 7.34 7.4 7.41 7.49 7.59 7.61 8.08 8.19 8.3 8.32 8.5 9.79 12.25
Ash, %
Figure 3-5
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency
3-9
10055141
Since unit auxiliary power is a critical component of the net plant heat rate (NPHR) calculation,
it is important to see how some coal quality parameters influence auxiliary power consumption.
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 show how auxiliary power is influenced by higher heating value,
moisture, and ash content.
Auxiliary Power vs Coal Moisture Content
55.0
54.0
53.0
52.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
51.0
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
3.28 4.57 5.7 5.93 6 6 6 6.06 6.08 6.18 6.3 6.5 6.53 6.61 6.72
Moisture, %
Figure 3-6
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Auxiliary Power
Auxiliary Power vs Coal Ash Content
55.0
54.0
53.0
52.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
51.0
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
6.62 6.8 7.34 7.4 7.41 7.49 7.59 7.61 8.08 8.19 8.3 8.32 8.5 9.79 12.25
Ash, %
Figure 3-7
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Auxiliary Power
3-10
10055141
Auxiliary Power vs Coal HHV
55.0
54.0
53.0
52.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
51.0
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-8
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
There was a large range of unit auxiliary power consumption predicted across the 15 NAPP
specification coals – from 47.34 MW to 53.58 MW, for a range of 6.24 MW. The primary reason
for this was the relatively large range of higher heating values available from the NAPP coal
selections (from 12,200 to 13,464 Btu/lbm, or a 1,264 Btu/lbm range). This stands out as an
important factor when comparing one NAPP coal with another.
Combining boiler efficiency and auxiliary power impacts into NPHR impacts, Figures 3-9
through 3-11 show the relationship between the NPHR and coal higher heating value, moisture,
and ash content.
3-11
10055141
NPHR vs Coal Moisture Content
10,500
10,400
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,200
10,100
10,000
9,900
9,800
3.28 4.57 5.7 5.93 6 6 6 6.06 6.08 6.18 6.3 6.5 6.53 6.61 6.72
Moisture, %
Figure 3-9
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus NPHR
NPHR vs Coal Ash Content
10,500
10,400
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,200
10,100
10,000
9,900
9,800
6.62 6.8 7.34 7.4 7.41 7.49 7.59 7.61 8.08 8.19 8.3 8.32 8.5 9.79 12.25
Ash, %
Figure 3-10
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus NPHR
3-12
10055141
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,500
10,400
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh 10,200
10,100
10,000
9,900
9,800
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-11
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus NPHR
In this case, moisture clearly has much more of an impact on NPHR differences than ash content.
Finally, we come to the overall effects on total fuel-related costs of the wall-fired unit over the
range of NAPP specification coals, shown by Figures 3-12 through 3-14.
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Moisture Content
120.0
100.0
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs, M$
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
3.28 4.57 5.7 5.93 6 6 6 6.06 6.08 6.18 6.3 6.5 6.53 6.61 6.72
Moisture, %
Figure 3-12
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Moisture versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
3-13
10055141
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Ash Content
120
100

80
60
40
20
0
6.62 6.8 7.34 7.4 7.41 7.49 7.59 7.61 8.08 8.19 8.3 8.32 8.5 9.79 12.25
Ash, %
Figure 3-13
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Ash versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal HHV
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-14
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Moisture content is a much larger factor than ash content, and one of the 6% moisture cases
stands out with much higher total fuel-related costs than the others. Vista determined that the
reason for this was that the specific coal had a 22.6-MW induced-draft fan capacity derate
predicted for the unit.
3-14
10055141
Potential Operating Limitations of the NAPP Specification Coals
Since all of the NAPP coals had significantly higher heat contents than the baseline coal for the
wall-fired unit, unit limitations or derates were not expected. Nonetheless, four of the NAPP
coals were predicted to limit the unit from achieving full-load operation, due to such causes as
insufficient induced-draft fan capacity (three cases) and boiler slagging (one case). In addition,
some of the coals were marginal in terms of slagging, ESP performance, and scrubber SO2
removal capability. The largest predicted unit derate was 36.0 MW.
Alternate CAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Wall-Fired Unit
As 25 different CAPP coals were evaluated in Vista on the wall-fired unit, several observations
were made about unit performance. There was less variation across the cases in terms of boiler
efficiency, but nonetheless a range of at least 1.75% (from 86.91% to 88.66%) was seen. As in
the case of the NAPP specification coals, this was much more strongly influenced by the
moisture content than any other factor. See Figure 3-15 for the range of boiler efficiencies as a
function of higher heating value.
89.00
88.50
88.00
87.50
87.00
86.50
86.00
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-15
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
Auxiliary power consumption of the unit for the case of the CAPP specification coals with the
wall-fired unit was largely dependent upon the fuel burn rate more than any other factor.
Nonetheless, the range of 46.88 MW to 50.76 MW (a net 3.88-MW range) was more than
expected. An examination of the most demanding fuel (one of the 12,000 Btu/lbm cases)
revealed that due to its relatively poor heat rate and coal stoichiometry, primary air, forced-draft,
and induced-draft fans were under a much higher load than most other cases, and consumed
more auxiliary power. Figure 3-16 shows the relationship between auxiliary power and higher
heating value.
3-15
10055141
52.0
51.0
50.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,070
12,147
12,200
12,226
12,250
12,250
12,250
12,300
12,300
12,314
12,336
12,400
12,439
12,450
12,481
12,493
12,500
12,537
12,550
12,685
12,686
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-16
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
There was a considerable range of NPHR over the 25 CAPP specification coals, from 10,113 to
10,394 Btu/kWh (a range of 281 Btu/kWh). While there was a general trend towards better
NPHR as the HHV of the coal increased, there were many coals with low (good) NPHR values
in the low range of the CAPP specification HHV values. The best-case coal was a 12,250-
Btu/lbm case, which was noted for having a low moisture content (5.85%) and a low auxiliary
power consumption due to favorable combustion stoichiometry, requiring less combustion air per
pound of fuel (and thus producing less flue gas per pound of fuel) than many other CAPP
specification coals.
Figure 3-17 illustrates the impact of coal higher heating value on NPHR.
3-16
10055141
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,450
10,400
10,350
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,250
10,200
10,150
10,100
10,050
10,000
9,950
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-17
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus NPHR
In terms of annual total fuel-related costs of the 25 different CAPP specification coals, a very
large range was seen, from $78.5M to $112.3M ($33.8M range). As all coals had the same input
fuel cost on a cents per MBtu basis, the primary cost factors were often differences in operation
and maintenance costs, such as derate costs. In the case of the worst coal, there was a very large
derate - nearly 150 MW overall - due to exceeding the particulate mass emissions rate of the unit.
The root cause of this was investigated, and found to be due to a combination of a relatively high
fly ash mass loading (20 ton/hr at the cold ESP inlet), a relatively high flue gas velocity (5.33
ft/s), and most importantly a very poor fly ash resistivity of 7.79x1013 ohm-cm, which was more
than an order of magnitude worse than any other CAPP specification coal. The root cause behind
the very poor fly ash resistivity factor was a surprisingly low sulfur content for the coal – 0.37%.
This is an unusually low sulfur content for even a CAPP coal, but the original mine data sheets
were examined, and this coal was found to be a cleaned product. Given that in reality a coal such
as this would likely command a much higher than normal price per MBtu, the actual annual total
fuel-related costs to the unit would likely be much higher than demonstrated here. Figure 3-18
illustrates the impact of one factor, higher heating value, on the total fuel-related costs.
3-17
10055141
120.0
100.0

80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-18
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Potential Operating Limitations of the CAPP Specification Coals
Since all CAPP coals had slightly higher heat contents than the baseline coal for the wall-fired
unit, and because their slagging characteristics were less than those of the baseline coal, as in the
case of the NAPP coals few derates were expected. However, 14 of the 25 CAPP coals were
predicted to cause some sort of derate when burned. The largest derate predicted was 149 MW
for CAPP coal number 24 (due to poor ESP performance and high particulate mass emissions),
and a total of 13 of the 14 coals with derates had ESP performance as their largest derate factor
(one coal, number 20, suffered from an induced-draft fan derate due to high back-end
temperatures and flue gas flow). In addition to these 13 ESP-derated cases, 9 other coals were
predicted to be marginal for ESP performance. Five of the ESP-derated coals were also predicted
to suffer from induced-draft fan derates, but at a lower magnitude than the ESP derate.
Alternate Illinois Basin Coal Sensitivity for the Wall-Fired Unit
For the 12 different IB coals evaluated in the Vista program on the wall-fired unit, ash content
had more of an impact on overall boiler efficiency than for the NAPP and CAPP coal cases.
Moisture content was still the largest efficiency factor overall, however. In total, there was less
variation across the cases in terms of boiler efficiency than for either the NAPP or CAPP coal
cases, but this could be because there are only 12 IB coal cases for this evaluation, as opposed to
40 total for the NAPP and CAPP cases. Boiler efficiency varied from 86.38% to 87.59%, a
1.21% range. An investigation into the tie between ash content and boiler efficiency revealed that
the effect was not so much due to differences in the sensible heat losses (which only saw a range
of 0.38% across the IB specification coals), but more due to the differential fuel burn rate
impacts resulting from the higher ash content.
3-18
10055141
Figures 3-19 through 3-21 demonstrate the relationships between the IB specification coal
moisture, ash, and HHV, and the overall boiler efficiency which resulted.
87.80
87.60
87.40
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
86.20
86.00
85.80
85.60
10.61 11.03 11.2 12.13 12.65 13.26 13.454 13.54 14.125 15.81 16.57 17.9
Moisture, %
Figure 3-19
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Moisture versus Boiler Efficiency
87.80
87.60
87.40
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
86.20
86.00
85.80
85.60
7.58 7.6 7.9 7.98 8.05 8.28 8.39 8.475 8.59 8.99 11.19 11.393
Ash, %
Figure 3-20
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency
3-19
10055141
87.8
87.6
87.4
87.2
87.0
86.8
86.6
86.4
86.2
86.0
85.8
85.6
10590 10600 10624 10785 10850 11130 11300 11500 11513 11797 11830 11900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-21
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
It is interesting to note that unlike the NAPP and CAPP coal cases, there is a strong linear trend
of increasing boiler efficiency as the coal HHV increases, something which should be taken into
account when comparing coals from the three basins.
Despite having the largest range in higher heating values (10,590 to 11,900 Btu/lbm, or a range
of 1,310 Btu/lbm), the range of unit auxiliary power consumption which was predicted was the
least of the three Basins – from 50.76 MW to 53.58 MW, for a 2.82 MW range (see Figure 3-22).
Further investigation showed that the effect was more due to competing behaviors of the coals
than anything else. For example, IB coal cases which had much higher sulfur content (and thus
required more FGD scrubber duty and auxiliary power) also seemed to have more favorable
stoichiometry and grindability, which led to reductions in both fan and mill power consumption.
It is possible that a larger sample size than 12 IB coals would yield a more consistent trend, but
for the cases examined – which make up most of the commercial coals available from the Illinois
Basin – these results appear consistent. This further emphasizes the need to conduct a detailed
examination of coal quality prior to making either a spot purchase or a contractual order.
The reason behind the sudden drop in auxiliary power at 10,785 Btu/lbm is due primarily to a
reduction in FGD scrubber power consumption, due to the relatively low sulfur content of that
coal (1.4%). The reason behind the high auxiliary power consumption of the worst case, the
10,624 Btu/lbm coal, was a combination of a low HHV and relatively high sulfur content
(3.42%) – in fact, this coal had the highest SO2 production, being 6.43 lbm/MBtu.
3-20
10055141
54.0
53.5
53.0
52.5
Auxiliary Power, MW 52.0
51.5
51.0
50.5
50.0
49.5
49.0
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-22
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
Unlike the cases of the NAPP and CAPP specification coals, the NPHR followed a trend which
generally tracked higher heating value for the IB specification coals. See Figure 3-23.
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,550
10,500
10,450
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400
10,350
10,300
10,250
10,200
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-23
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus NPHR
3-21
10055141
The IB specification coals exhibited lower ranges of annual total fuel-related costs than the
CAPP coals, but similar ranges when compared to the NAPP coals. Overall, costs varied from
$90.1M to $117.4M, a range of $27.4M. As in the previous cases, derate costs were a significant
driver for the high-cost cases, but the impact of delivered fuel cost was greater for these cases
than for the NAPP and CAPP specification coal cases, due largely to the range of HHV values
being a larger percentage relative to the mean value of HHV for the coals. See Figure 3-24 for an
illustration of the relationship between total annual fuel-related costs and coal higher heating
value.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-24
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Potential Operating Limitations of the IB Specification Coals
Since the baseline coal for the conceptual wall-fired unit was an Illinois Basin coal, it was
expected that there was potential for unit derates due to coal quality which varied significantly
from the baseline coal quality. As it turns out, 6 of the 12 IB coal cases were predicted to cause
derates when used, with the largest derate found being 51.5 MW due to slagging for IB coal
number 7. Three IB coals were predicted to suffer from slagging problems which would cause a
derate, and six coals were found to be marginal for slagging problems, revealing that overall 9 of
the 12 IB coals may experience slagging issues in practice. One IB coal was predicted to have a
mill derate from high moisture content, and four other coals were predicted to be marginal from
a mill drying standpoint. Four coals were predicted to be marginal from a mill grinding
standpoint. Two IB coals overall were predicted to suffer from small induced-draft flow derates.
3-22
10055141
The Influence of Furnace Size on Boiler Efficiency, Heat Rate, and Costs
As discussed earlier, three versions of the wall-fired conceptual unit model were developed with
different furnace sizes (small, medium, and large) to determine how sensitive furnace size may
be to coal quality impacts. Ways in which this could be a factor would be typically with regards
to the slagging and fouling tendency of the unit, and the resulting change in heat transfer and
sootblowing impact.
For the NAPP coal cases with the wall-fired unit, there were few significant differences in the
trends of boiler efficiency and NPHR as a function of furnace size (see Figures 3-25 and 3-26).
Part of this is due to the fact that the unit was already designed to accommodate a significant
amount of furnace slagging.
NAPP - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
Large
87.5 Medium
Small
87.0
86.5
86.0
85.5
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-25
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Furnace Size
3-23
10055141
NAPP - NPHR vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
10,500
10,400
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,200 Large
Medium
10,100 Small
10,000
9,900
9,800
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-26
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace Size
Unlike the boiler efficiency and NPHR cases, more variation was seen in annual total fuel-
related cost comparisons between the three furnace sizes, largely due to the presence of differing
amounts of slagging derates and induced-draft fan system derates (due to increased flue gas flow
rates). See Figure 3-27.
3-24
10055141
NAPP - Total Annual Fuel-Related Cost vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
120
100
80
Large
60 Medium
Small
40
20
0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-27
Wall-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-Related Cost to
Furnace Size
For the CAPP coal cases with the wall-fired unit, there were again few significant differences in
the trends of boiler efficiency and NPHR as a function of furnace size. In terms of annual total
fuel-related cost comparisons between the three furnace sizes, some coals revealed differences in
costs, as in the case of the NAPP coal cases, due largely to derate magnitudes, rather than
efficiency and heat rate impacts. See Figures 3-28 through 3-30 for the CAPP coal results.
3-25
10055141
CAPP - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
89.00
88.50
88.00
Large
87.50 Medium
Small
87.00
86.50
86.00
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-28
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Furnace Size
3-26
10055141
CAPP - NPHR vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
10,500
10,400
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
Large
10,200 Medium
Small
10,100
10,000
9,900
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-29
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace Size
3-27
10055141
CAPP - Total Annual Fuel-Related Cost vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0 Large
Medium
60.0 Small
40.0
20.0
0.0
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-30
Wall-fired Unit CAPP Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-Related Cost to
Furnace Size
For the IB coal cases with the wall-fired unit, there were again few significant differences in
trends of boiler efficiency and NPHR as a function of furnace size. In terms of annual total fuel-
related cost comparisons between the three furnace sizes, some coals did reveal differences in
costs between the three furnace sizes, as in the case of the NAPP and CAPP coal cases, due
largely to derate magnitudes, rather than efficiency and heat rate impacts. See Figures 3-31
through 3-33.
3-28
10055141
IB - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
88.0
87.5
87.0
Large
86.5 Medium
Small
86.0
85.5
85.0
90
00
24
85
50
30
00
00
13
97
30
00
,5
,6
,6
,7
,8
,1
,3
,5
,5
,7
,8
,9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-31
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Furnace Size
3-29
10055141
IB - NPHR vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
10,600
10,550
10,500
10,450
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400 Large
Medium
10,350 Small
10,300
10,250
10,200
10,150
90
00
24
85
50
30
00
00
13
97
30
00
,5
,6
,6
,7
,8
,1
,3
,5
,5
,7
,8
,9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-32
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace Size
3-30
10055141
IB - Total Annual Fuel-Related Cost vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
140
120
100
80 Large
Medium
60 Small
40
20
0
90
00
24
85
50
30
00
00
13
97
30
00
,5
,6
,6
,7
,8
,1
,3
,5
,5
,7
,8
,9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-33
Wall-fired Unit IB Coal Specification: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-Related Cost to
Furnace Size
Results from the Tangential-Fired Unit
Results from the tangential-fired unit evaluations, focusing on the medium-sized furnace case,
are shown in the following section, specifically:
• The medium to high-sulfur Illinois Basin coal sensitivity, when blended with the baseline
PRB coal 50/50 on a mass basis.
• The medium to high-sulfur NAPP coal sensitivity, when blended with the baseline PRB coal
50/50 on a mass basis.
• The low to medium-sulfur CAPP coal sensitivity (should the unit decide to switch to CAPP
coal to meet sulfur emissions regulations, rather than continue blending PRB coal).
• The medium to high-sulfur NAPP coal sensitivity (should the unit decide to switch back to
higher-sulfur coals now that the scrubber is operational).
3-31
10055141
• The medium to high-sulfur Illinois Basin coal sensitivity (should the unit decide to switch
back to higher-sulfur coals now that the scrubber is operational).
• The sensitivity to an array of blends of any of the seven PRB coals with the baseline Illinois
Basin coal, in blend levels from 0% to 100% PRB, in steps of 10%.
• The impacts of furnace size on boiler efficiency, heat rate, and costs.
The subsection on the medium to high-sulfur IB coal cases blended with the baseline PRB coal
50/50 on a mass basis contain several graphs showing the trends and relationships between
factors which impact boiler efficiency, net plant heat rate, and total fuel-related costs. To reduce
the potential volume of graphs in this report, other cases will focus on the most critical results or
any results which require specific attention.
Alternate Illinois Basin/PRB Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit
All 12 IB coals were evaluated in the Vista program on the tangential-fired unit, assuming a
50/50 blend on a mass basis with the baseline 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB coal. The first item of note is
that there was a relatively narrow range in the predicted boiler efficiency from the coals (a range
of 86.46% to 87.14%, for a spread of only 0.68%), which appeared to be directly related to the
blended higher heating value of the coals.
Figure 3-34 shows the relationship between higher heating value and boiler efficiency for these
cases, and reveals that there is a strong trend towards higher boiler efficiency as higher heating
value of the coal increases.
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
86.20
86.00
9,695 9,700 9,712 9,793 9,825 9,965 10,050 10,150 10,157 10,299 10,315 10,350
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-34
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
3-32
10055141
To break down why this is occurring we can look at the two largest efficiency factors –latent and
sensible heat losses resulting from burning the coals. Figure 3-35 shows the relationship between
latent heat losses of the boiler and coal moisture content, where we can see that over the range of
specification IB coals blended with the baseline PRB coal, there is only a modest absolute
difference in boiler efficiency, on the order of 0.5% from lowest to highest.
6.00
5.90
5.80
5.70
Latent Heat Loss, %
5.60
5.50
5.40
5.30
5.20
5.10
18.955 19.165 19.25 19.715 19.975 20.28 20.377 20.42 20.713 21.555 21.935 22.6
Moisture, %
Figure 3-35
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus Latent Heat
Efficiency Losses
Figure 3-36 shows sensible heat losses of the unit versus coal ash content, we can see there is
only a small influence on boiler efficiency – although the graph appears somewhat choppy, the
magnitude of the differences is only about 0.17% (absolute) across the coal cases.
3-33
10055141
6.80
6.75
6.70
6.65
6.60
6.55
6.50
6.54 6.55 6.7 6.74 6.775 6.89 6.945 6.9875 7.045 7.245 8.345 8.4463
Ash, %
Figure 3-36
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Sensible Heat
Efficiency Losses
If instead we examine the total boiler efficiency effects as a function of the coal moisture and
coal ash content, then we see the following relationships resulting, as shown by Figures 3-37 and
3-38.
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
86.20
86.00
18.955 19.165 19.25 19.715 19.975 20.28 20.377 20.42 20.713 21.555 21.935 22.6
Moisture, %
Figure 3-37
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus Boiler Efficiency
3-34
10055141
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
86.20
86.00
6.54 6.55 6.7 6.74 6.775 6.89 6.945 6.9875 7.045 7.245 8.345 8.4463
Ash, %
Figure 3-38
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency
Since unit auxiliary power is a critical component of the net plant heat rate (NPHR) calculation,
it is important to see how some coal quality parameters influence auxiliary power consumption.
Figures 3-39 through 3-41 show how auxiliary power is influenced by moisture, ash, and higher
heating value.
52.5
52.0
51.5
51.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.5
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
18.955 19.165 19.25 19.715 19.975 20.28 20.377 20.42 20.713 21.555 21.935 22.6
Moisture, %
Figure 3-39
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus Auxiliary Power
3-35
10055141
52.5
52.0
51.5
51.0
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
6.54 6.55 6.7 6.74 6.775 6.89 6.945 6.9875 7.045 7.245 8.345 8.4463
Ash, %
Figure 3-40
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Auxiliary Power
52.5
52.0
51.5
51.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.5
50.0
49.5
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
9,695 9,700 9,712 9,793 9,825 9,965 10,050 10,150 10,157 10,299 10,315 10,350
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-41
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
3-36
10055141
There was a modest range of unit auxiliary power consumption predicted across the 12 IB coal
blend cases, from 49.30 MW to 52.07 MW (2.78 MW). The primary reason for this was the
relatively narrow range of higher heating values for the blended coals, moderated by the fact that
the PRB coal portion of the blend (50% by mass) was held constant at its 8,800 Btu/lbm higher
heating value. One coal blend case stands out – the 9,793 Btu/lbm case, which was a blend of the
baseline PRB coal with IB coal number 11. The reason for this drop in auxiliary power
consumption was the relatively low sulfur content of IB coal number 11, which resulted in less
FGD scrubber usage.
Combining boiler efficiency and auxiliary power into NPHR impacts, we see the following
relationships in Figures 3-42 through 3-44.
10,480
10,460
10,440
10,420
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400
10,380
10,360
10,340
10,320
10,300
18.955 19.165 19.25 19.715 19.975 20.28 20.377 20.42 20.713 21.555 21.935 22.6
Moisture, %
Figure 3-42
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus NPHR
3-37
10055141
10,480
10,460
10,440
10,420
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400
10,380
10,360
10,340
10,320
10,300
6.54 6.55 6.7 6.74 6.775 6.89 6.945 6.9875 7.045 7.245 8.345 8.4463
Ash, %
Figure 3-43
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus NPHR
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,480
10,460
10,440
10,420
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400
10,380
10,360
10,340
10,320
10,300
9,695 9,700 9,712 9,793 9,825 9,965 10,050 10,150 10,157 10,299 10,315 10,350
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-44
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus NPHR
In this case, moisture has a greater impact on NPHR differences than ash content, but not as
much as was seen in the wall-fired unit cases. The relationship between HHV and NPHR is fairly
linear, but with a couple of significant outliers (such as the 9,793 and 10,157 Btu/lbm cases).
3-38
10055141
Finally, we come to the overall effect on total annual fuel-related costs of the wall-fired unit over
the range of NAPP specification coals (shown by Figures 3-45 through 3-47).
115.0
110.0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
18.955 19.165 19.25 19.715 19.975 20.28 20.377 20.42 20.713 21.555 21.935 22.6
Moisture, %
Figure 3-45
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs
115.0
110.0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
6.54 6.55 6.7 6.74 6.775 6.89 6.945 6.9875 7.045 7.245 8.345 8.4463
Ash, %
Figure 3-46
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs
3-39
10055141
115
110

105
100
95
90
85
9,695 9,700 9,712 9,793 9,825 9,965 10,050 10,150 10,157 10,299 10,315 10,350
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-47
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs
Unlike some results noted in the wall-fired unit study, coal ash, moisture, and higher heating
value all have significant effects upon annual total fuel-related costs of the tangential-fired
conceptual unit. The 9,793 Btu/lbm case stands out again due to its very low sulfur content, and
since all coals in this study have identical costs on a cents/MBtu basis, in real life this coal case
might be expected to cost more, as its low sulfur content could command a higher price in the
market. Therefore, this result for that coal case must be taken into consideration with other real-
world factors.
Potential Operating Limitations of the IB Specification/PRB Coals
Nine of the twelve IB specification coals blended 50/50 with the baseline PRB coal were
predicted to result in a slagging derate, with the maximum potential derate being 31.2 MW for
the case of IB number 10 coal blended with 50% PRB. The other three coal cases were all
marginal for slagging, and could potentially see slagging-related derates in real-world operation.
Four coals were predicted to see mill capacity derates, although none of these outweighed any
simultaneous slagging derates, and three coals were predicted to be marginal for mill capacity.
Two coals were predicted to be marginal with respect to mill drying, but only at a very small risk
factor.
Alternate NAPP/PRB Blend Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit
All 15 NAPP coals were evaluated in the Vista program on the tangential-fired unit, assuming a
50/50 blend on a mass basis with the baseline 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB coal. The first item of note
was that the difference in boiler efficiency across the range of NAPP/PRB coal blends was
greater than that of the IB/PRB coal blends (a range of 1.10%, versus 0.68% for the IB/PRB
3-40
10055141
cases). For these cases, this difference was more strongly influenced by the moisture content than
any other factor. See Figures 3-48 through 3-50 for the range of boiler efficiencies as a function
of moisture, ash, and higher heating value.
88.20
88.00
87.80
87.60
87.40
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
15.29 15.94 16.5 16.62 16.65 16.65 16.65 16.68 16.69 16.74 16.8 16.9 16.92 16.96 17.01
Moisture, %
Figure 3-48
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Moisture versus Boiler
Efficiency
88.20
88.00
87.80
87.60
87.40
87.20
87.00
86.80
86.60
86.40
6.06 6.15 6.42 6.45 6.455 6.495 6.545 6.555 6.79 6.845 6.9 6.91 7 7.645 8.875
Ash, %
Figure 3-49
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency
3-41
10055141
88.2
88.0
87.8
87.6
Boiler Efficiency, % 87.4
87.2
87.0
86.8
86.6
86.4
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-50
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
Auxiliary power consumption of the tangential-fired unit with the NAPP specification coals
blended with 50% PRB was mostly dependent upon fuel burn rate, but there were some cases
which stood out as exceptions to this. The 10,622 Btu/lbm case benefitted from a favorable coal
stoichiometry which resulted in reduced air and gas fan power consumption, and the 10,915
Btu/lbm case saw reduced auxiliary power due to low SO2 loading, resulting in reduced FGD
scrubber use. The auxiliary power values of 47.45 MW to 51.20 MW (for a range of 3.75 MW)
were approximately what was expected for these cases. See Figure 3-51.
52.0
51.0
50.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-51
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
3-42
10055141
There was a moderate range of NPHR over the 15 NAPP specification/PRB blend cases from
10,190 to 10,391 Btu/kWh (201 Btu/kWh range). While there was a general trend towards better
NPHR as HHV of the coal increased, the curve appears to be more of a double-hump shape, with
a region of higher efficiency from about 10,835 to 10,934 Btu/lbm. After further examination,
this appeared to be due to influence of both improved boiler efficiency and reduced auxiliary
power within this range. These coals tended to lie in a "sweet spot" with good stoichiometry and
medium sulfur content overall. See Figure 3-52.
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,450
10,400
10,350
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,250
10,200
10,150
10,100
10,050
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-52
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus NPHR
In terms of annual total fuel-related costs of the 15 different NAPP specification coal/PRB coal
blends, a significant variation was seen, from $84.3M to $98.4M, for a range of $14.1M. See
Figure 3-53.
3-43
10055141
100
95

90
85
80
75
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-53
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals/PRB 50/50: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related
Costs
As all of these coals had the same input fuel cost on a cents per MBtu basis, the primary cost
variations were often differences in operations and maintenance costs, such as derate costs. In the
case of the highest-cost coal, however, there was only a cautionary prediction for slagging, with
no actual derate predicted, and the main driver for its high costs was differences in its fuel burn
rate.
Potential Operating Limitations of the NAPP Specification/PRB Blend Coals
The primary operating limitation which showed up for these cases was slagging derates, which
was expected due to the combination of a high-sulfur and high-iron NAPP coal with a high-
calcium PRB coal. Six of the fifteen cases were predicted to suffer from slagging derates, with
the largest derate being 29.6 MW for the blend of the NAPP specification coal number 5 with the
baseline PRB coal. Seven of the fifteen cases were predicted to be marginal for slagging,
meaning that overall 13 of the 15 cases had some sort of slagging-related operations risk.
Alternate Low-Sulfur CAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit
An experiment was done to see if, instead of continuing to burn a blend of high-sulfur IB coal
and low-sulfur PRB coal, the tangential-fired unit could burn low-sulfur CAPP coal and yield the
same benefits. To accomplish this, the 25 CAPP coals were evaluated with the tangential-fired
conceptual model. Some key efficiency results are shown in the following section.
The impact of coal moisture and ash content on boiler efficiency was felt with these coals, as
there was a range from 87.86% to 89.43% (1.57%) across a relatively narrow moisture content
and somewhat wider ash content range (see Figures 3-54 and 3-55). However, there were no
3-44
10055141
clear trends for either moisture or ash content versus the overall boiler efficiency, and the most
significant item of note was that the large variation in boiler efficiency was due to individual coal
quality impacts, rather than general trends. This includes differences in unburned carbon losses,
sensible heat losses due to differences in coal stoichiometry, and differences in furnace heat
transfer effects. Differences in boiler efficiency across coal higher heating value ranges were
similar to those resulting from changes in ash and moisture content (see Figure 3-56).
90.0
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
3.84
4.75
4.86
5.29
5.70
5.77
5.83
5.85
5.94
5.96
6.00
6.00
6.27
6.47
6.47
6.50
6.50
6.72
6.94
7.00
7.81
8.00
8.00
9.00
9.84
Moisture, %
Figure 3-54
Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: Moisture versus Boiler Efficiency
90.0
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
7.90
9.78
9.79
10.30
10.38
10.93
11.00
11.20
11.28
11.42
12.00
12.02
12.39
12.51
12.60
12.69
12.85
13.00
13.00
13.01
13.30
13.54
13.80
13.90
14.37
Ash, %
Figure 3-55
Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: Ash versus Boiler Efficiency
3-45
10055141
90.0
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,070
12,147
12,200
12,226
12,250
12,250
12,250
12,300
12,300
12,314
12,336
12,400
12,439
12,450
12,481
12,493
12,500
12,537
12,550
12,685
12,686
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-56
Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
There was a relatively narrow range of differences in unit auxiliary power seen across the CAPP
specification coals – here again, individual coal quality effects appear to have more influence
than general trends. As an example, a graph of higher heating value versus unit auxiliary power
is shown in Figure 3-57.
49.0
48.5
48.0
47.5
Auxiliary Power, MW
47.0
46.5
46.0
45.5
45.0
44.5
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,070
12,147
12,200
12,226
12,250
12,250
12,250
12,300
12,300
12,314
12,336
12,400
12,439
12,450
12,481
12,493
12,500
12,537
12,550
12,685
12,686
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-57
Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
3-46
10055141
A weak trend was seen between NPHR and higher heating value (Figure 3-58).
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,250
10,200
10,150
10,100
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,050
10,000
9,950
9,900
9,850
00
00
70
00
50
50
00
36
39
81
00
50
86
,0
,0
,0
,2
,2
,2
,3
,3
,4
,4
,5
,5
,6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-58
Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus NPHR
Generally speaking, for these cases the overall differences in annual total fuel-related costs were
small, between $73.7M and $81.1M (for a range of $7.4M) over all coal cases except one. The
12,000 Btu/lbm CAPP specification coal number 15 stood out due to high delivered fuel costs,
high mercury emissions costs, and high FGD scrubber costs. With its SO2 loading of 3.00
lbm/MBtu, and mercury content of 0.18 ppm on a whole-coal dry basis, it was by far the highest-
sulfur and highest-mercury CAPP coal. See Figure 3-59 for a summary of these costs.
3-47
10055141
90
85

80
75
70
65
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,070
12,147
12,200
12,226
12,250
12,250
12,250
12,300
12,300
12,314
12,336
12,400
12,439
12,450
12,481
12,493
12,500
12,537
12,550
12,685
12,686
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-59
Tangential-fired Unit CAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Potential Operating Limitations of the CAPP Specification Coals
No derates or limitations were predicted for any CAPP specification coals when burned at the
tangential-fired unit.
Alternate High-Sulfur NAPP Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit
and low-sulfur PRB coal, the unit could switch to a high-sulfur NAPP coal, taking advantage of
the scrubber which has been added to the unit. To accomplish this, the 15 NAPP coals were
evaluated with the tangential-fired conceptual model. Some key efficiency results are described
here.
Boiler efficiency generally trended upward as coal HHV increased (see Figure 3-60), which was
a different result than seen when CAPP specification coals were evaluated at this unit. Boiler
efficiency across the range of NAPP coals showed a wide variance, from 88.04% to 89.81% (for
a range of 1.77%). Part of the reason for this was the fact that the tangential-fired unit was able
to optimize burner tilt position much better with this coal, and therefore was able to reduce
sensible heat losses by keeping both furnace and the air heater gas outlet temperatures low.
3-48
10055141
90.0
89.5
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-60
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
There was a relatively broad range of differences in the unit auxiliary power seen across the
NAPP specification coals, and much of this was driven by sulfur loading of the coals, which
resulted in changes in the FGD scrubber auxiliary power (see Figure 3-61).
54.0
53.0
52.0
51.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
43.0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-61
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
3-49
10055141
A stronger trend was seen between NPHR and higher heating value for the NAPP coals than was
indicated for the CAPP coal cases with this unit (see Figure 3-62).
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,350
10,300
10,250
10,200
10,150
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,100
10,050
10,000
9,950
9,900
9,850
9,800
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-62
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus NPHR
quite large, between $69.7M and $92.3M (for a range of $22.6M). One coal case, the 12,200
Btu/lbm NAPP specification coal number 7, stood out as a high-cost selection due to high
delivered fuel costs, high mercury emissions costs, and high FGD scrubber costs. With its SO2
loading of 4.91 lbm/MBtu, and mercury content of 0.20 ppm on a whole-coal dry basis, it was
not the highest-sulfur or highest-mercury NAPP coal, but it was near the top in both categories
(the highest-sulfur NAPP coal had a mercury content about half that of this coal, and the highest-
mercury NAPP coal had a sulfur content about 2/3 of this coal). See Figure 3-63 for a
comparison of these costs.
3-50
10055141
100
90
80

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00
43
11
24
08
70
32
37
29
52
67
68
76
40
64
,2
,4
,6
,6
,7
,8
,9
,9
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,3
,4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-63
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Specification Coals: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Potential Operating Limitations of the NAPP Specification Coals
One NAPP coal case (number 12) was predicted to suffer from a slagging derate of about 10
MW, and another NAPP coal case (number 7) was issued a caution by the Vista program for
potentially marginal slagging performance. No other derates or limitations were predicted.
Alternate High-Sulfur Illinois Basin Coal Sensitivity for the Tangential-Fired Unit
and low-sulfur PRB coal, the unit could stop burning any PRB coal, operating solely with high-
sulfur IB coal to leverage the scrubber which has been added to the unit. To accomplish this, the
12 IB coals were evaluated with the tangential-fired conceptual model.
Boiler efficiency trended strongly upward as coal HHV increased (see Figure 3-64), similar to
the effects seen with this coal for the wall-fired unit. Boiler efficiency across the range of IB
coals showed a wide variance, from 87.23% to 88.40%, for a range of 1.17%. This spread is very
close to that seen for the wall-fired unit with IB specification coals (1.21% overall).
3-51
10055141
88.6
88.4
88.2
88.0
87.6
87.4
87.2
87.0
86.8
86.6
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-64
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus Boiler Efficiency
There was a moderate range of differences in unit auxiliary power seen across the IB
specification coals (see Figure 3-65), which trended reasonably well with coal higher heating
value. One exception was the 10,785 Btu/lbm coal (IB number 11), which was driven by its
unusually low sulfur loading, which resulted in a reduction in FGD scrubber auxiliary power.
56.0
55.0
54.0
53.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
52.0
51.0
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-65
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus Auxiliary Power
3-52
10055141
Compared with NAPP and CAPP specification coals, IB specification coals showed the strongest
trend between NPHR and higher heating value (see Figure 3-66).
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,450
10,400
10,350
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,300
10,250
10,200
10,150
10,100
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-66
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus NPHR
the largest of the NAPP, CAPP, and IB cases, being between $86.8M and $123.0M, for a range
of $36.2M. The two highest-cost cases, the 10,590 and 10,600 Btu/lbm IB specification coals,
numbers 12 and 3, respectively, stood out as high-cost selections due to high delivered fuel costs
and high derate costs, resulting from their very high slagging derates of 66 MW and 95 MW,
respectively (see Figure 3-67).
3-53
10055141
140
120

100
80
60
40
20
0
10,590 10,600 10,624 10,785 10,850 11,130 11,300 11,500 11,513 11,797 11,830 11,900
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-67
Tangential-fired Unit IB Specification Coals: HHV versus Total Fuel-Related Costs
Potential Operating Limitations of the IB Specification Coals
Five of the IB coals were predicted to result in slagging derates, with the IB specification coal
number 7 having the largest derate, at 96 MW. In addition to this, four other coals were predicted
to be marginal for slagging performance. No other derates or limitations were predicted.
Impacts of Blend Coal Variability: Baseline Coal and Many PRB Blends
As a final experiment to evaluate using the tangential-fired unit, a look at how changes in PRB
coal variability could impact the unit was carried out. This experiment assumes that the
tangential-fired unit:
• Maintains their current baseline IB coal, and
• Continues to blend in PRB coal, with the primary source of variability being which exact
PRB coal of the 7 examined in this report would be blended with the IB coal.
Interest in this evaluation was driven by comments from many power plant operators and
engineers that even nearly identical PRB coals delivered under the same specification appear to
have very different results in terms of efficiency, heat rate, and total fuel-related costs.
It was also decided to leverage the power of the EPRI Vista program to consider not only the
cases of seven different PRB specification coals blended 50/50 on a mass basis, but also the
effects of blend sensitivity, looking at blends of the baseline IB coal and the seven PRB
specification coals in 10% increments on a mass basis. This analysis provides 77 complete sets
of results to examine.
3-54
10055141
The first set of results to examine is the effect on boiler efficiency of coal source and blend level.
The results are shown in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-68. Across the row for each PRB coal, boiler
efficiency declines as the percentage of PRB coal burned increases, but at different rates.
Table 3-7
Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on Boiler Efficiency for the
Tangential-Fired Unit, %
Coal Blend 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB #1 88.36 88.09 87.90 87.69 87.47 87.25 87.00 86.71 86.47 86.30 85.97
PRB #2 88.36 88.06 87.82 87.57 87.31 87.03 86.73 86.41 86.08 85.72 85.46
PRB #3 88.36 88.07 87.85 87.61 87.36 87.10 86.82 86.52 86.21 85.88 85.52
PRB #4 88.36 88.07 87.85 87.61 87.36 87.10 86.83 86.52 86.21 85.88 85.50
PRB #5 88.36 88.06 87.82 87.58 87.32 87.05 86.76 86.44 86.11 85.77 85.52
PRB #6 88.36 88.05 87.80 87.54 87.27 86.98 86.68 86.34 85.99 85.63 85.25
PRB #7 88.36 88.09 87.88 87.67 87.44 87.19 86.93 86.66 86.36 86.04 85.80
3-55
10055141
Boiler Efficiency vs PRB Blend
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
86.5
86.0
85.5
85.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB Blend
PRB_01 PRB_02 PRB_03 PRB_04 PRB_05 PRB_06 PRB_07
Figure 3-68
Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus Boiler Efficiency
NPHR as a function of PRB coal source and blend level follows a similar (but inverse-slope)
trend, as seen in the case of boiler efficiency. One PRB coal, number 1, appears to have an
advantageous boiler efficiency and NPHR effect over all blend levels. This was found to have a
simple root cause: that coal had the lowest coal moisture content of any of the PRB coals. These
results are shown in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-69.
3-56
10055141
Table 3-8
Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on NPHR for the Tangential-
Fired Unit, Btu/kWh
Coal Blend 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB #1 10,231 10,261 10,280 10,302 10,322 10,349 10,377 10,410 10,433 10,449 10,483
PRB #2 10,231 10,263 10,287 10,312 10,338 10,364 10,396 10,430 10,464 10,501 10,525
PRB #3 10,231 10,262 10,283 10,306 10,331 10,354 10,383 10,414 10,445 10,478 10,516
PRB #4 10,231 10,262 10,283 10,306 10,330 10,357 10,382 10,413 10,444 10,477 10,518
PRB #5 10,231 10,263 10,286 10,310 10,336 10,364 10,391 10,424 10,456 10,493 10,515
PRB #6 10,231 10,264 10,288 10,314 10,341 10,371 10,400 10,435 10,468 10,506 10,548
PRB #7 10,231 10,262 10,283 10,306 10,331 10,358 10,384 10,414 10,446 10,481 10,502
NPHR vs PRB Blend
10,600
10,550
10,500
10,450
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400
10,350
10,300
10,250
10,200
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB Blend
Figure 3-69
Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus NPHR
3-57
10055141
Given that the baseline mode of operation for the tangential-fired unit is to blend IB and PRB
coal at a 50/50 mass-basis level, it is interesting to note that four of the seven PRB coals could
not be blended at that 50/50 level with the baseline IB coal without a derate resulting. A common
trend was noted for most of the PRB coals – at levels between 30% and 70-80%, most derate
cases were due to slagging, but once the PRB coal percentage increased above 70-80%, mill-
related derates (due to mill capacity, mill drying, or both) tended to be the most limiting derate
(even though slagging was still a problem). At the highest levels of PRB coal blend, primary air
fan derates also were frequently seen, but at levels less than the controlling mill-related derates.
Details of this analysis are shown in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-70.
Table 3-9
Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on Maximum Potential Derate
for the Tangential-Fired Unit, MW
Coal Blend 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB #1 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.91 17.68 15.25 27.41 47.22 48.83 44.90 63.12
PRB #2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.23 28.47 95.70 164.5 223.3 272.8
PRB #3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.20 26.08 21.83 27.18 45.27 63.43
PRB #4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.76 18.54 28.01 46.21 64.58
PRB #5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.98 6.84 24.62 42.43 59.50
PRB #6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.66 14.86 28.47 46.74 64.98
PRB #7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 27.22 14.08 32.96 51.81 70.15
3-58
10055141
Maximum Potential Derate vs PRB Blend
300.0
250.0
Maximum Potential Derate, MW
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB Blend
Figure 3-70
Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus Derate
The effect on annual total fuel-related costs was profound across the range of PRB coals. At the
target 50/50 blend level, the annual total fuel-related costs varied from $97.0M to $100.7M per
year, for a range of $3.7M. At 100% PRB coal use, these values changed to $117.5M to
$126.4M (a range of $8.9M). Even at the relatively modest blend level of 20% PRB, the
difference between the lowest- and highest-cost options was still $942,000 per year. These cost
differences are shown in Table 3-10 and Figure 3-71.
3-59
10055141
Table 3-10
Impact of 8,800 Btu/lbm PRB Source and Blend Percentage on the Annual Total Fuel-
Related Costs for the Tangential-Fired Unit, $M/year
Coal Blend 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB #1 88.86 90.60 92.38 94.89 98.82 100.86 105.13 109.65 112.36 115.74 122.23
PRB #2 88.86 90.31 91.76 93.48 95.38 98.31 103.39 104.23 108.83 113.82 120.18
PRB #3 88.86 90.38 91.90 93.56 95.52 98.61 102.95 104.79 108.75 113.62 120.10
PRB #4 88.86 90.42 91.98 93.77 95.70 97.80 104.09 104.84 109.21 114.39 121.09
PRB #5 88.86 90.29 91.73 93.28 95.05 96.95 99.38 102.82 107.34 112.03 117.52
PRB #6 88.86 90.38 91.90 93.60 95.45 97.47 103.39 103.95 108.53 113.69 120.21
PRB #7 88.86 90.76 92.67 94.82 97.23 99.82 105.40 107.62 112.99 118.84 126.43
Total Fuel-Related Costs vs PRB Blend
130.0
125.0
120.0
Total Fuel-Related Costs, M$
115.0
110.0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PRB Blend
Figure 3-71
Tangential-fired Unit: PRB Coal Source and Blend Level versus Annual Total Fuel-Related
Costs
3-60
10055141
As discussed earlier, three versions of the tangential-fired conceptual unit model were developed
with different furnace sizes (small, medium, and large) to determine how sensitive these
differences are to coal quality impacts. A typical sensitivity would be the impact of the slagging
and fouling tendency of the unit on heat transfer and sootblowing.
For the IB/PRB blend coal cases with the tangential-fired unit, there were few significant
differences in trends of boiler efficiency and NPHR as a function of furnace size. This is partly
because the unit was able to leverage its burner tilts to balance heat transfer in the furnace. See
Figures 3-72 and 3-73 for a comparison of these differences.
IB/PRB - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
88.00
87.50
87.00
Large
Medium
Small
86.50
86.00
85.50
50
50
57
99
15
50
5
5
69
70
71
79
82
96
,0
,1
,1
,2
,3
,3
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-72
Tangential-fired Unit IB Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Furnace
Size
3-61
10055141
IB/PRB - NPHR vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
10,550
10,500
10,450
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,400 Large
Medium
10,350 Small
10,300
10,250
10,200
50
50
57
99
15
50
5
5
69
70
71
79
82
96
,0
,1
,1
,2
,3
,3
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-73
Tangential-fired Unit IB Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace Size
Unlike boiler efficiency and NPHR cases, considerable variation was seen in annual total fuel-
related cost comparisons between the three furnace sizes, largely due to differing amounts of
slagging derates. For example, the small furnace unit saw slagging derates in 10 out of 12
IB/PRB coal cases, the medium furnace unit 9 out of 12 cases, and the large furnace saw no
slagging derates whatsoever (although two cases were marginal for slagging for the large
furnace). Figure 3-74 demonstrates how significant this variation is between the three furnace
sizes.
3-62
10055141
IB/PRB - Total Annual Fuel-Related Cost vs Coal HHV vs Furnace

Size
115
110
105
Large
100 Medium
Small
95
90
85
50
50
57
99
15
50
5
5
69
70
71
79
82
96
,0
,1
,1
,2
,3
,3
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-74
Tangential-fired Unit IB Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-Related
Cost to Furnace Size
NAPP/PRB blend coal cases saw more significant differences in trends of boiler efficiency and
NPHR as a function of furnace size than IB/PRB coal cases. These differences were exaggerated
at blends with lower higher heating values, and higher sulfur, ash, and ash iron content, and were
due to reduced heat transfer in the lower furnace due to increased slagging. Although the burner
tilts helped mitigate some of this effect, nonetheless the effect was more noticeable. See Figures
3-75 and 3-76 for examples.
3-63
10055141
NAPP/PRB - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.5 Large
Medium
87.0 Small
86.5
86.0
85.5
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-75
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to
Furnace Size
3-64
10055141
NAPP/PRB - NPHR vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
10,450
10,400
10,350
10,300
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,250
Large
10,200 Medium
Small
10,150
10,100
10,050
10,000
9,950
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-76
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of NPHR to Furnace Size
Much more variation was seen in annual total fuel-related cost comparisons between the three
furnace sizes than the cases of boiler efficiency and NPHR (see Figure 3-77). When comparing
these costs across all the NAPP specification/PRB blend cases, one of the 10,934 Btu/lbm cases
stands out as having a much higher cost for the medium furnace than for the small or large
furnace, something which seems highly unexpected. This case was NAPP specification coal
number 5 blended 50/50 with the baseline PRB coal. Upon investigation the primary reason for
the unusual trend was a large slagging derate for that specific case due to a spike in furnace exit
gas temperatures for the medium furnace (2,394ºF, versus 2,376ºF for the small furnace, and
2,353ºF for the large furnace). This was due to differences in the burner tilt between the three
furnace sizes – in Vista, the primary goal of tilting the burners is to meet the reheat and main
steam outlet temperatures, rather than reduce slagging, and for the case of the medium and large
furnace units, the burner tilts were required to be raised up from horizontal, thus shifting heat
transfer in the furnace. While the large furnace was able to accommodate the combination of the
higher burner tilt angle and coal quality, the medium furnace had too small of a volume to do so,
and therefore was pushed into a severely slagging temperature region.
3-65
10055141
NAPP/PRB - Total Annual Fuel-Related Cost vs Coal HHV vs

Furnace Size
100
95
90
Large
Medium
Small
85
80
75
00
22
06
12
54
35
66
69
15
26
34
34
38
70
32
,5
,6
,7
,7
,7
,8
,8
,8
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 3-77
Tangential-fired Unit NAPP Coal Specification/PRB: Sensitivity of Annual Total Fuel-
Related Cost to Furnace Size
Conclusions
Several important conclusions could be drawn from the 813 different scenarios evaluated. The
most important facts learned from this exercise were as follows:
• A considerable range of sensible heat losses, latent heat losses, boiler efficiency, auxiliary
power, and NPHR can be found among groups of "equivalent" specification coals.
• Even coals which have a very tight specification and which are blended with other baseline
coals can nonetheless have a significant impact on boiler efficiency, auxiliary power, and net
plant heat rate.
• When the effects of emissions, derates, differential operations and maintenance, etc. are all
taken into account, the difference in the total fuel-related costs among specification coals can
be profound.
3-66
10055141
• While these differences can sometime be related by simple trends of individual coal quality
combinations of various coal quality factors can yield surprising outliers. Therefore, it is
critical to ensure that specification coals are evaluated in detail as individual coals, unless a
unit is known to have a very high level of fuel flexibility.
• Differences in furnace size can have an impact on boiler efficiency and NPHR, but it is more
likely to have a large impact on total fuel-related costs. The tangential-fired unit was
generally more flexible than the wall-fired unit due to the ability to adjust combustion with
burner tilts.
3-67
10055141
10055141
4
COAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
While the prior chapter examined the impact of real specification coals on the wall-fired and
tangential-fired conceptual units, there remain some questions as far as what the most critical
coal quality factors are for the resulting differences observed in boiler efficiency, heat rate, and
costs. There are several ways in which a more focused examination can be done – one is to
perform more specification coal analyses, and another is to conduct a "deep dive" into individual
candidate coals and track the multiple variables which influence the plant performance. A third
method which can be used, which has some advantages over the other two methods, is to conduct
what is known as a coal quality sensitivity analysis.
The basic concept behind a coal quality sensitivity analysis is determining “what happens to my
plant performance, emissions, operations and maintenance, and economics as a function of one
coal quality variable.” Here one must be careful in setting up their study, as simply taking a
baseline coal and varying the moisture content, without correcting the other coal properties,
would yield a selection of unrealistic coal cases for the evaluation. To avoid that potential pitfall,
the Vista program contains a Fuel Sensitivity Generator, which will automatically generate lists
of coals which have one primary variable varying between an upper and a lower boundary, and
which will also adjust the other coal quality parameters to ensure that the coals which are created
are as "realistic" as possible. For example, when varying the coal moisture content, Vista will
vary the higher and lower heating values, the proximate analysis, and the ultimate analysis, using
relations developed by EPRI, Exxon, and Black & Veatch to make the final coal quality as
internally consistent as possible (note that the question of external consistency2 is left to the user
of the program).
The steps for configuring a coal quality sensitivity analysis are relatively straightforward:
• A baseline coal or coals must be selected.
• The most critical coal quality parameters must be selected. While one could in theory
perform a coal quality sensitivity analysis upon all coal quality parameters, that would be a
very time-consuming effort which may result in overwhelming the most important results
with a large amount of spurious data. To determine which coal quality parameters are most
important, the engineer should rely upon operating experience of the unit, their personal
experience, and the results of a specification coal analysis, as was done in Chapter 3.
2
External consistency means that a coal has a quality specification which would be expected from its mine, supplier,
region, or basin. For example, one would not expect to encounter a 10% moisture content PRB coal any more than
one would expect a 0.2% sulfur content Illinois Basin coal.
4-1
10055141
Coal Quality Sensitivity Analysis
• The valid ranges to vary coal quality parameters must be selected. Here again, the engineer
performing the analysis must use their knowledge of the coal characteristics, their experience
and judgment, and the results of other studies, such as a specification coal analysis, to
determine the valid ranges for each property.
• The step size for each analysis should be selected. This is largely a judgment call, with the
disadvantage of choosing too small a step size being overwhelmed by the data which results
from the analysis. Generally speaking, a good practice is to have no less than 5 steps and no
more than 20 steps over the coal quality ranges which are selected.
Determination of Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges: The Wall-Fired Unit
Examining the results of the specification coal analysis for the wall-fired unit, several coal
quality parameters became evident as the most likely factors which would impact the boiler
efficiency, heat rate, and costs of the unit. These are shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1
Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges
Baseline Sensitivity Sensitivity Step Number

Coal Quality Parameter Fuel Minimum Maximum Size of Cases
Higher heating value, Btu/lbm: 11,700 10,000 12,000 200 14
Moisture content, % 12.00 5.00 20.00 1.00 16

Ash content, as-received, % 9.00 5.00 20.00 1.00 16
Sulfur content, as-received, % 2.60 1.00 5.00 0.25 17
Coal ash iron content, % 17.60 5.00 50.00 5.00 10
Coal ash sodium content, % 0.77 0.50 5.00 0.50 10
Overall, a total of 83 different coal quality sensitivity cases were evaluated for this study on the
wall-fired unit.
Results from the Wall-Fired Unit
Coal quality sensitivity analyses were run for all three furnace sizes of the wall-fired conceptual
unit in the Vista program, and the results for higher heating value, moisture, ash, sulfur, coal ash
iron, and coal ash sodium sensitivity cases are discussed here. Most of the discussion focuses on
the medium furnace unit, but a comparison of results between the three furnace sizes has also
been conducted.
4-2
10055141
Higher Heating Value
The relationship between higher heating value (HHV) and boiler efficiency was found to be
fairly linear, with a slight drop-off at higher values of HHV. Auxiliary power consumption saw a
similar trend, but inverse from that of HHV. NPHR reflected these two combined effects.
However, the trend of HHV versus annual total fuel-related costs, while linear, showed some
variation in cost in the middle ranges of HHV. Part of this was driven by the introduction of
small derates at the 11,200 Btu/lbm case. See Figures 4-1 through 4-4 for further details on
higher heating value sensitivity impacts.
88.2
88.0
87.8
87.6
87.4
87.2
87.0
86.8
86.6
86.4
86.2
9,800 10,300 10,800 11,300 11,800 12,300 12,800
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-1
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV
4-3
10055141
51.6
51.4
51.2
51.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.8
50.6
50.4
50.2
50.0
49.8
9,800 10,300 10,800 11,300 11,800 12,300 12,800
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-2
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to HHV
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,500
10,450
10,400
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,350
10,300
10,250
10,200
9,800 10,300 10,800 11,300 11,800 12,300 12,800
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-3
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to HHV
4-4
10055141
115
110

105
100
95
90
85
80
9,800 10,300 10,800 11,300 11,800 12,300 12,800
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-4
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to HHV
Coal Moisture Content
The relationships between coal moisture content and latent heat losses, boiler efficiency,
auxiliary power consumption, and NPHR were very similar to those seen for the higher heating
value sensitivity case. The total fuel-related cost curve began to grow steep above 16% moisture
content, where mill drying, and later mill capacity derates, began to appear. See Figures 4-5
through 4-9 for a detailed look at coal moisture sensitivity impacts.
4-5
10055141
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
Latent Heat Loss, % 4.7
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-5
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Latent Heat Losses to Moisture
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0
86.5
86.0
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-6
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Moisture
4-6
10055141
51.4
51.2
51.0
50.8
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.6
50.4
50.2
50.0
49.8
49.6
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-7
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Moisture
10,500
10,450
10,400
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,350
10,300
10,250
10,200
10,150
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-8
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Moisture
4-7
10055141
110
105

100
95
90
85
80
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-9
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Moisture
Coal Ash Content
The relationships between coal ash content and sensible heat losses, boiler efficiency, auxiliary
power consumption, and NPHR were very similar to those seen for the higher heating value and
moisture sensitivity cases. A small step was observed between 13% and 14% ash content in both
the auxiliary power and NPHR graphs, which after investigation was found to be due to a natural
variation resulting from the Vista program's rebalancing of coal quality parameters (it was not an
error per se, but a place where different assumptions led to a slightly different calculation). The
total fuel-related cost curve was seen to have a boundary condition at 18% ash content where the
slope of costs suddenly increased. This was due to the addition of an ESP collection efficiency
derate which became larger than a slagging derate at the 18% ash content point (the slagging
derate began at the 11% ash content point). This crossover point at 18% ash content was a derate
of 59 MW, and increased at a faster rate than the slagging derate had been increasing, thus
resulting in the change in slope of the ash content versus cost curve. See Figures 4-10 through 4-
14 for further illustration on the results of the coal ash sensitivity analyses.
4-8
10055141
7.26
7.24
7.22

7.20
7.18
7.16
7.14
7.12
7.10
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-10
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Losses to Ash
87.65
87.60
87.55
87.50
87.45
87.40
87.35
87.30
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-11
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Ash
4-9
10055141
50.90
50.80
50.70
50.50
50.40
50.30
50.20
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-12
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Ash
10,350
10,345
10,340
10,335
10,330
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,325
10,320
10,315
10,310
10,305
10,300
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-13
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash
4-10
10055141
130
125
120

115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-14
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash
Coal Sulfur Content
Coal sulfur content was found to have a fairly linear effect on boiler efficiency and NPHR, with
a small flattening of the boiler efficiency curve at the 2.75% sulfur point. Further investigation
revealed this flattening to essentially be noise in the data, and not of significance. A sudden
increase in the annual total fuel-related costs which was seen at 4% sulfur was found to be due to
a sharp increase in slagging derates which were predicted. Slagging derates for these cases were
found to start at 3.25% sulfur content, but above 4% the combination of increased sulfur with
other coal quality parameter changes resulted in an increased sensitivity to sulfur through a
reduction in the calculated ash fusion temperatures. See Figures 4-15 through 4-17 for sulfur
sensitivity details.
4-11
10055141
Boiler Efficiency vs Coal Sulfur Content
87.57
87.56
87.55
87.54
87.52
87.51
87.50
87.49
87.48
87.47
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-15
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Sulfur
NPHR vs Coal Sulfur Content
10,400
10,380
10,360
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,340
10,320
10,300
10,280
10,260
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-16
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Sulfur
4-12
10055141
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Sulfur Content
110
105

100
95
90
85
80
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-17
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Sulfur
Ash Iron Oxide Content
The primary sensitivity impact seen with ash iron content was differential derates (and resulting
differences in fuel-related costs), although there were changes in NPHR which were noted as
well. These derates which were predicted were entirely due to increased slagging in the furnace,
starting at 25% iron content and increasing to a maximum derate of 57 MW at 40% ash iron
content. After this point the slagging derates start to fall off (see Figure 4-18), which appears to
be very confusing, until the root cause was investigated and found to be a problem with one of
the slagging indices which was used for the analysis. The B&W slagging index predicted
increasing levels of slagging until after 40% ash iron content, where the index predicted "severe"
slagging. The index then started to predict less and less slagging as a function of the ash iron
content (for example, "medium/high" slagging for 45% ash iron content, and "very low" slagging
for 50% ash iron content). The effect of this one index drew down the overall mean slagging
index calculation of the Vista program, resulting in the unusual shape of the graph. This was
investigated further and found not to be a case where the ash type changed from bituminous type
to lignitic type, but rather seemed to be a boundary condition inherent in the calculation itself. As
a result, for this case the results for an ash iron content above 40% should be ignored as invalid.
While it was at first thought that the analysis could be adjusted to simply not consider coals with
an ash iron content above 40%, it was decided instead to use this instance as a "lessons learned"
tool, to demonstrate to the engineer reading this document that no calculation or computer model
should have its results taken verbatim without question, and that sometimes even if the computer
model predicts the results without error (as it did in this case), the underlying empirical
calculations may suffer from boundary conditions which could impact the accuracy and
consistency of your analysis.
4-13
10055141
Potential Derate vs Coal Iron Content
60
50
40
Derate, MW
30
20
10
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Iron, %
Figure 4-18
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Unit Derate to Ash Iron Content
The reduction (improvement) in NPHR at very low ash iron contents was investigated and found
to be due to an improvement in NTHR resulting from reduced sootblower steam use for those
cases (above that point, sootblowing was operating as maximum, and thus the curve is flatter).
See Figure 4-19.
NPHR vs Coal Iron Content
10314.0
10313.5
10313.0
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10312.5
10312.0
10311.5
10311.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Iron, %
Figure 4-19
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Iron Content
4-14
10055141
As mentioned earlier, due to an issue with the B&W slagging index relationship, cost results for
the 45% and 50% ash iron content cases should be ignored as invalid (see Figure 4-20).
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Iron Content
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
95.0
94.0
93.0
92.0
91.0
90.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Iron, %
Figure 4-20
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Iron Content
Ash Sodium Content
No derates were predicted for any of the ash sodium cases, so no chart is presented comparing
sodium versus potential unit derate. Differences in NPHR observed for the low-sodium cases
were found to be due to variations in NTHR due to differences in steam sootblower use (see
Figure 4-21).
4-15
10055141
NPHR vs Coal Sodium Content
10,332
10,330
10,328
10,326
10,324
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,322
10,320
10,318
10,316
10,314
10,312
10,310
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Sodium, %
Figure 4-21
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Sodium Content
Note that although differences appear in total fuel-related costs as a function of coal ash sodium
content, the actual magnitude of the differences is very small, from $90.5M to $90.7M. See
Figure 4-22 for an illustration of the magnitude of these costs.
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Sodium Content
90.70
90.68
90.66
90.64
90.62
90.60
90.58
90.56
90.54
90.52
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Sodium, %
Figure 4-22
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Sodium Content
4-16
10055141
Another critical consideration was what influence differences in the furnace size would have
upon efficiency, heat rate, and costs for the wall-fired conceptual unit. Several metrics were
examined and the most interesting ones highlighted here for consideration.
Figure 4-23 shows there is a small difference in the slope of the curves of HHV versus boiler
efficiency between the three different furnace sizes, with this difference being the greatest at
lower values of HHV. For example, at 10,000 Btu/lbm, the differences between the large furnace
boiler efficiency and the medium and small furnace boiler efficiency are 0.03% and 0.39%,
respectively – but at 12,600 Btu/lbm, these differences drop to 0.007% and 0.34%, respectively.
This was found to be due to increased variations in sensible heat losses due to poorer heat
transfer (largely because of differences in flue gas velocity).
Wall-Fired - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
88.5
88.0
87.5
Large
Medium
Small
87.0
86.5
86.0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
,2
,4
,6
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-23
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV and Furnace Size
4-17
10055141
As coal ash content increased, differences were also noted between the curves of ash content
versus boiler efficiency for the three furnace sizes (see Figure 4-24). Investigation revealed that
most of the difference in the curve shapes was due to changes in the sensible heat losses, which
are highlighted in the following figure. For example, at 5% ash content, the differences between
the large furnace boiler sensible heat loss and the medium and small furnace sensible heat loss
are 0.009% and 0.35%, respectively – but at 20% ash content, these differences increased to
0.019% and 0.36%, respectively. This was found to be due to increased differences in slag
buildup on the lower furnace, which resulted in higher gas outlet temperatures for the furnace
and air heater.
Wall-Fired - Sensible Heat Loss vs Coal Ash Content vs Furance

Size
7.60
7.50
7.40
Large
7.30 Medium
Small
7.20
7.10
7.00
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-24
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Loss to Ash and Furnace Size
Very little change in slope was noted between the three furnace sizes with respect to coal ash
iron content, but there were very small differences which occurred due to differences in
sootblowing use (which impacted the NTHR via changes in steam consumption, resulting in
NPHR impacts). Some of these are highlighted in Figure 4-25.
4-18
10055141
Wall-Fired - NPHR vs Coal Iron Content vs Furnace Size
10,360
10,350
10,340
NPHR, Btu/kWh
Large
10,330 Medium
Small
10,320
10,310
10,300
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Iron, %
Figure 4-25
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Iron Content and Furnace Size
Some significant differences were noted between the sensitivity curves for the three furnace sizes
and the coal moisture content. At times the large furnace was found to have the lowest total fuel-
related costs at a given moisture content, and at other times the medium furnace was found to
have lower total fuel-related costs. The root cause of this difference was due to variations in
furnace flue gas production, which resulted due to differences in the coal ultimate analysis as
moisture content was varied (see Figure 4-26)
4-19
10055141
Wall-Fired - Total Annual Fuel-Related Cost vs Coal Moisture

Content vs Furnace Size
110
105
100
Large
95 Medium
Small
90
85
80
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-26
Wall-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Moisture and Furnace Size
The Influence of Furnace Size on Operations Limitations
For the most part furnace size had a minor impact on differences in predictions of unit derates,
both in terms of the point at which derates began, and the difference in slope of the growth of the
derates as a function of coal quality. Examples for coal HHV, moisture, ash, sulfur, and ash iron
content are shown in Figures 4-27 through 4-31.
4-20
10055141
Wall-Fired - Derate vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
100
90
80
70
60
Derate, MW
Large
50 Medium
Small
40
30
20
10
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
,2
,4
,6
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-27
Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal HHV vs. Furnace Size
4-21
10055141
Wall-Fired - Derate vs Coal Moisture Content vs Furnace Size
100
90
80
70
60
Derate, MW
Large
50 Medium
Small
40
30
20
10
0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-28
Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Moisture Content vs. Furnace Size
4-22
10055141
Wall-Fired - Derate vs Coal Ash Content vs Furnace Size
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
Derate, MW
Large
80
Medium
70
Small
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-29
Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Content vs. Furnace Size
4-23
10055141
Wall-Fired - Derate vs Coal Sulfur Content vs Furnace Size
50
45
40
35
30
Derate, MW
Large
25 Medium
Small
20
15
10
0
1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-30
Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Sulfur Content vs. Furnace Size
4-24
10055141
Wall-Fired - Derate vs Coal Iron Content vs Furnace Size
80
70
60
50
Derate, MW
Large
40 Medium
Small
30
20
10
0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Iron, %
Figure 4-31
Wall-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Iron Content vs. Furnace Size
4-25
10055141
Determination of Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges: The Tangential-Fired Unit
Examining the results of the specification coal analysis for the tangential-fired unit, several coal
quality parameters became evident as the most likely factors which would impact boiler
efficiency, heat rate, and costs of the unit. These are shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2
Tangential-Fired Conceptual Unit Coal Quality Sensitivity Ranges
Coal Quality Parameter Baseline Sensitivity Sensitivity Step Size Number

Fuel Minimum Maximum of Cases
Higher heating value, Btu/lbm: 10,250 8,800 11,000 200 12
Moisture content, % 19.65 15.00 30.00 1.00 16

Ash content, as-received, % 6.75 3.00 15.00 1.00 13
Sulfur content, as-received, % 1.41 0.40 2.00 0.20 9

Coal ash calcium content, % 10.37 5.00 50.00 5.00 10
Coal ash sodium content, % 1.18 0.50 5.00 0.50 10
Overall, a total of 70 different coal quality sensitivity cases were evaluated for this study on the
tangential-fired unit.
Results from the Tangential-Fired Unit
Coal quality sensitivity analyses were run for all three furnace sizes of the tangential-fired
conceptual unit in the Vista program, and the results for higher heating value, moisture, ash,
sulfur, coal ash calcium, and coal ash sodium sensitivity cases are discussed. Most of the
assessment focuses on the medium furnace unit, but a comparison of results between the three
furnace sizes has also been conducted.
Higher Heating Value
The relationship between higher heating value (HHV) and boiler efficiency (see Figure 4-32)
was found to be fairly linear, with a slight drop-off at higher values of HHV. Auxiliary power
consumption, however, saw a sudden step which increased, then decreased again between HHV
values of 9,400 and 9,800 Btu/lbm (see Figure 4-33). The root cause for this strange behavior
was found to be due to a case where increased ESP power consumption was required to maintain
the desired collection efficiency, and increased scrubber power consumption also was required to
maintain its collection efficiency. Essentially, the unit saw a perfect storm of increasing sulfur
and ash content at that point, which led to increased demands on its emissions equipment.
4-26
10055141
88.0
87.5
86.5
86.0
85.5
8,600 9,100 9,600 10,100 10,600 11,100
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-32
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV
However, although Figure 4-33 presents a large-looking discontinuity in auxiliary power

predictions, the absolute magnitude of the effect was very small, and as such the shape of the
NPHR curve did not deviate substantially from what would be expected (see Figure 4-34).
51.0
50.8
50.6
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.4
50.2
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.4
8,600 9,100 9,600 10,100 10,600 11,100
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-33
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to HHV
4-27
10055141
NPHR vs Coal HHV
10,600
10,550
10,500
10,400
10,350
10,300
10,250
8,600 9,100 9,600 10,100 10,600 11,100
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-34
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to HHV
The trend of HHV versus annual total fuel-related costs, while linear, showed some significant
upward movements at the lower values of HHV, due mostly to the introduction of derates related
to slagging, mill capacity, and mill drying at 9,800 Btu/lbm. This can be seen in Figure 4-35.
145
135
125
115
105
95
85
8,600 9,100 9,600 10,100 10,600 11,100
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-35
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to HHV
4-28
10055141
Coal Moisture Content
The relationships between coal moisture content and latent heat losses, boiler efficiency,
auxiliary power consumption, and NPHR were very similar to those seen for the higher heating
value sensitivity case. The total fuel-related cost curve began to grow steep after 23% moisture
content, where mill drying derates, and later mill capacity derates, began to appear. See Figures
4-36 through 4-40 for more details.
7.5
7.0
6.5
Latent Heat Loss, %
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-36
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Latent Heat Losses to Moisture
4-29
10055141
88.0
87.5
87.0
86.5
86.0
85.5
85.0
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-37
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Moisture
51.0
50.8
50.6
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.4
50.2
50.0
49.8
49.6
49.4
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-38
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Moisture
4-30
10055141
10,600
10,550
10,500
10,400
10,350
10,300
10,250
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-39
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Moisture
155
145
135
125
115
105
95
85
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-40
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Moisture
Coal Ash Content
The relationships between coal ash content and both sensible heat losses and boiler efficiency
were quite different from those seen for the wall-fired unit. Not only did the sensible heat losses
show a jagged trend from 3% to 13% ash, but at 14% ash they started to increase rapidly, to a
4-31
10055141
maximum point of 6.61%. This was found to be due to a combination of increased furnace
slagging and a change in the burner tilt position of the furnace relative to the cases with lower
ash content. However, here it is important to note the scale of the graph shown in the Figure 4-41
- the total range of sensible heat loss between 3% and 15% ash content was only 0.039% overall.
Therefore, although this graph and the one for boiler efficiency (Figure 4-42) appear unusual,
this sudden change in trend is quite small.
6.62
6.61
6.60
6.59
6.58
6.57
6.56
6.55
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-41
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Losses to Ash
87.16
87.14
87.12
87.10
87.08
87.06
87.04
87.02
87.00
86.98
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-42
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Ash
4-32
10055141
The auxiliary power curve appears somewhat stable (Figure 4-43), but the NPHR curve (Figure
4-44) appears more jagged than it did for the wall-fired unit. Here again, the absolute differences
are small. The total fuel-related cost curve (Figure 4-45) was seen to have a step in it at 10% ash
content, which was found to be due to a marked increase in slagging derates (which were
introduced at 8% ash content). These derates drive much of the continued increase in total fuel-
related costs, and reach a maximum point of 67 MW at 15% ash.
50.40
50.35
50.30
50.25
Auxiliary Power, MW
50.20
50.15
50.10
50.05
50.00
49.95
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-43
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Auxiliary Power to Ash
10,380
10,375
10,370
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,365
10,360
10,355
10,350
10,345
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-44
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash
4-33
10055141
125
120

115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-45
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash
Coal Sulfur Content
Coal sulfur content was found to have a small effect on boiler efficiency and NPHR (which can
be seen in Figures 4-46 and 4-47). Note that this relationship appears large in the boiler
efficiency graph (Figure 4-46) simply due to the small scale involved. The movement up and
down in the boiler efficiency trendline was found to be due to changes in the burner tilt angle
brought about by changes in the furnace heat transfer resulting from increased levels of boiler
slagging.
4-34
10055141
Boiler Efficiency vs Coal Sulfur Content
87.13
87.13
87.12
87.12
87.11
87.11
87.10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-46
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to Sulfur
NPHR vs Coal Sulfur Content
10,400
10,390
10,380
10,370
10,360
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,350
10,340
10,330
10,320
10,310
10,300
10,290
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-47
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Sulfur
The curve of annual total fuel-related costs versus sulfur content (as seen in Figure 4-48) appears
strange, with costs increasing sharply at first, then decreasing at 1.2% sulfur, and then continuing
back on their increasing trend at 1.4% sulfur. This of course mandated further investigation, and
was found to be due to a crossover in the ash type at that point – at 1.2% to 1.4% sulfur, the ash
content was calculated to change from lignitic to bituminous, which was a function of the fact
4-35
10055141
that the baseline coal for these cases was a blend of 50% Illinois Basin and 50% PRB coal. As a
result, slagging predictions follow a trend of increasing until the change to a bituminous-type
ash, and then dropping off. Although this sort of behavior was unexpected, it did nonetheless
follow the rules for analyzing coal types which were set up in the model.
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Sulfur Content
101.0
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
95.0
94.0
93.0
92.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Sulfur, %
Figure 4-48
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Sulfur
Ash Calcium Content
The primary sensitivity impact seen with ash calcium content was differential derates (which
resulted in substantial differences in fuel-related costs), although changes in NPHR were noted
as well (as seen in Figure 4-50). The only derates which were predicted for these cases were due
to slagging, and it is safe to say that the trend of derates was non-intuitive upon first glance (as
can be seen in Figure 4-49). Investigation was performed to determine the root causes, and the
trends of the derates which were predicted, along with their driving factors, are outlined below:
• Starting at 15% calcium content where the derate was 17.4 MW (the ash type changed from
bituminous to lignitic at this point, due to the coal being a 50/50 blend of Illinois Basin and
PRB coals),
• Decreasing to 11 MW at 35% calcium content (burned tilts changed in order to balance heat
transfer, thus reducing furnace exit gas temperature),
• Increasing back to 17.4 MW at 40% calcium content (increasing calcium content
overwhelmed the adjustment to burner tilts at 35% calcium content),
• Decreasing back to 11 MW at 45% calcium content (burner tilts again tried to adjust the heat
transfer in the furnace), and
4-36
10055141
• Decreasing to 1 MW at 50% calcium content (some of the slagging indices started to predict
that slagging buildup and deposit strength would improve for the better, most notably the
Multi-viscosity index, the Hoy & Roberts index, the Ash Fusion Temperature index, and the
Dolomite index).
Potential Derate vs Coal Calcium Content
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
Derate, MW
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Calcium, %
Figure 4-49
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Unit Derate to Ash Calcium Content
NPHR vs Coal Calcium Content
10,370
10,365
10,360
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,355
10,350
10,345
10,340
10,335
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Calcium, %
Figure 4-50
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Calcium Content
4-37
10055141
So although very complicated, rational reasons were found for the unusual slagging behavior,
and the resulting changes in derates and total annual fuel-related costs (which can be seen in
Figure 4-51).
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Calcium Content
100.50
100.00
99.50
99.00
98.50
98.00
97.50
97.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Calcium, %
Figure 4-51
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Calcium Content
Ash Sodium Content
No derates were predicted for any of the ash sodium cases, so no chart is presented comparing
sodium versus potential unit derate. Observed differences in NPHR were found to be due to
variations in NTHR, caused by changes in steam sootblower use, and these are shown in Figure
4-52).
4-38
10055141
NPHR vs Coal Sodium Content
10,366
10,364
10,362
10,360
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,358
10,356
10,354
10,352
10,350
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Sodium, %
Figure 4-52
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to Ash Sodium Content
Note that as in the case of the wall-fired unit, although differences in total fuel-related costs as a
function of coal ash sodium content appear large (as seen in Figure 4-53), the actual magnitude
of the differences is very small, from $97.6M to $97.7M, a statistically insignificant number.
Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal Sodium Content
97.69
97.68
97.67
97.66
97.65
97.64
97.63
97.62
97.61
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Sodium, %
Figure 4-53
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to Ash Sodium Content
4-39
10055141
The Influence of Furnace Size on Boiler Efficiency and Heat Rate
Another critical consideration of this report was determining the influence which differences in
the furnace size would have upon efficiency, heat rate, and total annual fuel-related costs for the
tangential-fired conceptual unit. Several metrics were examined and the most interesting ones
highlighted here for consideration.
Figure 4-54 shows that there are almost no differences in the slopes of the curves of higher
heating value versus boiler efficiency among the three different furnace sizes. Upon
investigation, this was found to be due to the overwhelming influence of burner tilts and their
ability to impact furnace heat transfer.
T-Fired - Boiler Efficiency vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0 Large
Medium
86.5 Small
86.0
85.5
85.0
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
80
00
20
40
60
80
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
8,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-54
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Boiler Efficiency to HHV and Furnace Size
4-40
10055141
As coal ash content increased, insignificant differences were noted between the curves of ash
content versus boiler efficiency for the three furnace sizes. Investigation revealed that even
sensible heat losses were not strongly impacted. Again, the reason appears to be due to the
flexibility of the burner tilts in the tangential-fired unit. These can be seen in Figure 4-55.
T-Fired - Sensible Heat Loss vs Coal Ash Content vs Furnace Size
6.80
6.70
6.60
6.50
Large
6.40 Medium
Small
6.30
6.20
6.10
6.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-55
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Sensible Heat Loss to Ash and Furnace Size
Figure 4-56 clearly shows that there were only very small changes in the slope of the NPHR
curves for the three furnace sizes, for the reasons previously mentioned regarding boiler
efficiency.
4-41
10055141
T-Fired - NPHR vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
10,600
10,550
10,500
10,450
NPHR, Btu/kWh
Large
10,400 Medium
Small
10,350
10,300
10,250
10,200
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
80
00
20
40
60
80
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
8,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-56
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of NPHR to HHV and Furnace Size
Some significant differences were noted between the annual total fuel-related cost sensitivity
curves for the three furnace sizes and coal higher heating value (see Figure 4-57). In all cases the
large furnace was predicted to result in lower costs than the medium furnace, which in turn had
lower costs than the small furnace. The difference between the small furnace and the medium
furnace showed some variation from case to case – for example, at the change from 9,400 to
9,600 Btu/lbm, and between 10,000 and 10,200 Btu/lbm – and this variation is directly related to
slagging derates.
4-42
10055141
T-Fired - Total Annual Fuel-Related Costs vs Coal HHV vs Furnace

Size
145
135
125
Large
115 Medium
Small
105
95
85
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
80
00
20
40
60
80
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
8,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-57
Tangential-Fired Unit: Sensitivity of Total Fuel-Related Costs to HHV and Furnace Size
The Influence of Furnace Size on Operations Limitations
For the most part, furnace size had only a minor impact on differences in predictions of unit
derates, both in terms of the break-point at which the derates began, and the difference in slope
of the growth of the derates as a function of coal quality. Figure 4-58 shows how operations
limitations varied between the three furnace sizes as a function of the coal higher heating value,
and Figures 4-59 through 4-62 show how operations limitations varied between the three
furnaces as a function of moisture, ash, ash calcium content, and ash sodium content,
respectively.
4-43
10055141
T-Fired - Derate vs Coal HHV vs Furnace Size
100
90
80
70
60
Derate, MW
Large
50 Medium
Small
40
30
20
10
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
80
00
20
40
60
80
,0
,2
,4
,6
,8
,0
8,
9,
9,
9,
9,
9,
10
10
10
10
10
11
Coal HHV, Btu/lbm
Figure 4-58
Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal HHV vs. Furnace Size
4-44
10055141
T-Fired - Derate vs Coal Moisture Content vs Furnace Size
175
150
125
100
Derate, MW
Large
Medium
75 Small
50
25
0
15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0
Moisture, %
Figure 4-59
Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Moisture Content vs. Furnace Size
4-45
10055141
T-Fired - Derate vs Coal Ash Content vs Furnace Size
120
100
80
Derate, MW
Large
60 Medium
Small
40
20
0
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
Ash, %
Figure 4-60
Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Content vs. Furnace Size
4-46
10055141
T-Fired - Derate vs Coal Calcium Content vs Furnace Size
50.00
40.00
30.00
Derate, MW
Large
Medium
Small
20.00
10.00
0.00
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Calcium, %
Figure 4-61
Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Calcium Content vs. Furnace Size
4-47
10055141
T-Fired - Potential Derate vs Coal Sodium Content vs Furnace Size
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Derate, MW
Large
50.00 Medium
Small
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Sodium, %
Figure 4-62
Tangential-Fired Unit: Derate vs. Coal Ash Sodium Content vs. Furnace Size
Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn from the findings of the coal quality sensitivity study for the
wall-fired and tangential-fired units.
unit efficiency and costs.
• Generally speaking, sulfur content, and the influence of ash minerals, were non-linear (or at
best, difficult-to-predict) effects which impacted many parts of the unit simultaneously in
ways which sometimes had inverse trends to each other.
• The tangential-fired unit was better able to accommodate changes in fuel quality than the
wall-fired unit, but this also led to some non-linear behavior of the unit which would be
difficult to predict without the use of some computer tool or rules-based analysis system.
Most importantly, slagging was much easier to mitigate on the tangential-fired unit than the
wall-fired unit, and this was a result of the increased flexibility available to the unit via
adjusting burner tilts.
4-48
10055141
5
PLANT EQUIPMENT CONDITIONS AND
PERFORMANCE SENSITIVITY
With any study of coal quality impacts that an engineer undertakes for a unit, the assumptions for
other non-coal-quality factors can have significant impacts on the predicted results. This section
highlights how some differences in plant conditions and performance assumptions could change
the results of a coal quality sensitivity study.
Three different conditions are examined for the wall-fired conceptual unit, equipped with the
medium-sized furnace, for all of the Illinois Basin specification coals (12 in total) which were
presented in Chapter 3. One of these is beyond the control of the power plant operators, one is
within their immediate control, and one is within their control only after capital upgrades or
maintenance requirements are carried out. The three are ambient temperature, excess oxygen
setpoint, and air heater leakage. The impact of their variations on boiler efficiency, auxiliary
power, NPHR, potential unit derate, and annual total fuel-related costs are assessed.
The Impact of Varying Ambient Temperature
Most power plants located in temperate zones can see a wide range of ambient temperature
conditions over a given year – in Kansas City, for example, it is possible to have an ambient
temperature within one year ranging from a low of -20 °F to a high of 110 °F – a range of 130
°F. These changes in the ambient temperature will impact the plant efficiency and capability in
several ways:
• Cooling water temperature changes will change the net turbine heat rate (NTHR) of the plant.
• Air temperature changes will change the boiler efficiency of the unit.
• Air temperature changes will change the performance of air-side fans, such as primary air
and forced-draft fans, as well as the stack effect and flue gas draft (to a small extent).
For this study, it was decided to vary the ambient temperature from 40°F to 100°F, with a
baseline of 80°F, across all 12 Illinois Basin specification coals.
Across all of the IB coals the average difference in boiler efficiency between 40°F and 100°F
was 0.64%. These results are shown in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1.
5-1
10055141
Plant Equipment Conditions and Performance Sensitivity
Table 5-1
Boiler Efficiency versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit
Boiler Efficiency, % 40°F 50°F 60°F 70°F 80°F 90°F 100°F
IB #1 87.14 87.11 87.09 87.28 87.45 87.61 87.75
IB #2 86.77 86.75 86.72 86.91 87.08 87.24 87.37
IB #3 86.11 86.09 86.06 86.25 86.42 86.58 86.70

IB #4 87.28 87.26 87.23 87.42 87.59 87.74 87.88
IB #5 87.09 87.07 87.04 87.23 87.40 87.56 87.69
IB #6 86.55 86.52 86.50 86.68 86.86 87.01 87.14

IB #7 86.58 86.56 86.54 86.72 86.89 87.04 87.17
IB #8 86.95 86.93 86.90 87.08 87.25 87.40 87.53

IB #9 86.74 86.71 86.69 86.87 87.04 87.19 87.32
IB #10 86.85 86.83 86.80 86.99 87.17 87.33 87.47
IB #11 86.47 86.44 86.42 86.60 86.77 86.92 87.04
IB #12 86.08 86.05 86.03 86.21 86.38 86.54 86.66
5-2
10055141
Boiler Efficiency vs Ambient Temperature
88.0
87.8
87.6 IB_01
IB_02
87.4 IB_03
IB_04
87.2
IB_05
IB_06
87.0
IB_07
IB_08
86.8
IB_09
86.6 IB_10
IB_11
86.4 IB_12
86.2
86.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Ambient Temperature, °F
Figure 5-1
Boiler Efficiency versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
In terms of the variation of auxiliary power versus ambient temperature, fairly standard curves
were seen, with a couple of exceptions. For the Illinois Basin specification coal #5, a sudden
increase in auxiliary power was seen between 90°F and 100°F, which was found to be due to an
increase in boiler NOX which exceeded the ability of the SCR system to accommodate it, leading
to a large increase in ammonia spray. For the Illinois Basin specification coal #1, a step in
auxiliary power from 60°F to 70°F was found to be due to a similar cause. See Figure 5-2 for
further details.
5-3
10055141
Auxiliary Power vs Ambient Temperature
54.5
54.0
IB_01
53.5
IB_02
IB_03
53.0
Auxiliary Power, MW
IB_04
IB_05
52.5
IB_06
IB_07
52.0
IB_08
IB_09
51.5
IB_10
IB_11
51.0
IB_12
50.5
50.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 5-2
Auxiliary Power versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
Most of the Illinois Basin specification coals followed reasonable trends in terms of the NPHR
difference between them. It was notable that there was a range from 10,588 to 10,293 Btu/kWh
across all coal cases and ambient temperatures – a total range of 295 Btu/kWh. The average
range of NPHR variation across the temperature range was 93 Btu/kWh. See Table 5-2 and
Figure 5-3 for more details.
5-4
10055141
Table 5-2
NPHR versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals with the Wall-
Fired Conceptual Unit
NPHR, Btu/kWh 40°F 50°F 60°F 70°F 80°F 90°F 100°F
IB #1 10,407 10,392 10,376 10,365 10,347 10,333 10,324
IB #2 10,481 10,465 10,449 10,425 10,407 10,393 10,385
IB #3 10,588 10,571 10,555 10,530 10,513 10,500 10,492

IB #4 10,388 10,372 10,357 10,333 10,316 10,303 10,293
IB #5 10,406 10,391 10,375 10,352 10,333 10,319 10,324
IB #6 10,498 10,482 10,466 10,442 10,424 10,411 10,402

IB #7 10,529 10,513 10,498 10,474 10,456 10,443 10,434
IB #8 10,452 10,437 10,422 10,398 10,381 10,368 10,359

IB #9 10,497 10,481 10,465 10,442 10,424 10,411 10,402
IB #10 10,466 10,450 10,434 10,410 10,391 10,377 10,368
IB #11 10,486 10,470 10,455 10,431 10,414 10,401 10,393
IB #12 10,585 10,569 10,553 10,529 10,511 10,498 10,490
5-5
10055141
NPHR vs Ambient Temperature
10,600
10,550
IB_01
IB_02
10,500
IB_03
IB_04
NPHR, Btu/kWh
10,450 IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
10,400 IB_08
IB_09
IB_10
10,350
IB_11
IB_12
10,300
10,250
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 5-3
NPHR versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
In terms of the potential derate seen with the units, some very notable effects were identified. Six
of the twelve coals (the Illinois Basin specification coals numbers 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) had
derates at all ambient temperatures, and this increased to nine out of twelve causing derates to
the unit at 100°F. Some of the coals produced derates which were seemingly unaffected by the
ambient temperature – such as coal number 9, which had a 44 MW slagging derate in all cases.
Other coals, such as coal number 3, suffered from steadily increasing fan derates (in the case of
this coal, induced-draft fan derates). The largest derate was 52 MW, resulting from high slagging
predicted for coal number 7. The largest temperature-impacted derate was 16 MW, due to
induced-draft fan flow for coal number 3. See Table 5-3 and Figure 5-4 for more details.
5-6
10055141
Table 5-3
Potential Derate versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit
Potential Derate,
MW 40°F 50°F 60°F 70°F 80°F 90°F 100°F
IB #1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

IB #2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5
IB #3 3.9 3.7 4.1 5.0 7.4 10.9 16.1
IB #4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IB #5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

IB #6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4
IB #7 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5

IB #8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
IB #9 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1
IB #10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 6.9

IB #11 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
IB #12 2.6 2.5 2.9 3.9 6.2 9.8 15.0
5-7
10055141
Maximum Potential Derate vs Ambient Temperature
55
45
IB_01
IB_02
35 IB_03
IB_04
IB_05
IB_06
25
IB_07
IB_08
IB_09
15 IB_10
IB_11
IB_12
5
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
-5
Figure 5-4
Maximum Potential Derate versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification
Coals
Overall, annual total fuel-related costs ranged from $89.4M to $117.3M across all coal cases, and
the average differential temperature impact on costs across all coal cases was calculated as being
$8,800 per degree Fahrenheit, from 40°F to 100°F. Therefore, this is the temperature-dependent
risk factor across the Illinois Basin specification coals. See Table 5-4 and Figure 5-5 for further
details.
5-8
10055141
Table 5-4
Annual Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin
Specification Coals with the Wall-Fired Conceptual Unit
Costs, $M/year 40°F 50°F 60°F 70°F 80°F 90°F 100°F
IB #1 91.3 91.2 91.2 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1
IB #2 96.3 96.3 96.2 96.1 96.1 96.0 96.2
IB #3 106.6 106.5 106.5 106.5 106.8 107.2 107.8

IB #4 89.7 89.6 89.6 89.5 89.4 89.4 89.4
IB #5 93.0 92.9 92.8 92.8 92.7 92.7 92.7
IB #6 97.8 97.7 97.7 97.6 97.5 97.5 98.0

IB #7 117.3 117.2 117.1 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0
IB #8 99.1 99.0 99.0 98.9 98.9 98.8 98.8

IB #9 113.2 113.1 113.0 112.9 112.9 112.9 112.9
IB #10 91.7 91.6 91.6 91.5 91.5 91.7 92.3
IB #11 95.5 95.4 95.3 95.3 95.2 95.2 95.2
IB #12 106.7 106.6 106.6 106.7 106.9 107.3 108.0
5-9
10055141
Total Fuel-Related Costs vs Ambient Temperature
120
115
IB_01
IB_02
110
IB_03
IB_04
105 IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
100 IB_08
IB_09
IB_10
95
IB_11
IB_12
90
85
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 5-5
Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Ambient Temperature for the Illinois Basin Specification
Coals
The Impact of Varying Excess Oxygen Setpoints
Unlike ambient temperature, the excess oxygen setpoint at which the boiler operates is
something which almost all boiler operators have immediate, direct control over. The excess
oxygen level of the boiler indicates how much additional combustion air, over and above that
needed for stoichiometric combustion, is supplied to the unit by the primary air and forced-draft
3
fans. Operating at a low excess oxygen value can lead to increases in unburned combustibles
and carbon monoxide, a loss of boiler efficiency, and potentially increased slagging with some
coals. However, operating at a high excess oxygen value can lead to increased NOX production,
increased sensible heat losses to the boiler, increased auxiliary power to drive the air and gas
fans, and poorer emissions control equipment removal efficiency (especially in the case of ESPs)
3
Excess oxygen is generally used instead of excess air, since excess oxygen is a direct measurement from probes
located in the flue gas, typically downstream of the economizer.
5-10
10055141
due to increased flue gas velocity. It can also lead to derates and limitations for the fans and
emissions control systems.
Anecdotally speaking, many boiler operators believe that increased unburned combustibles from
low excess oxygen levels outweigh increased sensible heat efficiency loss at higher levels of
excess oxygen. This is rarely the case in real life, and in general most pulverized coal boilers see
boiler efficiency reduced as excess oxygen is increased.
For this study, it was decided to vary the excess oxygen content from 2.00% to 4.00% (baseline
value: 3.50%) in steps of 0.25%, across all 12 Illinois Basin specification coals. In all coals the
trend in boiler efficiency was a steady reduction as a function of excess oxygen content. The
average differential excess oxygen impact on boiler efficiency across all coal cases was
calculated as being a reduction of 0.456% in boiler efficiency per percent excess oxygen. This
effect is clearly shown by Figure 5-6.
Boiler Efficiency vs Excess O2
88.5
88.0 IB_01
IB_02
IB_03
IB_04
87.5
IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
IB_08
87.0
IB_09
IB_10
IB_11
86.5 IB_12
86.0
1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
Excess O2, %
Figure 5-6
Boiler Efficiency versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
5-11
10055141
In several cases small steps were seen in auxiliary power consumption as a function of excess
oxygen content. In many cases these were due to the impact of increased air and gas fan power
consumption, ammonia system use (as NOX increased), and other factors. These are shown in
Figure 5-7.
Auxiliary Power vs Excess O2
55
54
IB_01
IB_02
53
IB_03
Auxiliary Power, MW
IB_04
52 IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
51 IB_08
IB_09
IB_10
50
IB_11
IB_12
49
48
1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
Excess O2, %
Figure 5-7
Auxiliary Power versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
Most of the Illinois Basin specification coals followed reasonable trends in terms of the NPHR
difference between them. In some cases, the curves crossed each other (such as coal number 11
stepping above the curve of number 2 at 3.25% excess oxygen), and in one case the curves
crossed back and forth (see coals 8 and 10). The range of potential impact was from 10,572 to
10,200 Btu/kWh across all coal cases and ambient temperatures – a total range of 372 Btu/kWh –
which represented a somewhat greater effect than changing the ambient temperature from 40°F
to 100°F. See Figure 5-8 for more details.
5-12
10055141
NPHR vs Excess O2
10,600
10,550
IB_01
10,500
IB_02
IB_03
10,450
IB_04
NPHR, Btu/kWh
IB_05
10,400
IB_06
IB_07
10,350
IB_08
IB_09
10,300
IB_10
IB_11
10,250
IB_12
10,200
10,150
1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
Excess O2, %
Figure 5-8
NPHR versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
In terms of potential derates which were predicted for the units, some very notable effects were
evident. Six of the twelve Illinois Basin specification coals (numbers 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) had
derates at all excess oxygen setpoints, increasing to eleven out of twelve causing derates at 4%
excess oxygen content. As in the case of the ambient temperature sensitivity study, some of the
coals produced derates which were seemingly unaffected by excess oxygen. However, this was
not entirely true – in fact, at 4% excess oxygen all of the coals except one had induced-draft fan
flow derates. In four of those cases slagging derates outweighed them and were the controlling
derate, and in one case low mill temperature was the controlling derate. See Figure 5-9 for more
details on the trends of potential derate versus excess oxygen.
5-13
10055141
Maximum Potential Derate vs Excess O2
55
45
IB_01
IB_02
35 IB_03
IB_04
IB_05
IB_06
25
IB_07
IB_08
IB_09
15 IB_10
IB_11
IB_12
5
1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25

-5
Excess O2, %
Figure 5-9
Maximum Potential Derate versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
Overall, the annual total fuel-related costs ranged from a low of $89.1M to $117.3M across all
coal cases, which was amazingly consistent with the results from the ambient temperature
sensitivity study, which demonstrated a range from $89.4M to $117.3M from 40°F to 100°F. The
average differential excess oxygen impact on costs across all coal cases was calculated as being
$1.0M per percent excess oxygen from 2% to 4%. What was noteworthy, however, was the very
wide range in effect that changes in excess oxygen had on the costs of burning some of the
specification coals as opposed to others. In fact, the least sensitive coal saw a differential excess
oxygen impact on costs of $300,000 per percent excess oxygen, and the most sensitive coal saw
a differential excess oxygen impact on costs of $2.1M per percent excess oxygen. The critical
difference between the least and most sensitive coals turns out to be the sensitivity to induced-
draft fan derates. Figure 5-10 shows how these total fuel-related costs varied as a function of
excess oxygen content.
5-14
10055141
Total Fuel-Related Costs vs Excess O2
120
115
IB_01
IB_02
110
IB_03
IB_04
105 IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
100 IB_08
IB_09
IB_10
95
IB_11
IB_12
90
85
1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
Excess O2, %
Figure 5-10
Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Excess Oxygen for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
The Impact of Varying Air Heater Leakage
All modern power plants which are outfitted with an air heater suffer from leakage of air across
the heater into the gas side. As most large coal-fired power plants have regenerative air heaters,
the amount of leakage can be fairly significant. A new air heater rarely exhibits less than 3%
leakage, but after just a couple of years of operation this value can easily rise to above 10%. In
practice, it is not uncommon for a middle-aged or elderly coal-fired power plant to have air
heater leakage ranging from 15% to 30%, and in extreme cases this can rise to nearly 100%4.
Even in the case of tubular air heaters, which are often erroneously reported as having "no"
leakage, a leakage value of 1-5% is not unexpected, via leaks from the ductwork, tube sheets,
and corroded tubes. In extreme cases tubular air heater leakage can be greater than even 20%.
4
Due to the fact that air heater leakage is typically defined as the mass of air leaked relative to the mass of flue gas
entering the air heater, it is mathematically possible to have an air heater leakage greater than 100%! The highest air
heater leakage this author has seen was greater than 90%.
5-15
10055141
Air heater leakage is driven by the fact that the primary and secondary air which passes through
the air heater is at a higher pressure than the flue gas which also passes through the air heater.
This pressure differential is typically on the order of 15-30 inches of water, but can be as high as
60-100 inches in some circumstances. Unlike the case of excess oxygen, there are no down sides
to reducing air heater leakage, save the capital costs and operations and maintenance costs of
continually performing repairs and adjustments. The effect of high air heater leakage is not only
increased auxiliary power to drive the air and gas fans, but also poorer emissions control
equipment removal efficiency (especially in the case of ESPs) due to increased flue gas velocity.
It can also lead to derates and limitations for fans and emissions control systems.
Anecdotally speaking, many boiler operators and power plant owners believe that repairing air
heater leakage is beneficial, but quantifying the benefits of repairs for cost justification can be
very difficult, due to the large number of variables involved. That is where a study such as this
can give an engineer a significant technological and economic advantage.
For this study, it was decide to vary the air heater leakage from 5% to 30% (baseline value: 10%)
in steps of 5%, across all 12 Illinois Basin specification coals. For all coals the trend in boiler
efficiency was a steady reduction as a function of air heater leakage. The average differential air
heater leakage impact on boiler efficiency across all coal cases was calculated as being a
reduction of 0.068% in boiler efficiency per % air heater leakage from 5% to 30%. Figure 5-11
demonstrates this effect.
5-16
10055141
Boiler Efficiency vs Air Heater Leakage
88.0
87.5
IB_01
IB_02
87.0 IB_03
IB_04
86.5 IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
86.0 IB_08
IB_09
85.5 IB_10
IB_11
IB_12
85.0
84.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Air Heater Leakage, %
Figure 5-11
Boiler Efficiency versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
When displayed in Figure 5-12, unit auxiliary power consumption showed some interestingly
consistent curves, where almost all of the coals saw their auxiliary power increase until 20% air
heater leakage was exhibited (coals 1, 4, and 8 continued to increase until 25% air heater
leakage). At this point, the auxiliary power consumption flattened out, as the air and gas fans
were operating at their maximum motor limits, and thus very little more auxiliary power could be
drawn.
5-17
10055141
Auxiliary Power vs Air Heater Leakage
57
56
IB_01
55 IB_02
IB_03
Auxiliary Power, MW
54 IB_04
IB_05
IB_06
53
IB_07
IB_08
52
IB_09
IB_10
51 IB_11
IB_12
50
49
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 5-12
Auxiliary Power versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
The graphs of air heater leakage versus NPHR (as seen in Figure 5-13) are slightly deceptive, as
they do not appear to account for the fact that after 20% almost all the coal cases saw their
auxiliary power level off at a maximum point. But we do see in Figure 5-13 that the NPHR
curves start to decrease in slope after the maximum auxiliary power point is reached.
5-18
10055141
NPHR vs Air Heater Leakage
10,800
10,700
IB_01
IB_02
IB_03
10,600
IB_04
NPHR, Btu/kWh
IB_05
IB_06
10,500
IB_07
IB_08
IB_09
10,400
IB_10
IB_11
IB_12
10,300
10,200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 5-13
NPHR versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin Specification Coals
As mentioned previously, at 20-25% air heater leakage, the unit was predicted to start to suffer
from derates due to insufficient fan flow capacity. At 30% air heater leakage, the primary air fan
was the controlling derate in all cases, and this was true all the way down to 15% air heater
leakage, where other derates start to take precedence (such as slagging). Clearly, the primary air
fan is the weakest link with respect to air heater leakage. Figure 5-14 illustrates the relationships
of derate versus air heater leakage.
5-19
10055141
Maximum Potential Derate vs Air Heater Leakage
160
140
IB_01
120 IB_02
IB_03
100 IB_04
IB_05
IB_06
80
IB_07
IB_08
60
IB_09
IB_10
40 IB_11
IB_12
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 5-14
Maximum Potential Derate versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin Specification
Coals
Overall, annual total fuel-related costs ranged from a low of $89.3M to $143.4M across all coal
cases. The average differential air heater leakage impact on costs across all coal cases was
calculated as being $1.1M per percent air heater leakage from 5% to 30%. However, this is a
deceptively large number in that there are substantial derate costs at the higher air heater leakage
values which skew the costs excessively high. If, for example, we only consider the cases from
an air heater leakage of 5% to 20%, then this differential air heater leakage impact on costs
across all coal cases is reduced to $0.5M per percent air heater leakage. In fact, this non-linear
effect on costs is clearly illustrated by Figure 5-15.
5-20
10055141
Total Fuel-Related Costs vs Air Heater Leakage
150
140
IB_01
IB_02
130 IB_03
IB_04
120 IB_05
IB_06
IB_07
110 IB_08
IB_09
100 IB_10
IB_11
IB_12
90
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 5-15
Total Fuel-Related Costs versus Air Heater Leakage for the Illinois Basin Specification
Coals
Conclusions
The effects of changes in plant performance as a result of changes in ambient conditions,

operations setpoints, and equipment condition not only can be profound, but also can vary
considerably across even a selection of equivalent "specification" coals. This exercise found
differences in boiler efficiency, auxiliary power, NPHR, potential unit limitations, and total fuel-
related costs which were considerable in most cases across both the specification fuels and the
performance parameters which were varied. Derate costs tended to be the primary source of
difference in the total fuel-related costs.
5-21
10055141
10055141
6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In analyzing the three primary focuses of research in this study (market specification coal
analysis, coal quality sensitivity analysis, and plant equipment conditions and performance
sensitivity), several conclusions can be drawn with respect to how fuel quality can impact boiler
efficiency, heat rate, unit capability, and total fuel-related costs of a pulverized coal unit.
The Market Specification Coal Sensitivity Analysis: Conclusions
After analyzing the 813 different market specification coal scenarios which were created for this
report, the following was noted:
• A considerable range of sensible heat losses, latent heat losses, boiler efficiency, auxiliary
power, and NPHR can be found among groups of "equivalent" specification coals.
• Even coals which have a very tight specification and which are blended with other baseline
coals can nonetheless have a significant impact on boiler efficiency, auxiliary power, and net
plant heat rate.
• When the effects of emissions, derates, differential operations and maintenance, etc. are all
taken into account, the difference in the total fuel-related costs among specification coals can
be profound.
• While these differences can sometimes be related by simple trends of individual coal quality
combinations of various coal quality factors can yield surprising outliers. Therefore, it is
critical to ensure that specification coals are evaluated in detail as individual coals, unless a
unit is known to have a very high level of fuel flexibility.
• Differences in furnace size can have an impact on boiler efficiency and NPHR, but size is
more likely to have a large impact on total fuel-related costs. The tangential-fired unit was
generally more flexible than the wall-fired unit due to the ability to adjust combustion with
burner tilts.
The over-arching results of this portion of the report casts considerable doubt on the utility of
buying specification coals without performing any additional due diligence on the potential coal
quality impacts on boiler efficiency, heat rate, emissions, potential unit limitations, and total
fuel-related costs. This should not be taken as a warning to avoid market specification coals
entirely, but rather as an advisory that at a minimum some additional screening criteria will
likely be required for each coal unit. Ideally, a comprehensive automated analysis of all market
specification coals should be conducted prior to purchase – but the limited coal quality data
which typically accompanies market specification coals may undermine the utility of such an
effort.
6-1
10055141
Summary and Conclusions
There were five main potential sources of error in this portion of the study, which the reader
should take into account when designing their own study:
1. The assumptions of the cost for unit derate power could greatly bias against any fuel which
may limit the unit. The assumed derate power cost in Chapter 2 was $60 per MWh, which is
a reasonable peak power cost during high-demand portions of the day, but might be higher
than the average cost difference between the unit in question and the next lowest cost unit to
be dispatched within the utility. Furthermore, this study did not account for the possibility of
operators reducing or eliminating the impact of a derate coal by intelligently blending the
coal with other coals, or choosing to burn the potentially problematic coal only during low-
demand portions of the schedule, such as overnight. Finally, the potential fuel flexibility
which can result at units with substantial gas and/or oil co-firing capability was not
considered in this study.
2. Likewise, the assumption of a constant delivered coal cost on a cents/MBtu basis will result
in a significant potential error when compared to a real-world analysis. However, if desired,
the delivered coal costs can be eliminated completely, and all calculations performed on a
breakeven basis, to eliminate this effect.
3. The specification ranges which were assumed for the market coals in this study may be
overly broad relative to a real-life specification, such as a NYMEX specification. Obviously,
if operators and engineers at a power plant know that one or more coal quality characteristics
are especially problematic (perhaps after carrying out the sort of study done in Chapter 4 of
this text), then they can tighten their specification further to reduce problems.
4. While the selected market specification coals are actual coals from each region which could
be supplied to a power plant, they still only represent a very small sample size out of the very
large number of coals which are available. Nonetheless, an effort was made to select coals
from the largest coal producers within each region.
5. The Vista program itself is a computer model of a power plant, and makes certain
simplifications and has certain constraints which cannot possibly model the myriad
operations and abilities of a power plant to manage coal quality impacts.
Coal Quality Sensitivity Analysis: Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn as a result of the sensitivity findings in this study.
unit efficiency and costs.
• Also generally speaking, the influences of sulfur content and ash minerals exhibited non-
linear (or at best, difficult-to-predict) effects which impacted many parts of the unit
simultaneously in ways which sometimes had inverse trends to each other.
• The tangential-fired unit was able to better accommodate changes in the fuel quality than the
wall-fired unit, but this also led to some non-linear behavior of the unit which would be
difficult to predict without the use of some computer tool or rules-based analysis system.
Most importantly, slagging was much easier to mitigate on the tangential-fired unit than the
wall-fired unit, due to the flexibility of adjusting burner tilts.
6-2
10055141
Summary and Conclusions
There were a few potential sources of error in this portion of the study, which the reader should
take into account when designing their own study:
1. As mentioned earlier, the selection of economic assumptions, especially those regarding
derate costs and delivered coal costs, can lead to very large differences in the final results.
2. Despite extensive efforts to make the sensitivity coals created by the Vista program as
realistic as possible, they nonetheless are not actual coals. Thus, due to bias or uncertainty in
the algorithms used to create the sensitivity coals, some error in the analysis exists.
3. The Vista program itself is a computer model of a power plant, and makes certain
simplifications and has certain constraints which cannot possibly model the myriad
operations and abilities of a power plant to manage coal quality impacts. This was seen in the
analysis of the sensitivity to ash iron content of the wall-fired unit, and the analysis of the
sensitivity to ash calcium content of the tangential-fired unit.
Plant Equipment Conditions and Performance Sensitivity: Conclusions
The effects of changes in plant performance as a result of changes in ambient conditions,

operations setpoints, and equipment condition not only can be profound, but also can vary
considerably across even a selection of equivalent specification coals. This exercise found
differences in boiler efficiency, auxiliary power, NPHR, potential unit limitations, and total fuel-
related costs which were considerable in most cases across both the specification fuels and the
performance parameters which were varied. Derate costs tended to be the primary source of
difference in the total fuel-related costs.
Among the potential sources of error noted for this portion of the study, we have the following:
1. Few power plant performance parameters vary independently of each other. Whereas in the
market specification coal and the sensitivity coal studies an attempt was made to vary as
many co-dependent input variables as possible, for the ambient temperature, excess oxygen
setpoint, and air heater leakage studies only that one variable was changed in each case.
2. For the case of varying ambient air temperature, the ambient relative humidity was kept
constant at 50%. This was done to reduce the number of variables to consider for this portion
of the study, but in reality there may be only a weak connection between the two values.
3. For the case of varying excess oxygen content, the possibility of fly ash sales being
negatively impacted by low levels of excess oxygen causing very high unburned carbon (and
thus high fly ash LOI), leading to a loss of fly ash sales, was not explored. With some power
plants, loss of fly ash sales is a "fatal flaw" in any coal strategy which they consider, as they
have no landfill on site and do not wish to pay for landfill disposal of their fly ash.
4. For the case of varying air heater leakage, the operations and maintenance costs and capital
costs of varying air heater leakage scenarios were not considered for this study. As the plant-
related costs with respect to efficiency, heat rate, and derate potential were quantified, they
are ready to be compared on the basis of annual levelized cost, or cumulative present worth
with any operations and capital strategy which is proposed for managing air heater leakage.
6-3
10055141
10055141
10055141
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute Inc., (EPRI, www.epri.com)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the spe- conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery
cific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent,
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regu- nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers
lations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes as well as experts from academia and industry to help address challenges
an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder in electricity, including reliability, efficiency, health, safety and the
who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy and economic
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the analyses to drive long-range research and development planning, and
event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully supports research in emerging technologies. EPRI’s members represent
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the
is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to deter- United States, and international participation extends to 40 countries.
mine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available EPRI’s principal offices and laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
on a case-by-case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational
purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company ac-
knowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and
acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellec-
tual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.
Program:
Combustion Performance and NOx Control
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
1019703
Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
10055141

....... Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impact On Heat Rate

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

....... Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impact On Heat Rate

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2010 TECHNICAL REPORT

Evaluation of Fuel Quality Impacts on Heat Rate

Final Report, December 2010

EPRI Project Manager

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION, UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:

Black & Veatch Inc.

Black & Veatch

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Results and Findings

Applications, Values, and Use

Parameter US Customary Metric Conversion Equation

ft2 m2 1 ft2 = 0.0929 m2

enthalpy btu/lbm kJ/kg 1 btu/lbm =2.326 kJ/kg

heat btu J 1 btu = 1055 J

heat rate btu/kWh kJ/kWh 1 btu/kWh = 1.0551 kJ/kWh

inch cm 1 inch = 2.54 cm

lbm kg lbm = 0.4535 kg

mass flow lbm/hr kg/s 1 lbm/hr = 0.000126 kg/s

pressure psi kPa 1 psi = 6.895 kPa

temperature °F °C 1 °F = 1.8 ∗°C + 32

1 OVERVIEW OF THE VISTA PROGRAM AND FUEL-RELATED IMPACTS ON HEAT

2 BASELINE CONCEPTUAL MODELS ...................................................................................2-1

4 COAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...........................................................................4-1

5 PLANT EQUIPMENT CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE SENSITIVITY .........................5-1

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................6-1

Figure 1-1 Screen Shot of the EPRI Vista Program...................................................................1-3

Goals of this Technical Report

The EPRI Vista Program

The Vista modeling process typically consists of the following steps:

Figure 1-1 shows a screenshot of the EPRI Vista program.

Analysis Process and Report Organization

Sensible Heat Losses

Latent Heat Losses

Unburned Combustible Losses

Radiation and Convection Losses

Miscellaneous and Margin Losses

Net Turbine Heat Rate

Unit Auxiliary Power

Description and Characteristics of the Baseline Conceptual Vista Models

The Wall-Fired Pulverized Coal Units

The wall-fired pulverized coal unit is a 550-MW-gross/500-MW-net unit composed of a standard

The emissions control devices on this unit consist of the following:

The Tangential-Fired Pulverized Coal Units

The tangential-fired pulverized coal unit is a 550-MW-gross/500-MW-net unit composed of a

The emissions control devices on this unit consists of the following:

Coal Quality Parameter Wall-Fired Unit Tangential-Fired Unit

Higher Heating Value, Btu/lbm 11,700 10,250

Lower Heating Value, Btu/lbm 11,176 9,688

Moisture, % 12.00 19.65

Ash, % 9.00 6.75

Ultimate Analysis (as-received)

Nitrogen, % 1.07 0.86

Chlorine, % 0.24 0.12

Moisture, % 12.00 19.65

Ash, % 9.00 6.75

Coal Quality Parameter Wall-Fired Unit Tangential-Fired Unit

Silica, % 48.40 43.17

Alumina, % 21.30 19.77

Titania, % 1.00 1.10

Lime, % 3.20 10.37