Decision Series
DOI
United States
Department of
Interior
Bureau of Mines
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15231
August 1977
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Energy, Minerals
and Industry
EPA-600/9-77 017
LIBRARY
'i. S. FNVIRj,.;,jr;;TAL PROTCCTiOn
HOT, •„. j.
Coal Cleaning
with Scrubbing
for Sulfur Control:
An Engineering/
Economic Summary
-------
THE ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT
R&D Decision Series
This volume is part of the Energy/Environment R&D Decision Series. The series presents the
key issues and findings of the Interagency Energy/Environment Research and Development Pro-
gram in a format conducive to efficient information transfer. The volumes are of three types:
Summaries—short synopses of larger research reports; Issue Papers—concise discussions of major
energy/environment technical issues; and Executive Reports-in-depth discussions of an entire
program area.
The Interagency Program was inaugurated in fiscal year 1975. Planned and coordinated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), research projects supported by the program range from
the analysis of health and environmental effects of energy systems to the development of environ-
mental control technologies.
The Decision Series is produced for both energy/envronment decision-makers and the interested
public. If you have any comments or questions, please write to Series Editor Richard Laska, Of-
fice of Energy, Minerals and Industry, RD-681, U.S. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 or call (202)
755-4857. Extra copies are available. This document is available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22 161. Mention of trade names or commercial
products herein does not constitute EPA endorsement or recommendation foi use.
CREDITS
Text: Elmer C. Ho t, Jr.* and A. W. Deurbrouck**
Design: Bob Spewak and Steve Stryker
Photography: EPA Documenca Program, Energy Assessment and
Control Division of EPA's IERL-RTP. and
GPU Service Corporation
*Hoffman-Muntner Corporation under EPA contract
**Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of Interior
-------
Coal Cleaning
with Scrubbing
for Sulfur Control
An Engineering/
Economic Summary
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
August 1977
L
-------
"In many cases, the net cost of physical coal cleaning followed by partial scrubbing to meet
standards is substantially less than that associated with using only a full scale scrubbing system."
-------
Introduction
In this country, the continued generation of power in
a reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable
fashion is critical to economic and social stability. Much
of this power is produced by coal-fired plants. During
1975, fifty-five percent of the utility industry's fossil
fuel requirements were met with coal. In view of the
rapidly diminishing reserves and rising prices of alternate
fossil fuels, the percentage provided by coal will in-
crease. If these plants are going to adhere to the environ-
mental standards set forth by EPA and others relative to
SOX emissions, it will often be necessary to consume
coals of less than 1% sulfur and/or invest in costly flue
gas desulfurization systems. Therefore, in the interest of
overall national economics and preserving our limited
Eastern supply of low sulfur coal, it is important that
economic means be found and quickly implemented to
encourage the utility industry to make use of our vast
resources of higher sulfur-content coal.
According to data published by the Bureau of Mines,
the United States had minable underground and surface
coal reserves of nearly 437 billion tons on 1 January
1974. Of this number, approximately 386 billion tons
had been categorized according to sulfur content; 52%
had 1% or less, 24% had between 1.0 and 3.0%, and 24%
had greater than 3.0%. Although over half of these re-
serves fall into the low sulfur content range, 88% of the
low sulfur coal is found west of the Mississippi (concen-
trated in such states as Montana and Wyoming), far re-
moved from the electric power demand centers of the
east. In the east only 24% of the coal is low sulfur.
Therefore, in developing a reliable source of coal (long
term supply not too far from point of consumption) to
meet the demands of the eastern utilities, the medium
and high sulfur content coals must be considered. It was
the purpose of this study to identify an economic means
of keeping such higher sulfur content coals in the energy
market.
Data generated by the Bureau of Mines under the
Federal Interagency Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program indicate that some Eastern coals
will show a significant reduction in ash and sulfur con-
tents when physically cleaned to a 90% weight yield.
With current technology, this level of physical cleaning
can often be accomplished at an attractive cost. These
coals with reduced ash and sulfur levels are often not too
far removed from the sulfur content required to meet
environmental standards in the geographic areas histori-
cally served by these coals.
When coal can be physically cleaned to a sulfur con-
tent close to that required to meet governing emission
standards, a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system treat-
ing only a portion of the flue gas would permit the coal
burning facility to comply with such emission regula-
tions. In many cases, the net cost of physical cleaning
followed by FGD is substantially less than that asso-
ciated with meeting standards exclusively with a larger
capacity FGD system. This results from the fact that the
savings associated with being able to use a smaller FGD
system more than cover the net cost of physically clean-
ing the coal. Our study quantified this relationship under
assumed conditions based upon current environmental
standards being met by utility power plants using spe-
cific coals which are economically obtainable in the par-
ticular geographic areas considered.
The overall study findings covering new utility plants
using physically cleaned coal followed by FGD indicated
a savings of 2% to 112% as compared to meeting stand-
ards by FGD alone. The results were even more impres-
sive for existing plants, where study assessments indi-
cated a 13% to 140% savings for physical cleaning fol-
lowed by FGD as compared to FGD alone.
LOW SULFUR COAL RESERVES VS. STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
88% OF RESERVE
KEY.
STEAM ELECTRIC
POWER GENERATION
> 1 5 MILLION K«H PER SQUAHE MILE
05-1 5 MILLION KwH PER SQUARE MILE
0-05 MILLION KrtM PER SQUARE MILE
12% OF RESERVE
Hawaii: Negligible reserves and
consumption
Alaska- Potentially large reserves
minimal consumption
-------
Background
Coal is a heterogeneous material containing organic
combustible matter and mineral matter. The mineral
matter (i.e., impurities) may be broadly divided into two
categories; those forming ash and those that contribute
sulfur. Such ash-forming and sulfur-containing impurities
may be further divided into two groups; 1) those that
are chemically a part of the coal and cannot be removed
by mechanical processes, and 2) those that are not chem-
ically bound to the coal and can be removed to varying
degrees by mechanical means. It is toward this latter
category that physical coal cleaning (coal beneficiation,
preparation, or washing) is directed.
Physical Cleaning
Physical cleaning is accomplished by first crushing the
coal to liberate those impurities that are not chemically
bound with the coal. These impurities are set free upon
crushing since the seam where they are stuck to the coal
is generally weaker than either the coal or the impurity.
After the raw material (as mined coal) is crushed, the
impurities can be separated out by mechanical means.
The most common processes for achieving this separa-
tion are based upon the difference between the specific
gravities of the impurities and that of the coal. Simply
stated, coal has a specific gravity of around 1.3 which is
less than that of its impurities. Thus, when the crushed
particles (coal and impurities) are distended in water or
other media a separation occurs as the heavier undesir-
able particles settle at a faster rate than the coal. In
commercial scale cleaning operations, it is not uncom-
mon to process 500 to 1000 tons of coal per hour using
a variety of equipment designed and arranged around the
makeup of the particular raw coal and the desired end
product.
Physical cleaning of coal has been used for many
years. In the past its principal purpose was to reduce the
ash-forming impurities. However, today cleaning is of
significant value in reducing the sulfur content of certain
coals. Its applicability in this regard is not universal due
to the various forms that sulfur occurs in coal. Sulfur
exists in coal in two principal forms; organic and inor-
ganic. Organic sulfur is one of those impurities referred
to earlier which is chemically bound to the coal and
cannot be removed by physical means. On the other
hand, inorganic sulfur (pyritic sulfur) is not bound
chemically and may be physically removed to varying
degrees from the coal. The extent to which pyritic sulfur
can be removed economically is a function of pyrite size
and distribution. Once this information is obtained
through careful laboratory analysis, then economic con-
siderations will influence the level to which the coal is
crushed and subjected to the cleaning operation.
Physical cleaning processes, while removing impurities
from the coal, also reduce the total Btu available (i.e., a
portion of the heat content of the raw coal is lost with
GPU's Homer City, Pa. Coal Cleaning Plant under construction
-------
the impurities). However the Btu content per unit
weight of the cleaned coal increases due to the removal
of the lower heat value impurities. In practice, an eco-
nomic balance must be achieved between the Btu loss
and the improvement in coal quality for various coals
and applications. Certainly, this balance is further influ-
enced by market and environmental considerations.
Problems
With regard to the environmental aspects, the oxides
of sulfur (SOX) created when coals are burned have long
been recognized as a real threat to both the ecosystem
and human health. Federal Standards, designed to pro-
tect against serious harm, have been established for new
electric power plants which burn coal. To meet these
standards, several methods are available to control sulfur
oxides emissions from coal-fired combustion sources.
These control methods include:
1. The use of low sulfur coal, either naturally occur-
ring or physically cleaned;
2. Chemical treatment to extract sulfur from coal;
3. Removal of sulfur oxides from the combustion
flue gas (stack gas scrubbing);
4. Conversion of coal to clean fuel by such processes
as gasification and liquefaction.
Of these methods, for certain coals, physical cleaning
to reduce sulfur content is the lowest cost and has the
most developed technology. However, as noted earlier,
physical cleaning can remove significant amounts of in-
organic sulfur (pyritic) from certain coals, but has no
influence upon the organic sulfur content. Therefore,
when trying to come up with an environmentally accept-
able product, physical cleaning may only be a partial
step. This leads to another approach to controlling SOX
emissions, which could be the combined use of physical
cleaning followed by stack gas scrubbing (i.e., flue gas
desulfurization).
The purpose of a flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
system is to limit the sulfur compounds escaping into
the atmosphere. One of the most common FGD systems
accomplishes its mission by forcing the SOX in the flue
gas to react with a limestone slurry. The cost of these
systems goes up substantially with the amount of flue
gas treated, which, in turn, is a function of the sulfur
concentration of the flue gas stream. Therefore, sig-
nificant savings can be realized if the sulfur concentra-
tion of the stream can be limited to the point where less
than half of the total flue gas needs to be treated by the
FGD system to meet standards. This becomes the basic
economic concept of combining the two sulfur reduc-
tion technologies since such a combined approach could
mean the ability to use higher sulfur content coals and
minimal to moderate stack gas scrubbing.
Lime-Limestone Scrubber at TV A Power Plant
Physical Cleaning
with Scrubbing
This concept of physical coal cleaning combined with
flue gas desulfurization is not new. For some time there
have been discussions, speculations, and some very pre-
liminary assessments addressing the possible benefits of
physical coal desulfurization followed by FGD. Past
opinions based on a general appreciation of some of the
cost and benefit factors associated with such an ap-
proach have led to the expressed belief that economic
advantage in many instances could be attained. However,
the associated specific economics had not previously
been fully addressed. Therefore, to more completely de-
fine the potential economics associated with such a com-
bined approach as a means of increasing the usefulness
of some of our higher sulfur content coals, this study
was initiated. It was conducted by the Bureau of Mines
under the auspices of the EPA-coordinated Federal Inter-
agency Energy/Environment R&D Program.
For purposes of this study, higher sulfur coals from
the Northern Appalachian and Eastern Interior Regions
were selected since they have been shown to have rea-
sonable physical cleaning potential (i.e., economic ash
and pyritic sulfur reduction). Then, possible users of
these coals in the electric power generating industry
were identified along with the current environmental
constraints in their respective localities. This realism pro-
vided the framework within which to study and compare
the economics associated with meeting sulfur emission
standards in two alternative ways. The study considered
both new and existing plants using either physically
cleaned coal followed by stack gas scrubbing, or sulfur
clean-up exclusively by stack gas scrubbing.
-------
Economic Analyses
In order to determine the relative economics of meeting environmental standards via two different
approaches, the factors influencing the costs and benefits of each element were identified. These are
summarized as Table I.
For physical coal cleaning, the costs are principally dependent upon such factors as coal composition
and plant size/cost. Offsetting these costs somewhat are the benefits of using cleaned coal. The magnitude
of these benefits is influenced most by the increased heat content of the processed product brought on by
the removal of some of the low heat content impurities. In the case of flue gas desulfurization (FGD), costs
are sensitive to the sulfur composition of the flue gas stream.
TABLE I
KEY COST/BENEFIT FACTORS
COST OF CLEANING COAL
—Amortization of Cleaning Plant Capital Cost
-Operation and Maintenance Cost of Cleaning Plant
—Cost of Raw Coal Lost in Cleaning Process
—Taxes and Insurance Costs of Cleaning Plant
COSTS OF FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
—Amortization of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) System Capital Cost
-Fuel and Electricity Cost Associated with FGD System
—Operating and Maintenance Costs of FGD System, Including:
Limestone • Fixation Chemicals • Operating Labor
Maintenance (Labor and Materials) • Supplies • Overhead
BENEFITS OF USING CLEANED COAL
—Increased Heat Content of Cleaned Coal
(Greater BTU Content Per Unit Weight)
-Transportation Savings (Less Weight to Ship for Same BTU Content)
-Ash Disposal Cost Saving (Clean Coal Leaves Less Ash)
—Pulverizing Cost Savings
(Less Cleaned Coal Needs to be Pulverized for Same BTU Content Required to Meet Output)
—Boiler and Related Equipment Maintenance Savings
(Clean Coal Is Less Corrosive)
-------
Having identified the key cost/benefit factors associated with the two approaches, case analyses were
performed based, in part, upon the major study factors appearing in Table II. As appropriate, these factors
were based upon actual industry performance and practice.
TABLE II
MAJOR STUDY FACTORS
The coals considered were those for which the Bureau of Mines has performed float-sink
analyses. Bureau of Mines estimates of ash and sulfur levels versus top size and yield values were
used.
The top size coal considered was 3/8 inch.
Economic assessments were based on a range of raw coal selling prices and a range of mining
costs for a ton of coal.
A coal cleaning plant cost of $18,000 per ton hour input capacity for plants of 500 tons per
hour or greater
A coal cleaning plant financed by a 15-year equal payment self-liquidating loan.
A coal cleaning plant use factor of 38.5 percent (i.e., plant operates 260 days per year at 13
hours per day).
A coal cleaning plant property tax and insurance level equal to two percent of the initial
investment.
A power plant ash disposal cost of $4 per ton.
A power plant coal pulverizing cost of $0.50 per ton.
Annual stack gas scrubber capital charges that are based on the original investment and the
remaining boiler life.
Stack gas scrubber size/cost values based on recent EPA funded studies and a size/cost exponen-
tial relationship of 0.8.
Stack gas scrubber operating labor cost that does not vary with plant size (i.e., there is a
minimum practical labor level).
General power plant locations that are consistent with actual conditions.
Coal producing areas serving assumed user locations consistent with past patterns.
Coal transportation parameters consistent with historical patterns and economical coal delivery
(to insure conservative economic relationships).
An assumed power plant boiler size of 500 Mw with an annual utilization of 7000 hours for a
new plant and 5000 hours for a 10 year old plant.
Stack gas scrubber systems of the minimum "practical" sizes necessary to meet standards.
-------
A sample case study is presented as Table III. The key element in showing economic advantage in favor
of the combined approach is in the significant difference in FGD costs. This significant difference results
from only 21% of the flue gas being processed by the FGD system as opposed to 85% when cleaned coal is
not used. A graphic representation of these two approaches is presented in the diagram opposite.
TABLE III
CASE STUDY
Problem:
Determine most cost-effective approach for new coal burning utility plant to meet emission
standard of 1.2 Ibs SO2 per million Btu (MBTU)
Case Conditions:
Coal Use Area: Tonawanda (Buffalo), New York
Coal Source Area: Cambria County, Pennsylvania Coalbed: Lower Freeport
Raw Coal Characteristics: 11.4% Ash, 2.4% Sulfur
Cleaned Coal Characteristics: 6.7% Ash, 1.01% Sulfur
Costs of Alternate Approaches to Meeting Standard:
Coal Cleaning Cost
Amortization of Cleaning Plant
Capital Cost
0 & M Cost of Cleaning Plant
Cost of Coal Lost During Cleaning
Taxes & Insurance of Cleaning Plant
Total Cleaning Cost
Cost of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
Amortization of FGD Capital Cost
Fuel & Electricity of FGD System
0 & M Cost of FGD System
Total FGD Cost
Benefits of Using Cleaned Coal
Increased Heat Content
Transportation Savings
Ash Disposal Savings
Pulverizing Savings
Maintenance & Other Savings
Total Benefit of Cleaning
Net Cost (Costs Less Benefits)
Converted to per MBTU
Physical Cleaning
Followed by FGD
$ 0.68/Ton
0.75/Ton
1.56To2.00/Ton
0.12/Ton
$ 3.11 To3.55/Ton
$ 0.92/Ton
0.17/Ton
0.72/Ton
$ 1.81/Ton*
$ 1.21 To 1.40/Ton
O.SOYTon
0.21/Ton
0.02/Ton
0.23/Ton
$ 1.97To2.16/Ton
$ 2.76To3.39/Ton
$ 0.10To0.12
FGD Alone
$ -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
$ -0-
S2.92/Ton
0.66/Ton
2.24/Ton
$5.82/Ton*
$ -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
$ -0-
$5.82/Ton
$0.22
SOLUTION:
The combined approach is the most cost-effective, compared to a 100% additional
cost for meeting the standard by FGD alone.
"Significant difference in cost of FGD results from 21% of the flue gas being processed versus 85% in the more
expensive approach to meet the required emission standard.
-------
PHYSICAL COAL CLEANING WITH FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
VS.
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION ALONE
-TOTAL COSTS-
R aw Coal - $0.22/MBTU
Cleaned Coal - $0.11/MBTU
SO2 = 1.2 Ibs/MBTU
(Federal Standard)
FLUE GAS STREAM
BYPASS - 15%
FLUE GAS STREAM
BYPASS - 79%
FGD SYSTEM COST
$24.4 Million
FGD SYSTEM COST
$7.3 Million
FLUE GAS STREAM
S02 -
3.56 Ibs/MBTU
FLUE GAS STREAM
S02-
1.48 Ibs/MBTU
\/
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
~* UTILITY BOILERS >-
CLEANED
COAL
1 01%
SULFUR
COAL STOCKPILE
COAL CRUSHER AND CLEANER
-------
Additional Benefits
In addition to the benefits covered by this study,
there are other positive features associated with com-
bining physical desulfurization and FGD to meet emis-
sion standards. Such a benefit accruing from the combin-
ation of these two technologies is a decrease in the time
required for FGD installation. This occurs for two rea-
sons. First, the total sludge disposal at the plant site can
be reduced to about one-quarter of what it would be in
the absence of coal cleaning. This will, in some cases,
reduce the time required for, and the difficulty with,
obtaining legal permits and site acquisition for ponding
and/or landfill. Second, as covered by this study, the
cleaned coal reduces the volume of flue gas which must
be scrubbed to meet emission standards, thereby requir-
ing a smaller, or fewer, FGD units with an associated
reduction in construction requirements and time.
Another benefit is the more intangible aspect of
physical cleaning in the event of FGD shut-down.
Although it cannot be readily quantified, there is a def-
inite environmental benefit associated with the use of
physically cleaned coal in the event of a failure in the
S02 scrubbing system. This benefit is in the form of
lower toxic emissions, particularly S02, than would have
been the case if some sulfur and other contaminants had
not been previously removed through physical cleaning.
Continued Prospects
The Federal government as well as the coal industry
has established a production goal of more than one bil-
lion tons of coal by 1985. Although this means an in-
crease of roughly 400 million tons over current produc-
tion, the majority of this additional coal will be consumed
by the approximately 250 new coal-fired facilities
scheduled to be on line by that time. This substantial
projected increase in coal utilization has precipitated
much discussion concerning the possibility of revising
EPA's new source performance standard for coal-fired
plants. Although the extent of such a change is unknown
at this time, one figure under consideration is to go from
the current 1.2 pounds of SO2 per million Btu to 0.8
pounds. Whereas now a coal having a heat content of ap-
proximately 25 million Btu's per ton and a sulfur con-
tent of 0.8% can meet standard, only those coals of 0.5%
or less sulfur content could meet the 0.8 pounds of SO2
per million Btu standard. If the standard is revised in this
manner, there will be a significant reduction in the
amount of coal which can be consumed without the use
of S02 emission control devices. This would include
both the coals naturally occurring with a low enough
sulfur content and those capable of meeting the current
standard through physical cleaning alone.
However, should the standard be amended, it will not
negate the benefits associated with coal cleaning as set
forth in this report (Table I). What it will mean is a re-
evaluation of emission control strategy on the part of
potential coal users. Since coal having a sulfur content of
0.5% or less (either occurring naturally or after cleaning)
is in limited supply and high in price due to pressure
from the metallurgical market, it is impractical to con-
sider the widespread burning of coal in new facilities
without any S02 emission control devices under a 0.8
pounds of S02 per million Btu standard. This being the
case, in searching for the most cost-effective approach
to meeting any revised standard, the impact of coal pre-
paration on reducing emission control costs as outlined
by this report should be carefully considered. After such
appraisal, users may find that, under their particular
circumstances, the use of physically cleaned coal in com-
bination with stack gas scrubbing will show a definite
economic advantage even under more restrictive emis-
sion standards.
-------
Summarization of Case Results
A total of forty-eight case analyses were performed.
Each case examines one of twelve selected coals and
possible use areas from the standpoint of both a new and
an existing utility plant using either a combination of
physically cleaned coal followed by stack gas scrubbing,
or sulfur cleanup exclusively by stack gas scrubbing (i.e.,
flue gas desulfurization). The cases are grouped accord-
ing to coal and use area. This permits ease of comparison
between like plants using the same coal in the same area
but utilizing two different approaches to meeting exist-
ing or projected environmental standards. In most cases,
the emission standards used were applicable as of Janu-
ary 1976. However, where knowledge of projected
changes was present, those standards were used and iden-
tified accordingly.
Included as part of this paper are summaries of each
of the forty-eight cases analyzed. As stated above, these
summaries are grouped in sets for comparison of the
costs associated with meeting emission standards by the
two alternate approaches. For example, Case Numbers
1A, IB, 1C and ID are based upon an actual coal coming
from Sullivan County, Indiana which is assumed being
used in a utility plant in the Knoxville, Tennessee area.
Cases 1A and IB approach the analysis on the basis of an
assumed new facility, whereas Cases 1C and ID assume
an existing facility. However, Case Numbers 1A and 1C
address the analysis using a combination of physically
cleaned coal followed by stack gas scrubbing, whereas
Case Numbers IB and ID approach the situation from
the standpoint of using stack gas scrubbing alone. As can
be readily seen from the summarization of these cases,
the cost to meet the applicable sulfur emission standard
is less in Case Numbers 1A and 1C which are the plans
using physically cleaned coal followed by flue gas desul-
furization (FGD) in new and existing facilities, re-
spectively. In each set of cases, the relative economic ad-
vantage (or disadvantage) is expressed as a percent for
comparative purposes. The manner of stating economic
advantage (less costly) or disadvantage (more costly) is
dependent upon what if any action the coal-using plant
has taken to meet environmental standards. For ex-
ample if, as in the case of 1C, the utility is using phys-
ically cleaned coal followed by FGD, then economic
advantage could be stated as their cost is 25% less than
by FGD alone. If, as in case ID, the utility is using FGD
alone, then economic disadvantage could be stated as
their cost is 33% more than by the combined FGD/coal
cleaning approach.
CASE RESULTS
[Sample Form]
Case Numbers:
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area:
Coal Source Area: ._
Raw Coal Characteristics: _..
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
%Ash
%Ash
EMISSION
STANDARD
_ Coalbed:
% Sulfur
% Sulfur
COST TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
-------
CASE RESULTS
Case Numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C.&1D
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area- Knoxville (Clinton), Tennessee
Coal Snnrre Area- Sullivan
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
1 R
FGD Alone
Existing Plant
1C ~ PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
Case Numbers: 2A, 2B, 2C, &
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area: Tonawanda
County, Indiana
10.5 o/r,A<;h 1.87
7.3 o/nA«;h 1.11
EMISSION
STANDARD
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2 lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2 lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2lbsSO2
per MBTU
2D
(Buffalo), New York
r.npl So..™ ArPa- Cambria County, Pennsylvania
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
~ PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
*?R
FGD Alone
Existing Plant
9P —
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
on —
FGD Alone
11.4 %Ash 2.4
6.7 o/nA<;h 1.01
EMISSION
STANDARD
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
1.4lbsS02
per MBTU
1.4lbsSO2
per MBTU
Cnalhed: Number VI I
% Sulfur
% Sulfur
COST" TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
$0.15-0.17
per MBTU
$0.19
per MBTU
$0.23-0.25
per MBTU
$0.32
per MBTU
Coalhfiri- Lower
% Sulfur
% Sulfur
COST TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
$0.10-0.12
per MBTU
$0.22
per MBTU
$0.06-0.09
per MBTU
$0.15
per MBTU
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
16% I ess than
by FGD alone
1 9% more than
by PC & FGD
25% less than
FGD alone
33% more than
by PC & FGD
Freeport
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
50% less than
by FGD alone
100% more than
by PC & FGD
50% less than
by FGD alone
100% more than
by PC & FGD
10
-------
CASE RESULTS
Case Numbers: 3A, 3B, 3C & 3D
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area- Essexvil|e (Saginaw), Michigan
r.nal Sr,llrnP A™: Harrison County, Ohio
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
„. New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
~~ FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
•sn _ a
JU FGD Alone
10.4o/nAsh 2.30 <
4-8 % Ash 1-26 '
EMISSION
STANDARD
1.2 lbsS02
perMBTU
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
1.6lbsSO2
per MBTU
1.6lbsS02
per MBTU
Cosher): Lower
% Sulfur
ya Sulfur
COSf TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
SO. 12-0. 14
per MBTU
$0.21
per MBTU
$0.11-0.14
per MBTU
$0.30
per MBTU
Freeport
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
38% less than
by FGD alone
62% more than
by PC & FGD
58% less than
FGD alone
140% more than
by PC & FGD
Case Numbers: 4A, 4B, 4C, & 4D
Case Conditions
Cnal Use Area- Boston, Massachusetts
Cnal Sour™ Area: Clearfield
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
.. New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
4B —
FGD Alone
. Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
County, Pennsylvania
9.3 % A,h 0.85 c
7.0 o/n A,h 0.45 c
EMISSION
STANDARD
0.28 IDS sul.
per MBTU
0.28 Ibs sul.
per MBTU
0.28 Ibs sul.
per MBTU
0.28 Ibs sul.
per MBTU
Cnalhfid: UPPer
% Sulfur
Yo Sulfur
COST TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
$0.12-0.14
perMBTU
$0.17
per MBTU
$0.17-0.19
per MBTU
$0.29
per MBTU
Kittanning
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
24% less than
by FGD alone
31% more than
by PC & FGD
38% less than
by FGD alone
61% more than
by PC& FGD
11
-------
CASE RESULTS
Case Numbers: 5A, 5B, 5C, & 5D
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area: Grand RaP'ds- Michigan
Cnal Sniirnp Arpa- "reston
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
C A
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
5B ~ FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
Case Numbers: 6A, 6B, 6C, &
Case Conditions
r.nal U,P ArPa- Springfield,
County, W. Virginia
1 Q C O O/l
lo.u % A
-------
CASE RESULTS
Case Numbers: 7A, 7B, 7C, & 7D
Case Conditions
Lansing, Michigan
ro3i sour™ ArPa- Jefferson County, Ohio
Q Q
Raw C<~>al Charactpristirs: 3-°
/? PI
Clean Cnal Chara^tpristirv °'u
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
78 ~ FGD Alone
Existing Plant
7C ~ PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
% Ash 2.82
% Ash 2.03
EMISSION
STANDARD
1.6lbsS02
perMBTU
1.6 lbsS02
per MBTU
1.6lbsSO2
per MBTU
1.6lbsS02
perMBTU
CnalhPd: Pittsburgh
% Sulfur
% Sulfur
COST TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
$0.19-0.22
perMBTU
$0.22
per MBTU
$0.30-0.32
perMBTU
$0.35
per MBTU
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
6.8% less than
by FGD alone
7.3% more than
by PC& FGD
11% less than
FGD alone
13% more than
by PC& FGD
Case Numbers: 8A, 8B, 8C, & 8D
Case Conditions
Coal USP Arpa- Nashville (Gallatin), Tennessee
rnalSonrrpArPp- VigO County,
Raw Coal Characteristics: 12.0
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
~ FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
Indiana
'%Ash 1-54
% Ash 0.90
EMISSION
STANDARD
1.2lbsSO2
per MBTU
1.2lbsSO2
per MBTU
1.2lbsSO2
per MBTU
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
Coalbpd- Number
% Sulfur
% Sulfur
COST TO MEET
EMISSION STD.
$0.11-0.13
perMBTU
$0.16
per MBTU
$0.16-0.18
per MBTU
$0.28
per MBTU
VII
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
25% less than
by FGD alone
33% more than
by PC & FGD
39% less than
by FGD alone
65% more than
by PC& FGD
13
-------
CASE RESULTS
Case Numbers: 9A, 9B, 9C, & 9D
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area: Burlington, New Jersey
final Snurr* Area: Garre« County, Maryland
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
98 ~ FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
Case Numbers: 10A, 10B, 10C,
Case Conditions
final 1 1« Area: Milwaukee,
Cnal Snurne Area: Franklin
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
108 " FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
Existing Plant
FGD Alone
13-8 %Ash 2-37 %
8.8 o/nAsh 1.6 %
EMISSION
STANDARD
0.30 Ibs SO2
per MBTU
0.30 Ibs S02
per MBTU
1% sulfur by
weight per MBTU
1% sulfur by
weight per MBTU
& 10D
Wisconsin
County, Illinois
14.8 o/nA,h 1.12 %
7.1 %Ash 0.95 %
EMISSION
STANDARD
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2 lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2lbsS02
per MBTU
1.2 lbsS02
per MBTU
Coalhfid: uPPer Freeport
Sulfur
Sulfur
COST TO MEET ECONOMIC
EMISSION STD. AD VANTA GE
This coal will not meet emission
standards for new plants in the
State of New Jersey with either
combined physical cleaning and
FGD or FGD alone.
$0.23-0.25 25% less than
per MBTU FGD alone
$0.32 33% more than
per MBTU by PC & FGD
Coaled: Numbers
Sulfur
Sulfur
COST TO MEET ECONOMIC
EMISSION STD. ADVANTAGE
$0.07-0.10 29% less than
per MBTU by FGD alone
$0.12 41% more than
per MBTU by PC & FGD
$0.12-0.15 33% less than
per MBTU by FGD alone
$0.20 48% more than
per MBTU by PC & FGD
14
-------
CASE RESULTS
Case Numbers:
Case Conditions
Coal Use Area:
11A, 11B, 11C,& 11D
Concord, New Hampshire
r.nal SnnmP ArPa- Greene County, Pennsylvania CnalhpH- Sewickley
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
118 ~ FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
._ Existing Plant
FGD Alone
11-4 % Ash 3-45 % sulfur
8-1 %Ash 2-20 % Sulfur
EMISSION COST TO MEET
STANDARD EMISSION STD.
1.2lbsS02 perMBTU $0.25-0.28
(projected standard) per MBTU
1.2lbsS02 perMBTU $0.27
(projected standard) per MBTU
1. Bibs sulfur $0.12-0.14
per MBTU per MBTU
1. Bibs sulfur $0.28
perMBTU perMBTU
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
2% less than
by FGD alone
2% more than
by PC & FGD
54% less than
FGD alone
1 15% more than
by PC& FGD
Case Numbers: 12 A, 12B, 12C, & 12D
Case Conditions
Coal LUp Area- Dickerson (Montgomery County), Maryland
Coal Sn,,rrP. Ama- Marion County, W. Virginia malhpri- Pittsburgh
Raw Coal Characteristics:
Clean Coal Characteristics:
Comparison of Costs
CASE TYPE OF PLANT
NO. & APPROACH
New Plant
PC Followed by FGD
New Plant
FGD Alone
Existing Plant
PC Followed by FGD
1?D Existing Plant
FGD Alone
11-° % Ash 3-80 % Sulfur
5.9 o/nAsn 2.16 o/nSll|fllr
EMISSION COST TO MEE T
STANDA RD EMISSION STD.
1% sulfur by $0.20-0.23
weight per MBTU
1% sulfur by $0.27
weight per MBTU
1% sulfur by $0.32-0.34
weight per MBTU
1% sulfur by $0.43
weight per MBTU
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
20% less than
by FGD alone
26% more than
by PC & FGD
23% less than
by FGD alone
30% more than
by PC& FGD
15
-------
FOR FURTHER READING
Engineering/Economic Analyses of Coal Preparation with SO2 Clean Up Process for Keep-
ing Higher Sulfur Coals In the Energy Market. Final report under U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Contract no. J-0155-171. November 1976.
This report is a comprehensive study of 48 actual cases where either a combination of
physical coal cleaning and scrubbing was used, or sulfur clean up was accomplished
entirely by flue gas scrubbing. The full report will be published by EPA in mid-1977 and
will be available from the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, RD-681, U,S. EPA,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Sulfur Reduction Potential of the U.S. Coals: A Revised Report of Investigations EPA-
600/2-76-091
This report presents the results of a washability study of 455 raw coal samples from
major United States coal production regions. The emphasis was on sulfur reduction
potential with summary data of the number of samples meeting the EPA new source
performance standard under varying degrees of preparation (cleaning).
Steam—Electric Plant Factors, 1975 Edition, National Coal Association, Washington, D.C.
20036.
From this NCA publication, existing and planned electric power plant generation capa-
city can be observed by specific location. Additionally the type of fuel being consumed
by the specific plant is given with heat content and price. From this information, future
demand patterns can be projected.
Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base of the United States, By Sulfur Category, On January 1,
1974. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Industry Surveys, Washington, D.C. 20241. May
1975.
This report presents a concise geographic summary of U.S. coal reserves according to
three ranges of sulfur content.
"All That An Oil Company President Needs To Know About Washing Bituminous
Coal," Special Issue of B.T.U., McNally Pittsburg Manufacturing Corp., Pittsburg,
Kansas, 66762. May 1972.
An extremely well-written, non-technical description of the major coal cleaning meth-
ods. Also includes easy to understand definitions of industry terms.
The Effect of Coal Quality on the Operation and Maintenance of Large Central Station
Boilers. Paper written by John G. Holmes, Jr. of TVA for presentation at Annual
Meeting of American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Wash-
ington, D.C. February 16-20,1969.
Presents comparative data on maintenance records of two boilers utilizing coals of
different ash and sulfur contents. These data demonstrate a definite reduction in O & M
costs as a function of reduced impurities. This publication may be obtained by writing
to American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 345 E.
47th Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10017.
16
------- |