AN EVALUATION
OF THE
ATOMICS INTERNATIONAL
MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
PREPARED FOR
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
CONTRACT CPA 70-76
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL PROCESS ENGINEERS
NEW YORK, NY.
-------
AN EVALUATION OF THE
ATOMICS INTERNATIONAL
MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
Prepared for
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Environmental Health Service
Public Health Service
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
CONTRACT CPA 70-76
By
SINGMASTER & BREYER
235 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
November 30, 1970
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
REPORT IN BRIEF i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-1
a) General 3-1
b) Process Description 3-1
c) Basis for Material Balance 3-8
d) Utilities for Base Case 3-12
e) Heat and Material Balances for
Alternate Cases 3-13
Process Flow Diagram -PS-218-0001
Engineering Flow Diagram-
SO Removal -PS-218-0002
Engineering Flow Diagram-
Coke Handling Facilities -PS-218-0003
Engineering Flow Diagram-
Lithium Carbonate Recovery -PS-218-0004
4. PLANT CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATES 4-1
a) Base Case 4-1
b) Alternate Cases 4-4
c) Construction Cost Estimate Summary Sheets 4-27
5. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS PROBLEMS 5-1
a) Absorber 5-1
b) Reducer 5-5
c) Reducer Off-Gas Cooling 5-6
d) Regeneration 5-8
e) Fly Ash and Coke Filtration 5-14
f) Carbonate Makeup 5-17
g) Carbonate Recovery 5-21
h) Waste Heat Recovery 5-23
i) Integration into Existing Power Plants 5-24
j) Copper Smelter 5-26
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
6. ECONOMIC STUDIES
a) Optimum Process Location of
Electrostatic Precipitator
b) Electrostatic Precipitator
Efficiency and Penalties
c) Absorber- Size, Number and
Configuration
d) Reducer- Size, Number and
Configuration
e) Coke - Economic Aspects
f) Lithium Carbonate Recovery Process
g) Copper Smelter
7. -EQUIPMENT - BASE CASE
a) List of Equipment
b) Specifications
c) Vessel Sketches
d) Motor List
8. PLANT ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS - BASE CASE
Page Number
6-1
6-2
6-6
6-10
6-13
6-22
6-24
6-27
7-1
7-1
7-5
7-20
7-33
8-1
Site Arrangement Plan Drawing No. PS-218-0501
Site Arrangement-
Elevations & Sections Drawing No. PS-218-0502
Filter and Recovery
Process Building-
Equipment Arrangement Drawing No. PS-218-0503
REFERENCES 9-1
APPENDIX
Construction Cost Estimate - Base Case Plant
(Machinery & Equipment - Account 400)
-------
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Molten Carbonate Process for the removal of sulfur
oxides from power plant stack gases has been evaluated by
Singmaster & Breyer under Contract No. CPA 70-76, National Air
Pollution Control Administration. This process was developed
by Atomics International. Singmaster & Breyer reviewed the pre-
vious experimental work and process criteria in the course of
making this evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to
advise the sponsor on the continued course of action regarding
this process.
The removal of sulfur oxides from an 800 MW power plant
operated with coal containing 3% sulfur was selected as a base
case for evaluation. Alternate cases were also evaluated from
the results developed for the base case. Alternate cases in-
volving coal-burning power plants included 2 additional capac-
ities, 400 and 1000 MW, and coal sulfur contents of 1 and 6%.
Various copper smelter situations were also reviewed. A smelter
producing 200 tons per day of copper by a reverberatory furnace
process was presented as an alternate case.
The Molten Carbonate Process appears to be technically
feasible. .Process and engineering problem areas were identi-
fied and potential solutions were examined. While there are
evident solutions to known problem areas, these proposed solu-
tions still remain to be demonstrated.
The evaluation of the base power plant case, 800 MW at
3% coal sulfur, resulted in an estimated capital cost of $13-.4
million, to achieve a 95% reduction in sulfur oxides emission.
This capital cost was equivalent to approximately $17 per KW
of station capacity. The annual operating cost including de-
preciation was estimated to be in the region of 0.9 mills per
station KWH.
The Molten Carbonate Process converts recovered sulfur
oxides successively to sulfides and I^S. The final step is
the production of elemental sulfur from f^S gas by the Glaus
process. This present evaluation did not include the costs
of a Glaus Plant or credit for the value of the sulfur pro-
duced.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
-------
This report presents a description of the process, process
and design criteria, and the assumptions that were made to esti-
mate the costs for the base case sulfur oxides recovery plant.
Also included for the base case are process and engineering flow
diagrams, plant arrangement drawings, material balances, heat
duties and process equipment specifications.
Costs and material balances for the alternate cases were
derived from the base case. Sulfur oxide recovery, plant capi-
tal, and operating unit costs responded significantly to coal
sulfur contents in the range 1 to 6% as described on Figure 1.
Unit costs at 800 and 1000 MW plant capacity were essentially
unchanged for a given coal sulfur content. The unit costs at
400 MW capacity increased significantly, according to these
estimates.
Major process and engineering problem areas still require
ing demonstrated solutions suitable for full scale application
were identified as follows:
1. Elimination of melt carryover with the absorber off-
gas.
2. Liquid/gas absorber ratios and absorber design for
effective sulfur oxides removal from flue gases.
3. Construction materials and fabrication of the process
melt reducer, operating at the temperature of 1500°F.
4. The sequence of reduction reactions and the required
internal design of the reducer.
5. Fly ash and coke filters capable of producing a low
liquid content solids cake at the process temperature of 850°F.
6. The extent to which the carbonate components from
solids filter cakes can be economically recovered.
This evaluation also attempted to account for the chloride
content of the coal, which would appear in the process melt as
potassium chloride, both in solution and as a solid. The pres-
ence of potassium chloride was found to affect the costs and
-------
design of the fly ash filter, the reducer exit gas heat exchanger,
and the cost of carbonate recovery from the filtered solids.
Significant process tradeoffs that were developed during
this evaluation include the following items:
1. Electrostatic precipitation of fly ash from flue gases
at the process temperature of 850°F cost significantly less than
precipitation at the lower conventional flue gas exit tempera-
ture of 325°F, followed by reheat to 850°F.
2. K high temperature electrostatic precipitator operating
at 99.5% efficiency costs less than higher or lower efficiencies,
as governed by downstream melt replacement costs at the fly ash
filter.
3. Type 347 'stainless steel for absorber construction was
economically more favorable than low alloy steel, when both
alloys were applied to compatible process designs.
4. Evaluation of reducer criteria showed that a horizontal,
cylindrical vessel configuration with internal refractory lining
was superior to other alternates at the reaction temperature of
1500°F.
5. Current market costs and availability now favor green
delayed coke as a reducing agent to convert recovered sulfur
oxides to sulfides, in place of fluidized petroleum coke.
6. The complete recovery of all carbonate melt components
from filtered solids should be investigated further.
7. Preliminary estimates of smelter operation showed that
it was more economical to replace an existing bag filter system
with a high temperature (850°F) electrostatic precipitator.
However, reheating of process flue gases to 850°F was more
favorable for an existing electrostatic precipitator operating
at 600°F.
A final evaluation and plant design for the Molten Carbon-
ate Process requires further development to establish the char-
acteristics and design for some steps in the process.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
iii
-------
This report recommends continued development and evaluation
of the process.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
W. Drobot
S. Finkier
D. R. Whitlock
November 30, 1970
xv
-------
Figure 1. Capital Cost and Annual
Operating Cost for SOX.
Removal vs. Plant Capacity
for Various % S Coals
B- 1 • 6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
CO
-H
a
en
O
u
c
•H
-P
nJ
(1)
ft
O
VJ-
O
O
rd
4J
•H
O,
(fl
U
.6
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
S in
Coal
3% .
1%
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Plant Capacity, MW
SINGMASTER S BREYER
V
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work upon which this publication is based was per-
formed pursuant to Contract No. CPA 70-76 with the National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Environmental Health
Service, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare.
Singmaster & Breyer appreciates the guidance of NAPCA
staff members, Messrs. D.A. Kemnitz, Project Officer and
E.D. Margolin, Chief, New Process Development Section,
during the conduct of this study.
We also appreciate the cooperation of Messrs. R.D.
Oldenkamp, B. Katz and C.A. Trilling and other members of
the staff of Atomics International who have provided further
clarification of the Molten Carbonate Process; and Mr. W.J.
Cooper of MSA Research for his assistance in evaluating the
chemical aspects of the A.I. Process.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This study was performed to review and evaluate The Atomics
International Molten Carbonate Process for removal of SO2 from
coal burning power plant stack gases and from copper smelter
gaseous effluents.
The overall process was examined and each process step was
analyzed according to technical and economic considerations.
From this analysis, a base case plant was defined for removal
of S02 from an 800 MW power plant burning coal containing 3%
sulfur, 0.04% chloride and 10% ash. Costs of SO2 removal for
alternate cases such as for one and six percent sulfur in coal
and for 400 and 1000 MW power generating stations burning coal
containing one, three and six percent sulfur were also estimated.
In addition, the process was evaluated for removal of SO2 con-
tained in copper reverberatory furnace off-gas.
The evaluation excluded the capital and operating costs for
a Glaus Plant to recover elemental sulfur from the Molten Car-
bonate Process off-gas. Furthermore, no credits were allowed
in the operating cost estimate for byproduct sulfur recovery
or for the use of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
1-1
-------
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the technical aspects of
the process. We have not compared the cost of this process
to competitive processes nor have we considered:
1) the future availability and price of raw materials.
2) the effect of possible release to the atmosphere of
carbonate from the boiler stack if the melt is carried over
with the absorber off-gas, and
3) the discharge of soluble salt solutions from the lithium
carbonate recovery process.
The process appears to be feasible; however, certain problem
areas have been uncovered which should be defined in a thought-
ful pilot program where corrective measures can be tested. A
complete technical and economic evaluation of the process can
only be performed after the pilot program is completed.
It is therefore recommended that development and evaluation
of the process be continued. We believe that a pilot plant is
the next logical step in this development. Operation of a
materials test loop can either precede the pilot plant or be
carried out as a study parallel to the pilot plant program de-
pending on time and funds available to the program.
The development program and materials test loop should be
planned to:
1) Confirm the selection of construction materials
2) Confirm equipment design criteria
3) Confirm process performance and reaction yields
4) Estimate equipment operating cycles
5) Determine maintenance requirements
SINGMASTER & BREYER
2-1
-------
6) Determine control and monitoring procedures
7) Identify equipment components requiring intensive
development
The pilot plant should be designed to scrub SO2 from
flue gases from an existing power plant preferably burning both
coal and fuel oil. The recommendation for a combination fired
boiler is based on initially running the pilot plant with flue
gases produced from fuel oil firing to minimize the problems
associated with coal fly ash. However, location at a power plant
firing only coal would merely mean a rearrangement of priorities
in the fields of investigation.
In order to minimize boiler downtime, we recommend
that the flue gas be taken from the stack and reheated to ab-
sorber temperature by direct combustion of low ash fuel. De-
pending upon the capacity of the pilot plant it may be advisable
to include an indirect exchanger to recover some of the heat
available in the absorber off-gas to reduce operating costs;
but, this should be evaluated during the planning of the pilot
plant„
The absorber is the critical step in the process for
it is here that the SC>2 must be removed from the flue gas with
a minimum amount of melt carried off with absorber exit gases.
As a minimum program, the absorber must be tested to determine
scrubber efficiency, nozzle performance, and demister efficiency;
but, the amount of melt required to carry out these tests only
may be substantial and, it will probably be necessary to regen-
erate the melt on a campaign basis to minimize these raw material
costs. The demonstration absorber should be sized so that the
wall effects that were evident in the bench scale tests will be
negligible.
The remainder of the process steps can be designed to
operate on a campaign basis which will require suitable surge
capacity between the steps. The equipment required for the re-
maining process steps need not be designed for the same melt
rate as the absorber.
2-2
-------
The pilot work on filtration should be directed to increas-
ing the filter cake thickness consistent with acceptable pressure
drops across the filter cake. This will aid in minimizing capital
costs and may reduce melt losses associated with discarded filter
cake.
The operability of the two-zone reducer must be determined
in the pilot plant. The design parameters must also be con-
firmed as well as the best method for introducing coke into the
reducer. The advantage of a two-zone reducer lies in the effect
of a more concentrated stream of carbon dioxide on the design
and performance of the regenerator and the effect of a more con-
centrated stream of hydrogen sulfide on the capital cost and
performance of the Claus Plant. A concentrated stream of carbon
dioxide can be obtained in other ways.
1
Regenerator testwork should be directed to confirm the equili-
brium data. The pilot plant regenerator should be provided with
spare trays of different types that can be installed with the
minimum amount of field modifications to test their efficiency.
The regenerator off-gases can be incinerated and sent to the
stack; it is not necessary to include a small Claus Plant for
recovery of the sulfur since the gas analysis can be used in the
design of a Claus Plant to be installed in a commercial size
plant.
Initially, no waste heat recovery systems should be installed
but appropriate test units should be included in the pilot plant
to determine the problems associated with this heat recovery.
Recovery of lithium salts should not be attempted, however,
laboratory work should parallel the pilot plant work to develop
a suitable process for recovery of not only the lithium salts
but sodium and potassium salts as well.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
2-3
-------
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
a. General
The Atomics International Molten Carbonate Process for
removal of SOX from power plant flue gases is depicted on the
attached process flow diagram, Drawing PS-218-0001. This is
the conceptual scheme for all cases under consideration. Some
modifications are possible and these variations as well as the
reasons for selection of the process scheme are discussed in
later sections of this report. The material balance on the pro-
cess flow diagram is for the base case power plant operating at
800 MW and burning coal containing three percent sulfur.
The attached engineering flow diagrams: -
I :
PS-218-0002 SOV Removal
it
PS-218-0003 Coke Handling Facilities
PS-218-0004 Li2CO_ Recovery
along with the plant arrangement drawings in Section 8 of this
report form the basis for the capital and operating cost esti-
mates for removal of SO., from the base case power plant flue
j£
gases.
b. Process Description
In essence, the process consists of scrubbing the flue
gas with a molten mixture of lithium, potassium, and sodium
carbonates (minimum melting point 750°F). The melt, containing
up to 32% sulfite salts, is regenerated by heating to 1500°F
where the sulfates formed by disproportionation of the sulfites
can be reduced to sulfides with carbon. The sulfides in the
melt are converted back to carbonates with the formation of
hydrogen sulfide by reaction at 850-900°F with carbon dioxide
and steam.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
3-1
-------
1) SO Removal - Drawing PS-2 18-0002
^ ________ _______
Absorber
Flue gases taken before the economizer section
of the boiler are passed through four electrostatic precipitator
sections operating in parallel at 800-850 °F where 99.5 percent of
the fly ash is removed. The gases are sent from each precipitator
to an associated absorber for removal of the SOX by the molten
carbonate stream and are returned to the economizer section of the
boiler.
The absorber reactions can be expressed as:
SO2 + M2CO3 - *> M2SO3 -f CO
SO3 + M2CO3 - *• M2SO4 + CO2
where M represents the eutectic mixture of sodium, potassium and
lithium cations.
Some of the M2SO_ may be oxidized to the sulfate
by the oxygen in the flue gas as follows:
M2so3 + h o2 - *- M2so4
All sulfides are also oxidized to sulfate as
follows:
M2S + 202 - *• M2SO4
The melt from the first absorber, V-1A, flows
by gravity into one pump tank, V-2A, and is recirculated by P-1A
to the absorber. The net increase of returned melt into the
absorber circuit from the Regenerator System is pumped under level
control to the recirculating line of Absorber V-1B. The melt then
proceeds under level control in series from one absorber pump tank
to the next absorber. Essentially, the flue gases flow in parallel
and the melt flows in series through the absorbers. The M2CO3
content of the melt leaving the last absorber is maintained above
68 mol percent to keep the freezing point of the melt below 800 °F.
3-2
-------
Each pump tank is sized to hold all the liquid drained
from its associated equipment. Each is also equipped with
electrical heaters to remelt frozen process liquid in the event
of a plant shutdown.
Fly Ash Filtration
The melt from the last absorber pump tank, V-2D, is
pumped under level control to one of two parallel fly ash
filters, F-l, where the fly ash is removed from the process
melt and sent to the Li^O^ Recovery Process. When the
pressure drop through the first filter exceeds an allowable
limit the second filter is brought into operation.
The filtered melt is then split into streams, each
under flow control, for charging to each of four reducers.
Reducers
Each reducer is a two-compartment vessel - one an
oxidation zone and the other reduction a zone with liquid
passage between the two compartments for internal melt re-
circulation.
The endothermic heat for the reduction and the
sensible heat required to raise the melt, coke and air to
the reduction temperature of 1500°F is provided by the oxi-
dation of M2S in the oxidation zone of the reducers.
At 1500°F the M2SO3 in the melt disporportionates to
M2S04 and M2S" The M2S04 1S reduced in the reduction zone to
M2S by the carbon contained in the coke. Part of the reduc-
tion zone melt is recycled to the oxidation zone to oxidize
the M2S and provide the necessary heat. The oxidation zone
melt also recycles back to the reduction zone to convert the
to M2S.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
3-3
-------
The reactions in the reducer may be expressed as
follows:
Oxidation: M2S + 202
Reduction: M2SO4 + 2C - *. M2S + 2CO2
Disproportionation:
Coke S Recovery: S + %C + M2CO3 — w M2S + 3/2 CO2
The air for the oxidation zone is provided by the
combustion air blowers, B-l. These blowers develop sufficient
head to overcome the pressure drop of the reducer, exchanger
and regenerator and to supply the Glaus Plant with gas at 3 inches
W.G. The combustion air is preheated in E-2 by oxidation zone
off-gas to at least 600 °F and admitted to the oxidation zone of
the reducer through sparger pipes. As conceived, coke is charged
to the reduction zone by pneumatic blow tanks.
The oxidation zone off-gas is used to preheat the
incoming combustion air before being sent to the boiler with the
absorber off-gas. The reduction zone off-gas, consisting essen-
tially of CO2, is used in the Regenerator. An excess of CO2 is
produced in this zone and the excess is diverted to the oxidation
zone off-gas stream. An equimolar quantity of H20 and CO2 is
required for the regeneration step. The H20 is supplied to the
CO2 stream by direct injection of both water and/or steam to
reduce the temperature of the CO2 stream from the 1500°F level
to the required regenerator temperature of 850°F. The steam is
assumed to be available from the waste heat boiler in the Glaus
Plant.
The melt from the reducer at 1500 °F is cooled to
950 °F by recirculating 850 °F reduced melt from the Reducer Product
Cooler. This recirculation is controlled by the temperature of
the melt in the Reducer Quench Tank.
3-4
-------
The melt from the Reducer Quench Tank is pumped through
the cooler and is recirculated as mentioned above. The net
excess of melt flows under level control to the coke filters.
Coke Filtration
The melt from the reduction step flows to one of two
parallel coke filters, F-2, where the unreacted coke is removed
from the process melt and sent to the I^CO., Recovery Process.
Flow is diverted to the second filter when the pressure drop
through the first unit exceeds the allowable limit.
The filtered melt is then sent to the Regenerator.
Regeneration
The regeneration reaction is expressed as:
M2S + C02 + H20 *• M2C03 + H2S
The regenerator is a tower consisting of 15 bubble cap
trays where the melt is added to the top of the column and is
contacted with the C02 and 1^0 rising up the tower.
The regeneration is exothermic and coolers are provided
to remove this heat. The intermediate cooler takes the total
flow of the upper section of the tower and returns a portion
of this flow under temperature control to the upper section to
cool the tower. The remainder of the cooled melt is sent under
level control to the lower section of the regenerator.
The bottoms cooler acts in the same manner as the
intermediate cooler to cool the lower section of the regenera-
tor. The cooled bottoms which are not recirculated to the
regenerator are returned under level control to the absorber.
The gases from the Regenerator at 3 inches W.G. con-
taining H_0, C02 and H2S are sent to a Glaus Plant for recovery
of sulfur.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
3-5
-------
M2CO3
The eutectic mixture of M2C03 required for the
initial charge and makeup is prepared in the M2CO3 melt tank,
V-9.
The sodium, potassium and lithium carbonates are
received by truck and fed to individual silos each with a nominal
four-day storage capacity. The lithium carbonate which is re-
covered in the Li2CC>3 Recovery Process is also stored in the
silo.
Each melt component is fed under weigh control to
V-9 which is electrically heated to melt the solid. The tank
has a nominal 16-hour capacity which permits charging of the tank
during daylight hours only.
The melt is fed to the process under flow control.
2) Coke Handling Facilities - Drawing PS-218-0003
Green delayed coke of minus 2 inch size is delivered
in rail cars and is fed to a crusher to reduce its size to minus
1/4 inch. The crushed coke is screened and the oversize returned
in closed circuit to the crusher. The under size material is
charged to two coke silos with a total of 4 days live storage
capacity.
The coke is withdrawn from the silos and fed by
belt conveyors to a coke bin associated with each reducer.
3) Li2CO3 Recovery Process - Drawing PS-218-0004
The recovery process as conceived has been developed
by Atomics International. However, in the process concept which
has been evaluated, filtrations are carried out continuously and
reactions are batch operations. It has been assumed that the
chlorides and heavy metals to be removed from the Molten Carbon-
ate Process report with the fly ash and coke filter cakes,
respectively.
3-6
-------
The fly ash and coke filter cakes from the Molten Car-
bonate Process are quenched with water and charged to T-110
where the soluble salts are dissolved. The slurry is pumped
to a rotary drum vacuum filter, F-101 and the insoluble fly
ash, coke and lithium carbonate are removed as the cake.
The dissolved salts containing the chlorides are removed as
filtrate.
The cake is slurried with returned filtrate from F-103
or with water and is held in T-102 to await the completion of
the batch reaction in the LiHCO3 Reactor, V-101. The slurry
is pumped to V^-IO! and CO2» prepared in an inert gas generator,
is bubbled through under back pressure control to convert the
insoluble Li2C03 to soluble LiHC03. The CC>2 is maintained
under approximately 20 psi partial pressure.
The carbon dioxide required for the conversion to
LiHC03 can possibly be supplied from either the excess gas
available from the reducer or from power plant flue gases.
These alternate sources were not considered in the evaluation
in order to separate the Li2003 Recovery Facilities from the
Molten Carbonate Process and the power plant.
The contents of V-101 are discharged to the surge
tank, T-103 to permit charge of the next reactor batch. The
reactor product is filtered in the filter, F-102 and the fly
ash and coke filter cakes containing the heavy metals are
slurried with the filtrate of F-101, in T-101 and sent to
disposal along with the fly ash from the electrostatic preci-
pitator.
The filtrate of F-102 is pumped to the Li2CC>3 Reactor,
V-101, where hot air is added to convert the soluble LiHCO3
to the insoluble Li2CO3. After the conversion is complete,
the reactor is emptied into the surge tank, T-104 and a new
batch is added to the reactor.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
3-7
-------
The L±2CO3 slurry in T-104 is continuously pumped
to the I^COg Filter, F-103. In order to recover any soluble
lithium values, the filtrate from F-103 is recycled in the pro-
cess and used to slurry the filter cake from F-101. The wet
lithium carbonate filter cake from F-103 is dried and conveyed
to the I^COo silo, T-5, for use as makeup in the Molten Car-
bonate Process.
4) Instrumentation
The instrumentation to monitor and control the
process steps is shown on the engineering flow diagrams. This
instrument concept may have to be modified after experience is
gained in operations of a pilot plant or a commercial plant.
c. Basis for Material Balance
The material balance for the base case plant (800 MW
power plant burning 280 tons per hour of coal containing three
percent sulfur and 0.04 percent chlorine) which is shown on the
Process Flow Diagram - Drawing No. PS-218-0001 is based on the
following:
1) Coal Combustion
The coal analysis is shown as follows, based on
a typical analysis used by Atomics International. The oxygen
content in the coal was adjusted to allow a typical chlorine
content of 0.04%.
3-8
-------
Coal Composition
Component Weight %
C 70.00
H 4.80
0 5.76
S 3.00
Cl 0.04
N 1.40
Ash 10.00
Moisture 5.00
100.00
Assumptions used to calculate the boiler flue gas
compositions are:
Excess Air - 20%
95% combustion of S
90% of Cl volatilized to HCl
85% of ash entrained with the boiler flue gas
95% combustion of C (unburned C remains in
furnace ash)
100% combustion of H
100% volatilization of 0, N and H00
£e
2) Process Conditions
a) All process chemical conversions are 95% except:
1. M^S oxidation in absorber - 100%.
2. M2SO_ disproportionation downstream of
absorber - 10%.
3. M2SOo disproportionation in reducer - 100%.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
3-9
-------
b) M2CO3 mol concentration at absorber exit, 68.0%.
This is a minimum allowable value.
c) Absorber recycle ratio, 1:1 (mols of liquid re-
cycled to absorber: mols of liquid entering reducer). This ratio
is specified as a target. (Maximum allowable recycle ratio is
3:1. Pumps to be sized for 3:1 recycle).
d) The saturation concentration of KCl in process
melt is 3.0 weight percent at the regenerator inlet, the point
of lowest solubility.
e) All process streams are nominally 850°F, except
where noted.
f) Other assumptions used in this calculation are
listed as follows:
Precipitator
99.5% fly ash removal.
Absorber
95% removal of residual SOX, fly ash, and HCl
conversion to KCl.
SO consists of 90 mol % SO9 and 10 mol % SO3.
J^ - &
All entering M2S is oxidized to M2SO., with the
consumption of 02 from the flue gas.
HCl is converted to insoluble KCl, with the
equivalent consumption of K2CO3 from the melt.
Fly ash Filter
Melt content of fly ash filter cake, 65 weight
percent.
3-10
-------
Reducer
Inlet air 600°F, and coke at 70°F
Reducer temperature, 1500°F.
The heat generation for the reduction reaction was
derived by air oxidation of equimolar quantities of t^S and
carbon in coke. Complete consumption of carbon and oxygen for
oxidation was assumed and reduction of M^SO* by carbon was
assumed to be 95% complete.
95% sulfur in the coke converted to I^S.
(Unconverted coke sulfur remains as solid residue).
'Coke Analysis:
Composition
Component Weight,%
C 81.6
S 6.0
Ash 0.4
Volatiles 12.0
100.0
Coke Filter
Melt content in filter cake, 50 weight percent.
Regenerator
Inlet CO., and H00 at 85% stoichiometric excess.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
3-11
-------
d. Utilities for Base Case
The utilities required for the base case plant are:
1) Water
Process Water(Boiler Feed Water Preferred)
Regenerator 12 GPM
Raw Water
Miscellaneous Requirements
(including Lithium Carbonate Recovery) 100 GPM
2) Steam (Assumed available from Glaus Plant)
Regenerator 12,000 #/Hr
3) Fuel (Natural Gas)
For Lithium Carbonate Recovery Process
Li2CO3 Dryer 800 SCFH
Inert Gas Generator 8,000 SCFH
Total 8,800 SCFH
4) Power
Approximate Motor Operating Load 2,100 KW
(See Motor List-Section 7)
Heat Tracing 175 KW
Lighting 25 KW
Total Average Load 2,300 KW
Differential Power for High Temperature
Electrostatic Precipitator 1,980 KW
Differential Power for Boiler I.D. Fan 950 KW
Total 5,230 KW
3-12
-------
e. Heat and Material Balances for Alternate Cases
The heat and material balance for the base case plant
(800 MW with 3 percent sulfur in coal) is shown on the Process
Flow Diagram - Drawing No. PS-218-0001. Heat and material
balances for other power plant capacities and sulfur content
of coal have been prepared and are listed on the attached
tables. In addition, a material balance for a hypothetical
copper smelter is also presented.
The attached tables list only the important streams
in the process which can be identified by referring to the
Process Flow Diagram.
The cases that have been considered are:
Case No. Flue Gas From Plant Capacity
l(Base) Power Plant 800 MW - 3% S in Coal
2 Power Plant 800 MW - 1% S in Coal
3 ' Power Plant 800 MW - 6% S in Coal
4 Power Plant 400 MW - 3% S in Coal
5 Power Plant 400 MW - 1% S in Coal
6 Power Plant 400 MW - 6% S in Coal
7 Power Plant 1000 MW - 3% S in Coal
8 Power Plant 1000 MW - 1% S in Coal
9 Power Plant 1000 MW - 6% S in Coal
10 Copper Smelter 200 T/D copper
Reverberatory
Furnace :
SINGMASTER & BREYER
3-13
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
(jO
I
Case No. 2.
Process Gas
SC-2
S03
HC1
co2
H2°
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
^2S
Total
Fly Ash
800 MW,
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#lfol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#tol/hr
#/hr
1.0% Sulfxir
2
142
16
5
33900?
7500
7900
179100
228600
238 v
in Coal.
Stream No.
4 5
7
1
0
181 34100
25 7500
7900
864 180000
1070 229500
111-9
Process Gas Input
Air #tfcl/hr
Water
Steam
Temp. ,°F
Flow. M SCFM
#H>l/hr
#Mol/hr
850
1444
850-1120 850
6.8 1450
6 10 11 12 13
326 329 160
329 160
20 20 20
162
346 678 502
1116
108
221
60 850 850 850 850
7.0 2.2 2.1 4.3 3.2
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
Case No. 2. 800 MW, 1.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 7600 Ib/hr
U)
M
Ln
1
i
Rl
Stream No.
Melt Components
v
M2S03
M2S04
M2G03
KCl, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KCl
Fly Ash
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Coke Residue #/hr
Total #/hr
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, ^pm
Heat Exchanger
E-l:
E-2:
E-4:
E-5:
Duties,
15.4
6.0
3.2
4.8
14
0
258
82
816
44
1200
821.8
461.4
6.0
1289.2
850
120
MM Btu/hr
15
3
116
48
408
22
599
410.9
230.7
3.0
644.6
850
60
17
12
116
55
976
44
1203
410.9
230.7
6.0
647.6
850
120
18
3
114
48
401
22
588
4.1
2.3
0.1
6.5
850
59
19
172
0
7
387
22
588
4.1
2.3
294.1
300.5
1500
59
23
170
0
7
386
22
585
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
850
58
' ' Includes Stream
Li2C03 , 4
Na2C03 t 3
KoCOo. 5
26C
8
0
7
568
22
605
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
930
60
30,
.2
.0
.1
L) 31
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.1
3.3
4.1
2.3
291.1
297.5
850
-
#Mol/hr
32
0.1
2.3
1.1
7.4
0.4
11.3
406.8
228.4
3.0
638.2
850
-
TO"
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
U)
Case No. 3.
Process Gas
so2
so3
HC1
co2
H20
°2
N2
Coke
Vo la tiles
H2S
Total
Fly Ash
800 MW,
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
fttol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
6.0% Sulfur
2
896
100
6
28500
21500
7200
162000
220200
238.0
in Coal.
Stream No.
4 5 6 10
45
5
1
1086 29586 1974
148 21648
7200
5182 167200
120
6416 225700 2094
11.9
11 12 13
1974 960
1974 960
120 120
1014
4068 3054
Process Gas Input
Air
Water
Steam
Temp.°F
Flow, M SCFM
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
850
1392
6698
850-1120 850 60 850 .
40.5 1.4 42.3 13.3
648
1326
. 850 850 850
12.5 25.7 19.3
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
I
M
-J
I
to
i
I
Case No. 3.
Melt Components
MjS
M2S03
V°4
M2C03
KC1, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KC1
Fly Ash
Coke Residue
Total
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
800 MW, 6.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 45500 Ib/hr
Stream No.
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
14
0
1547
524
4944
256
7272
821.8
461.4
36.0
1319.2
850
727
15
19
696
315
2472
128
3630
410.9
230.7
18.0
659.6
850
363
17
72
696
357
5894
256
7275
410.9
230.7
36.0
677.6
850
728
18
19
694
314
2464
128
3619
4.1
2.3
0.2
6.6
850
362
19
1066
0
42
2383
128
3619
4.1
2.3
1764.2
1770.6
1500
362
23
1060
0
42
2370
127
3599
0
0
17.6
17.6
850
360
26 UJ
53
0
42
3422
127
3644
0
0
17.6
17.6
930
364
31
6
0
0
12
0
20
4
2
1746
1753
.2
.0
.2
.8
.8
.0
.1
.3
.6
.0
850
-
32
0.1
2.4
1.1
7.6
0.4
11.6
406.8
228.4
17.8
653.0
850
-
Heat Exchanger
E-l: 94.1
E-2: 36.0
E-4: 20.0
E-5: 30.0
Duties, MM BTU/HR
(1) Includes Stream 30, #Mol/hr
Mr*f\ Q Q
ol*Uo j O • O
Na2C03, 6.4
7.9
23.1
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
00
Case No. 4.
Process Gas
S02
so3
HC1
co2
HjO
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
H2S
Total
Fly Ash
400 MW,
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#tol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
3.07. Sulfur
2
224
25
3
15500
9800
4200
87800
117600
119.7
in Coal.
Stream No.
4 5
11
2
0
272 15800
37 9800
4200
1296 89100
1605 118900
6.0
Process Gas Input
Air . #Mol/hr
Water
Steam
Temp.,°F
Flow, M SCFM
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
"850
742
850-1120 850
10.1 751
.. ,-• • •
6 10 11 12 13
494 494 240
494 240
30 30 30
254
524 1018 764
1674
162
332
60 850 850 850 850
10.6 3.3 3.1 6.4 4.8
-------
UJ
H
I
1
i
I
MATERIAL BALANCE
Case No. 4.
Melt Components
M.S
M^
M2S04
MjiCOo
KC1, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KC1
Fly Ash
400 MW, 3.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 11400 Ib/hr
Stream No.
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Coke Residue #/hr
Total #/hr
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
Heat Exchanger
E-l:
E-2:
E-4:
E-5:
Duties,
23.7
9.0
5.0
7.5
14
0
387
134
1245
65
1831
410.9
230.7
9.0
650.6
850
183
MM Btu/hr
15
5
174
82
622
32
915
205.4
115.4
4.5
325.3
850
92
17
18
174
92
1482
65
1831
205.4
115.4
9.0
329.8
850
183
18
5
173
81
619
32
910
' 2.0
1.2
0.0
3.2
850
91
19
268
0
10
600
32
910
2.0
1.2
441.1
444.3
1500
91
23
266
0
10
596
32
904
0.0
0.0
4.4
4.4
850
90
' ' Includes Stream
Li2C03, 3
Na2C03, 2
K2C03, _3
8
26^
12
0
10
860
32
914
0.0
0.0
4.4
4.4
850
91
31
1.5
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.2
4.9
1.8
1.6
435.2
438.6
850
32
0.0
1.2
0.6
3.7
0.2
5.7
196.3
112.6
4.4
313.3
850
30, #Mol/hr
.0
.2
.1
.3
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
to
I
to
o
Case No. 5.
Process Gas
so2
S03
HCl
C02
H20
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
H2S
Total
^ Fiy Ash
400 MM,
#Mal/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mal/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
1.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Stream No.
245
71 4
8 0
3 0
17000 90 17000
3800 12 3800
4000 4000
89500 432 90000
114400 534 114800
119.0 6.0
Process Gas Input
Air #*fcl/hr
Water
Steam
Temp.°F
Flow, M SCFM
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
850 850-1120 850
722 3.4 725
6 , 10 11 12 13
163 164 80
164 80
10 10 10
81
173 338 251
558
54
110
60 850 850 850 850
3.5 1.1 1.0 2.2 1.6
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
10
10
1
Case No. 5.
Melt Components
M^S
M2S03
M2S04
M2C03
KCl, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KCl
Fly Ash
Coke Residue
Total
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
400 MW, 1
Coke Rate
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
.0% Sulfur in Coal.
, 3800 Ib/hr
Stream No.
14
0
129
41
408
22
600
410.9
230.7
3.0
644.6
850
60
15
2
58
24
204
11
299
205.4
115.4
1.5
322.3
850
30
17
6
58
28
488
22
602
205.4
115.4
3.0
323.8
850
60
18
2
57
24
200
11
294
2.0
1.2
0.0
3.2
850
29
19
86
0
4
193
11
294
2.0
1,2
147.0
150.2
1500
29
23
85
0
4
193
11
293
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
850
29
26 (1
4
0
4
284
11
303
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
930
30
) 31
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.6
2.0
1.2
145.6
148.8
850
—
32
0.0
1.2
0.6
3.7
0.2
5.7
293 .4
114.2
1.5
319.1
850
•»
Heat Exchanger Duties, MM Btu/hr
E-l: 7.6
E-2: 3.0
E-4: 1.6
E-5: 2.4
^l^ Includes Stream 30, #Mol/hr
Li2C03> 2.1
Na2C03> 1.5
2.6
6.2
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
CO
l
to
to
Case No
Process Gas
S02
S03
HC1
C02
H2°
°2
N2
.6. 400 MW,
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
- #Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
Coke #Mol/hr
Volatiles
H2S
Total
Fly Ash
Process Gas
Air
Water
Steam
Temp.°F
Flow, M
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/br
Input
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
SCFM
6.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Stream No.
2 4 5 6 10
448 22
50 2
3 0
14200 543 14800 987
10800 74 10800
3600 3600
81000 2591 83600
60
110100 3208 112800 1047
119.0 6.0
3349
850 850-1120 . 850 60 850
696 20.2 0.7 21.2 6.6
11 12 13
987 480
987 480
60 60
507
2034 1527
324
663
850 850 850
6.2 12.8 9.6
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
Case No. 6, 400 MW, 6.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 22800 Ib/hr
CO
l
to
CO
I
1
1
Stream No.
Melt Components
^s
MrtSOo
MoSCv
Mo C O-i
KCl, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KCl
Fly Ash
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Coke Residue #/hr
Total #/hr
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
Heat Exchanger
E-l:
E-2:
E-4:
Duties,
47.1
18.0
10.0
is.n
14
0
774
262
2472
128
3636
410.9
230.7
18.0
659.6
850
364
MM Btu/hr
15
10
348
158
1236
64
1816
205.4
115.4
9.0
329.8
850
182
17
36
348
178
2946
128
3636
205.4
115.4
18.0
338.8
850
364
18
10
347
157
1232
64
1810
2.0
1.2
0.1
3.3
850
181
19
533
0
21
1192
64
1810
2.0
1.2
882.1
885.3
1500
181
23
530
0
21
1185
64
1800
0
0
8.8
8.8
850
180
26 C
27
0
21
1711
64
1823
0
0
8.8
8.8
930
182
'*' Includes Stream 30,
Li2C03, 4.4
Na2C03 , 3.2
K2C03 T 4.0
L> 31
3.1
0.0
0.1
6.4
0.4
10.0
2.0
1.2
873.3
876.5
850
_
#Mol/hr
32
0.0
1.2
0.6
3.8
0.2
5.8
203.4
114.2
8.8
326.4
850
—
11.6
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
U)
to
Case No. 7.
Process Gas
so2
S03
HC1
C02
H20
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
^2S
Total
Fly Ash
1000 MW,
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
3.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Stream
2 4
560
63
7
38800 679
24400 92
10500
219500 3239
293800 4010
299.2
No.
5
28
4
0
39500
24500
10400
222800
297200
15.0
- .
6 10 11 12 13
1234 1234 600
1234 600
75 75 75
634
1309 2543 1909
Process Gas Input
Air
Water
Steam
Temp.,°F
Flow, M SCFM
#«bl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
850 850-1120
1855 25.3
850
1878
4186
405
829
60 850 850 850 850
26.4 8.3 7.8 16.1 12,1
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
Case No. 7. 1000 MW, 3.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 28400 Ifc/hr
Stream No.
CO
to
en
I
i
i
Melt Components
M,,S
M2S03
Maso4
M2C03
KC1, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KC1
Fly Ash
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Coke Residue #/hr
Total #/hr
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
Heat Exchanger
E-l:
E-2:
E-4:
E-5:
Duties,
59.2
22.4
12.5
18.8
14
0
968
335
3112
162
4577
1027.2
576.8
22.5
1626.5
850
458
MM Btu/hr
15
12
435
204
1556
81
2288
513.6
288.4
11.2
813.2
850
229
17
45
435
230
3706
161
4577
513.6
288.4
22.5
824.5
850
458
18
12
432
202
1549
80
2275
5.1
2.9
0.1
8.1
850
228
19
671
0
26
1498
80
2275
5.1
2.9
1102*8
1110.8
1500
228
23
666
0
26
1490
80
2262
0
0
11.0
11.0
850
226
26U) 31
31
0
26
2150
80
2287
0
0
11.0
11,0
850
229
(1) Includes Stream 30,
Li2C03,
• >
K«CO,
11.0
8.0
19.9
3.9
0
0.1
8.0
0.5
12f.5
4.5
3.. 9
1089.4
1097.8
850
#Mol/hr
32
0.1
2.9
1.4
9.2
0.5
14.1
490.8
281.4
11.0
783.2
850
28.9
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
oo
I
to
Case No. 8.
Process Gas
so2
so3
HC1
C02
H2°
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
H2S
Total
Fly Ash
1000 MW,
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#M3l/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
1.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Stream
2 4
177
20
7
42400 226
9400 31
9900
223900 1080
285800 1337
297.5
No.
5 6 10
9
1
0
42600 . 408
9400
9900
225000
25
286900 433
14.9
11 12 13
-
411 200
411 200
.25 25
202
847 627
Process Gas Input
Air
Water
Steam
Temp.,°F
Flow, M SCFM
#M3l/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
850 850-1120
1805 8.5
1395
850 60 850
1812 8.8 2.8
135
276
850 850 850
2.6 5.4 4.0
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
Case No. 8.
1000 MW, 1.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 9500 Ib/hr
Stream No.
u>
i
to
I
i
i
Melt Components
M.S
M2S03
M2S04
M2C03
KCl , Dissolved
Total
Solids
KCl
Fly Ash
Coke Residue
Total
Temp.,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
Heat Exchanger
E-l: 19
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Duties,
.1
14
0
322
102
1019
55
1498
1027.2
576.8
7.5
1611.5
850
150
MM Btu/hr
15
4
145
60
511
28
748
513.6
288.4
3.8
805.8
850
75
17
15
145
69
1220
55
1504
513.6
288.4
7.5
809.5
850
150
18
4
142
60
501
28
735
5.1
2.9
0.1
8.1
850
74
19
215
0
9
483
28
735
5.1
2.9
367.6
375.6
1500
73
23
212
0
9
482
28
731
0
0
3.8
3.8
850
73
^ * Includes Stream
E-2: 7.5
E-4: 4.0
E-5: 6
.0
Li CO- , 5
Na CO- 3
£ J 9
K2C03 , 6
15
26<:
10
0
9
710
28
757
0
0
3.8
3.8
930
76
30,
.2
.8
.4
.4
L) 31
1.2
0
0
2.8
0.1
4.1
5.1
2.9
363.9
371.9
850
#Mol/hr
32
0.1
2.9
1.4
9.2
0.5
14.1
508.5
285.5
3.8
797.8
850
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
U)
l
to
CD
Case No. 9.
Process Gas
S02
so3
HC1
co2
H20
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
H2S
Total
Fly Ash
1000 MW,
#Mbl/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mal/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mbl/hr
#Mbl/hr
#/hr
6.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Stream No.
2 45
1120 56
124 6
7 1
35600 1358 37000
26900 185 27100
9000 9000
202508 6478 209000
275300 8021 282200
297.5 14.9
Process Gas Input
Air #Mol/hr
Water
Steam
Temp.°F
Flow, M SCFM
yjtMol/hr
#Mol/hr
850 850-1120 850
1740 50.6 1.8
6 10 11 12 13
2468 2468 1200
2468 1200
150 150 150
1268
2618 5086 3818
8372
810
1658
60 850 850 850 850
52.9 16.6 15.6 32.1 24.1
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
Case No. 9.
1000 MW, '6.0% Sulfur in Coal.
Coke Rate, 56900 Ib/hr
Stream No.
CO
I
1
I
Melt Components
y^s
M2S03
M2SO^
M2C03
KC1, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KC1
Fly Ash
Coke Residue
Total
Temp.,°F
Nominal
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Flow rate,, gpm
Heat Exchanger
E-l:
E-2:
E-4:
E-5:
Duties,
7.6
45.0
25.0
37.5
14
0
1934
655
6180
320
9089
1027.2
576.8
45.0
1649.0
850
909
MM Btu/hr
15
24
870
394
3090
160
4538
513.6
288.4
22.5
824.5
850
454
17
90
870
446
7368
320
9094
513.6
288.4
45.0
847.0
850
909
18
24
868
392
3080
160
4524
5.1
2.9
0.2
8.2
850
452
19
1332
0
52
2979
160
4523
5.1
2.9
2205.2
2213.2
1500
452
23
1325
0
52
2962
159
4498
0
0
22.0
22.0
850
450
26(D
66
0
52
4278
159
4555
0
0
22.0
22.0
930
456
31
7.8
0.0
0.2
16.0
1.0
25.0
5.1
2.9
2183.2
2191.2
850
-
32
0.1
3.0
1.4
9.5
0.5
14.5
508.5
285.5
22.2
816.2
850
-
C1) Includes Stream 30, #Mol/hr
, . - , -
Li2C03 ,
K-jCOo,
11.0
8.0
9.9
28.9
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
U)
o
Case No. 10
Process Gas
S02
so3
HC1
co2
H20
°2
N2
Coke
Volatiles
l^S
Total
Fly Ash
. Copper Smelter, Reverberatory Furnace - 200 T/D Copper
Stream No.
24 5 6 10
#Mbl/hr 117 6
#Mol/hr 13 1
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr 1100 142 1200 258
#Mol/hr 300 19 300
#Mol/hr 300 300
#Mol/hr 5200 677 5900
#Mol/hr 16
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr 7000 838 7700 274
#/hr 10.0 0.5
11 12 13
258 126
258 126
16 16
132
532 400
Process Gas Input
Air
Water
Steam
Temp.,°F
Flow. M SCFM
#Mol/hr 913
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
850 850-1120 850 60 850
44.2 5.3 48.7 5.8 1.7
85
174
850 850 850
1.6 3.4 2.5
-------
MATERIAL BALANCE
CO
I
I
ft)
I
Case No. 10. Copper Smelter, Reverberatory Furnace - 200 T/D Copper.
Coke Rate, 5900 Ib/hr.
Stream No.
Melt Components
MsS
MoSO^
Mo SO/,
M2C03
KCl, Dissolved
Total
Solids
KCl
Fly Ash
Coke Residue
Total
Temp. ,°F
Nominal
Flow rate, gpm
Heat Exchanger
E-l:
E-2:
E-4:
E-5:
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#Mol/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
#/hr
Duties, MM
11.0
4.7
2.6
3.9
14 15
0 2
202 91
68 41
573 287
843 421
19.0 9.5
4.6 2.3
23.6 11.8
850 850
84 42
Btu/hr
17
9
91
46
697
843
9.5
4.6
14.1
850
84
18
2
91
41
287
421
0.1
0.0
0.1
850
42
19
139
0
5
277
421
,
0.1
230.4
230.5
1500
42
23
138
0
5
275
418
0.0
2.3
2.3
850
42
^ ' Includes Stream
Li2C03,
K2C03,
26^' 31
7 0.8
0 0.0
5 0.0
410 1.7
422 2.5
0.0 0.1
2.3 228.1
2.3 228.2
930 850
42
30, #Mol/hr
0.8
0.6
0.4
1.8
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
9.4
2.3
11.7
850
-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
4. PLANT CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATES
a. Base Case (800 MW - 3% S in Coal)
1) Capital Cost Estimate
The construction cost estimate for the base case
plant is based on the following:
a) The engineering flow diagrams - PS-218-0002,
-0003 and -0004.
b) The equipment arrangement drawings - PS-218-0501,
-0502 and -0503.
c) No design or engineering development work is
included. It is presumed that the technology is known and the
engineering costs are those required to implement the design
of this known technology.
d) A soil bearing load of 3000 psf.
e) A relatively level and clear site requiring a
minimum amount of clearing and grubbing.
f) Steam will be provided from a Glaus Plant or
the power plant.
g) Sufficient quantities of adequately treated
water are available.
h) The estimated cost for construction labor is
based on an average wage rate of $6.00 per hour. No premium
time is anticipated, nor are travel or time expenses for con-
struction labor.
i) The railroad spur and land acquisition costs are
not included.
j) Spare parts, tools and a shop are excluded.
k) A conventional industrial plant electrical sys-
tem with a feeder from the power plant installed by others. The
electrical work starts at a 13.8 KV switching station.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
4-1
-------
1) Electrical heat tracing of process high tempera-
ture lines.
The summary of the Construction Cost Estimate is attached
to this section of the report, The Construction Cost Estimate
Detail Sheets for the base case plant are appended.
Table 4-1A lists the Total Estimated Capital Requirement
for the base case plant and excludes any credit for reduction in
height of the power plant stack or reduction in cost of the boiler
for reducing corrosion. Furthermore, it does not include the cost
of a Claus Plant to recover elemental sulfur.
The capital requirements are based on the following:
1. A penalty for providing a high temperature elec-
trostaticr precipitator including the penalty for larger insulated
ductwork.
2. The Construction Cost Estimate.
3. The inventory of melt in the process.
4. A contingency of 20%.
5. Interest during construction of 2.3% of the total
plant cost.
i
6. Working capital of 6.5% of the fixed capital cost.
2) Operating Cost Estimate
The operating cost estimate for the base case plant is
summarized in Table 4-lB. It is based on the following:
Plant Factor - 70%.
4-2
-------
Raw Material Costs (Delivered)
Delayed Petroleum Coke - $ll/Ton
Lithium Carbonate - 42C/#
Sodium Carbonate - 2.8£/#
Potassium Carbonate - 9.6
-------
Plant Overhead
Payroll Burdens - 18.5% of direct labor
and supervision.
50% of direct labor,
maintenance and plant
supplies.
Fixed Cost
(Capitalization Charge) - 14% of the estimated
capital requirement to
cover depreciation,
taxes and insurance.
The operating cost estimate excludes credits for by-
product sulfur, heat recovery and savings in coal costs for using
3% sulfur in coal rather than a lower sulfur coal.
b. Alternate Cases
The construction cost estimates for the alternate cases
were developed from the base case plant estimates. The exception
is that in the Copper Smelter Reverberatory Furnace Case (Case 10)
reheat of an existing 600°F electrostatic precipitator off-gas
was considered rather than installing a new electrostatic pre-
cipitator. The construction cost summaries for the alternate
cases are attached to this section of the report.
The capital requirements and operating cost estimates for
the alternate cases were derived from the same unit costs or fac-
tors used in the base case plant except for a 90% plant factor
used in the Copper Smelter Case. The same exclusions apply to
the alternate cases as the base case.
4-4
-------
The estimated capital requirements for Cases 2 through
10 are listed in Tables 4-2A through 4-10A. The operating cost
estimate for these alternate cases are listed in Tables 4-2B
through 4-10B; and for each case are located immediately after
its associated estimated capital requirement.
For comparative purposes, the total estimated capital
requirements and operating cost estimate for each of the power
plant cases are summarized in Table 4-11.
-, . SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-5
-------
Table 4-lA. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 1 (Base)
Plant: 800 MW - 3% Sulfur in Coal .
Cost ($10J)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty: 1,850
Construction Cost Estimate
(From Summary Sheet) 8,338
Total Construction Cost 10,188
Melt Inventory in Process 98
Subtotal 10,286
Contingency 2,057
Total Plant Cost 12,343
Interest During Construction (2.3% of
Total Plant Cost) 284
Fixed Capital Cost 12,627
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed
Capital Cost) 821
Estimated Capital Requirements 13,448
$/KW = 16.81
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic precip-
itator. Includes only the differential cost for using a 99.5%
efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator instead
of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of the
boiler.
4-6
-------
Table 4-lB. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 1 (Base)
Plant: 800 MW - 3% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Costs:
(Cost $103)
1) Materials:
Coke 766
Carbonate 929
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 379
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 57
\
6) Utilities 220
Total Direct Cost 2,510
B. Indirect Costs;
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor & supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 280
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total indirect Cost 310
C. Fixed Costs;
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances) 1,883
Total Annual Operating Cost^ 4,703
Mills/KWH 0.95
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat
recovery and lower cost of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-7
-------
Table 4-2A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 2
Plant: 800 MW - 1% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty: 830
Construction Cost Estimate
(From Summary Sheet) 6,236
Total Construction Cost 7,066
Melt Inventory in Process 33
Subtotal 7,099
Contingency 1,420
Total Plant Cost . 8,519
Interest During Construction (2.3% of
Total Plant Cost) 196
Fixed Capital Cost 8,715
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 566
Estimated Capital Requirements 9,281
$/KW = 11.60
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of the
boiler.
4-8
-------
Table 4-2B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 2
Plant:. 800 MW - 1% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
1) Materials
Cost ($103)
Coke 255
Carbonate 721
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 261
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 39
6) Utilities 151
Total Direct Cost 1,586
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor
and supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 212
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost 242
C. Fixed Cost
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances) 1,299
Total Annual Operating Cost^ 3,129
Mills/KWH 0.63
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur and heat
recovery.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
4-9
-------
Table 4^3A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 3
Plant: 800 MW - 6% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 1,972
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 10,028
Total Construction Cost 12,000
Melt Inventory in Process 196
Subtotal 12,196
Contingency 2,439
Total Plant Cost 14,635
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 337
Fixed Capital Cost 14,972
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 973
Estimated Capital Requirements 15,945
$/KW = 19.93
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic
precipitator. Includes only the differential cost for
using a 99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic
precipitator instead of a 99% efficient low temperature
electrostatic precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Claus Plant for recovery of elemen-
tal sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of
the boiler.
4-10
-------
Table 4-3B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 3
Plant: 800 MW - 6% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 1,532
Carbonate 1,241
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 449
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 67
6) Utilities 324
Total Direct Cost 3,772
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor
and supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 320
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost 350
C. Fixed Cost
(14% of estimated capital requirement 2,232
to cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost^ ' 6,354
Mills/KWH 1.28
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat
recovery and lower cost of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-11
-------
Table, 4-4A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 4
Plant: 400 MW - 3% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 1,000
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 5, 320
Total Construction Cost 6,320
Melt Inventory in Process 49
, Subtotal 6,369
Contingency . : 1^274
Total Plant Cost 7,643
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 176
Fixed Capital Cost 7,819
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 508
Estimated Capital Requirements 8,327
$/KW = 20.82
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The costof a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of
the boiler.
4-12
-------
Table 4-4B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 4
Plant: 400 MW - 3% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 383
Carbonate 465
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/ shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 234
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 35
6) Utilities 110
Total Direct Cost 1,386
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor
and supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 196
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total indirect Cost 226
C. Fixed Cost
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances) -A
Total Annual Operating Cost^ 2,778
Mills/KWH 1.12
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat
recovery and lower cost of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
4-13
-------
Table 4-5A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 5
Plant: 400 MW - 1% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 420
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 4,184
Total Construction Cost 4,604
Melt Inventory in Process 16
Subtotal 4,620
Contingency 924
Total Plant Cost 5,544
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 128
Fixed Capital Cost 5,672
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 369
Estimated Capital Requirements 6,041
$/KW = 15.10
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of
the boiler.
4-14
-------
Table 4-5B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 5
Plant: 400 MW - 1% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 127
Carbonate 361
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 170
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 26
6) Utilities 76
Total Direct Cost 919
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor
and supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 160
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost 190
C. Fixed Cost 846
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost^1' 1,955
Mills/KWH 0.79
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur and heat
recovery premium.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-15
-------
Table 4-6A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 6
Plant: 400 MW - 6% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 1,060
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 6,383
Total Construction Cost 7,443
Melt Inventory in Process 98
Subtotal 7,541
Contingency 1,508
Total Plant Cost 9,049
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 208
Fixed Capital Cost 9,257
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 602
Estimated Capital Requirements 9,859
$/KW = 24.65
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of the
boiler.
4-16
-------
Table 4-6B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 6
Plant: 400 MW - 6% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 766
Carbonate 621
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 278
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 42
6) Utilities 162
Total Direct Cost 2,028
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor and
supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 222
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost 252
C. Fixed Cost 1,380
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost'-1-' 3,660
Mills/KWH 1.48
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat
recovery and lower cost of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
4-17
-------
Table 4-7A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 7
Plant: 1000 MW - 3% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 2,130
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 10,425
Total Construction Cost 12,555
Melt Inventory in Process 123
Subtotal 12,678
Contingency 2,536
Total Plant Cost 15,214
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 350
Fixed Capital Cost 15,564
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 1,012
Estimated Capital Requirements 16,576
$/KW = 16.58
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of the
boiler.
4-18
-------
Table 4-7B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 7
Plant: 1000 MW - 3% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 959
Carbonate 1,161
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 467
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 70
6) Utilities 275
Total Direct Cost 3,091
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor
and supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 330
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost 360
C. Fixed Cost 2,321
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost^ 5,772
Mills/KWH 0.93
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat
recovery and lower cost of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-19
-------
Table 4-8A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 8
Plant: 1000 MW - 1% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 870
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 7,633
Total Construction Cost 8,503
Melt Inventory in Process 41
Subtotal 8,544
Contingency 1,709
Total Plant Cost 10,253
Interest During Construction (2,3% of Total
Plant Cost) 236
Fixed Capital Cost 10,489
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 682
Estimated Capital Requirements . 11,171
$/KW = 11.17
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3)- The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of the
boiler.
4-20
-------
Table 4-8B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 8
Plant: 1000 MW - 1% Sulfur in Coal
A. Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 319
Carbonate 901
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 4/shift 123
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 315
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 47
6) utilities 189
Total Direct Cost , 1,930
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor and
supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 243
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total indirect Cost 273
C. Fixed Cost 1,564
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost^ 3,767
Mills/KWH 0.61
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur and heat
recovery.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-21
-------
Table 4-9A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 9
Plant: 1000 MW - 6% Sulfur in Coal
Cost ($103)
Electrostatic Precipitator Penalty 2,352
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 12,648
Total Construction Cost 15,000
Melt Inventory in Process 245
Subtotal 15,245
Contingency 3,049
Total Plant Cost 18,294
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 431
Fixed Capital Cost 18,725
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 1,217
Estimated Capital Requirements 19,942
$/KW = 19.94
The following are excluded:
(1) The total installed cost of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Includes only the differential cost for using a
99.5% efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator
instead of a 99% efficient low temperature electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of elemental
sulfur.
(3) The credits for reducing power plant stack height
and reducing corrosion at the low temperature portion of
the boiler.
4-22
-------
Table 4-9B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 9
Plant: 1000 MW - 6% Sulfur in Coal
A- Direct Cost
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 1,915
Carbonate 1,551
2) Direct Labor ($3.50Ar) 4/Shift 123
3) Supervision ($9/000/yr) I/Shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 562
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 84
6) Utilities 405
Total Direct Cost 4,676
B, Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 30
(18.5% of direct labor and
supervision)
2) Plant Overhead 385
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost 415
C. Fixed Cost 2,792
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost^1^ 7,883
Mills/KWH 1.27
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat recovery
and lower cost of high sulfur coal.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-23
-------
Table 4-10A. Estimated Capital Requirements
Case: 10
Plant: 200 T/D Copper Smelter Reverberatory Furnace
Equivalent Sulfur in Gases - 50 T/D
Cost (SIO3)
Reheat System 376
Construction Cost Estimate (From Summary Sheet) 2,297
Total Construction Cost 2,673
Melt Inventory in Process 25
Subtotal 2,698
Contingency 540
Total Plant Cost 3,238
Interest During Construction (2.3% of Total
Plant Cost) 74
Fixed Capital Cost 3,312
Working Capital (6.5% of Fixed Capital Cost) 215
Estimated Capital Requirements 3,527
The following is excluded:
(1) The cost of a Glaus Plant for recovery of
elemental sulfur.
4-24
-------
Table 4-10B. Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Case: 10
Plant: 200 T/D Copper Smelter Reverberatory Furnace
Equivalent Sulfur in Gases - 50 T/D
A. Direct Cost; - 90% Plant Factor
Cost ($103)
1) Materials
Coke 246
Carbonate 118
2) Direct Labor ($3.50/hr) 2/Shift 62
3) Supervision ($9,000/yr) I/Shift 36
4) Maintenance (3% of fixed capital) 99
5) Plant Supplies (15% of maintenance) 15
6) Utilities 50
Total Direct Cost 626
B. Indirect Cost
1) Payroll Burdens 18
(18.5% of direct labor and
supervision)
2) plant Overhead 88.
(50% of direct labor, maintenance
and plant supplies)
Total Indirect Cost .106
C. Fixed Cost 494
(14% of estimated capital requirement to
cover depreciation, taxes and insurances)
Total Annual Operating Cost^ 1,226
$/Ton of Copper 18.66
(1) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur and heat
recovery.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4-25
-------
Table 4-11. Comparison of Capital & Operating Cost for SOX Removal from Power Plants
to
Power Plant
Capital Requirements
(1)
Operating Cost
(2)
Case No.
1 (Base)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MW
800
800
800
400
400
400
1,000
1,000
1,000
Sulfur in Coal
3%
1
6
3
1
6
3
1
6
$x!03
13,448
9,281
15,945
8,327
6,041
9,859
16,576
11,171
19,942
$/KW
16.81
11.60
19.93
20.82
15.10
24.65
16.58
11.17
19.94
$xlo3/Vear
4,703
3,127
6,354
2,778
1,955
3,660
5,772
3,767
7,883
Mills/KWH
0.95
0.63
1.28
1.12
0.79
1.48
0.93
0.61
1.27
Notes:
(1) includes penalty for high temperature electrostatic precipitator. Excludes
cost of Glaus Plant and credits for reducing power plant stack height and
reducing corrosion in boiler.
(2) Excludes credits for byproduct sulfur, heat recovery and lower cost of high
sulfur coal.
(3) Mills/produced KWH at 70% Plant Factor.
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER NAPC A
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
t
A-I. MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
CASE 1
800 M V/
3% S. IM CoAL
«
PROP. MO.
CONT. NO. PS - 2 1 8
MADE BV J.O-J.
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense f
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense \
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office __j
f Engi'neeri'ncf Development Cost Nat Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5%
Equipment Rental 1 Included In Indirect
Small Tools J F,'elcJ Costs.
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax fMoi Included.
SUB-TOTAL
Penalties (Precipttatbr $ Vac^s)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
83000
89700
68000
-
103110
267 430
1 41 500
74230
Z610
S 37 550
70% *L.
10 fc x M.
-
15'/,
SUB-CONTRACTS
—
-
•"-
65500
1 {?&400(
—
S800
~*
1^1000
Z, 230300
, »
MATERIALS
—
120300
157000
1.514220
401 100
284 200
477 3ZG
1 (Hy
Z/?55,230
TOTAL
O 3 (\ ( '
Q w y • ' •'
2100''
22501:
^5(.'0
3,5813.--'..
v 4435^
55 1 5.;,
6,023,0^0
88 \ 820
6,904900
1,035 M
794050*'
397000
'
83375Cf
1 B500CO
11-16-70 RFVISIOM HO..
REVISION DATE.
PAGE NO..
£. 134
-------
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT A.I
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
NAPCA DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
CASE 2
800 MW
1% S.tn COAL
• MOLTED L?A,R80KUTe PRotFSS
PKOP. NO. .
CONT. NO. .
MADE BY
APPROVED .
PS-218
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance \
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office /
-
(Encji needing Development Cost Not InoludedL)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee £%
Equipment Rental 1 Deluded |f> Indirect
Small Tools J Field Co${
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax; jVJot Included
SUB-TOTAL
Penalties (Precipitafor $ Ducts)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CtNT* OMITTED
LABOR
63000
67300
54-500
-
66920
Z IB ^0!)
| |q £00
66.SCQ
2470
654550
70'/. x L,
1554
t
SUB- CONTRACTS
—
-
-
£>5"500
1,43*000
—
1800
152800
ly 664 tOO
•
MATERIALS
—
90300
\tS5QO
975750
310300
22*7 400
42,^ 50$
930
I, 170310
"
TOTAL
63 OCO
15760^
180 000
65 500
2480 760
' 534 500
3 54 BOD
4
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
rnsrourR IX A r t M.
LOCATION
PROJPCT A.I. M»i/rtw CARBflVATE P/?OC,
DESCRIPTION O U M M A K T
CASE 3
800 M W
67. S. IN COAL
£S<
mop. NO.
CONT. NO. PS -
APPROVED
215
U,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding -
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities "*\
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense f
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance j
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense *
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office )
(Engineering Development Cost Not Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5%
Equipment Rental 1 InJurf ^ l>) \h(l \ftrf
Small Tools j f^\d CcX*t
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax fjp-r; jnclucfecL
SUB-TOTAL
Pen alt /es ( Free ipifa. tor $ Duct*,)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CIMTS OMITTED
LABOR
WOO
107600
74-800
_
1234(0
320800
H9400
89 100
ZS80
msw
70% vL
iO'/jkM.
15%
.
SUB.CONTRACTS
—
—
—
65500
Z.ZSbOOO
—
11700
24S300
Z,5B\50Q
*
MATERIALS
—
144400
I7270D
—
f, 94-7440
48IE00
34j 100
572 &00
U30
S, 661370
TOTAL
°>16CO
assooo
24 7 50 j
65 50 C
4,3273c;
80&OC1)
53, Z 2C:.»
661 900
25241.)
7, E40460
t, 064- 44(3
8,304^00
1,245,7^
9;5SO;60C
477 400
la oa8,occ
K-
-------
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT Aii_
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
NAPCA DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Moi-TeW CA«?8«*//4TG ftocesy
CA SE A-
400 M u/.
3'/, S. IM COAL
PHOP. NO.
CONT. NO. PS * 2 I
MADE BY J • a J,
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & GroJing
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities "*
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Stcff, Subsistence & Expense f
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance j"
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense V
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office J
(Engineering Development Cost Mot Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5%
Equipment Rental \JhclurJe4 lh Ifccilrtct
Small Tools J p|£/.4 CojTV
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Taxi H/0t Inclt4cjfid.
SUB-TOTAL
Penaitit^ (Pr«clf»/tit«r $ Ductv)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CENT* OMITTED
LABOR
5S10Q
63000
51000
_.
6\810
IS12.00
104600
44606
1570
571^40
70LL,
lO'/ovM.
15%
t
SUB-CONTRACTS
—
~>
—
6550C
U7S40C
-
6 ^00
—
(15000
\Zb5&b(.
*
MATERIALS
-
84200
120000
—
903540
"ISQ&OQ
1 Q<^ D0£
286400
700
/ '
TOTAL
53 IP:)
147 20 •>
6mj
54^80u i
3I05CJ
331001
II7Z7.J
3;8I73£0
5S82ZC
440570C
-
66080(
5066500
25350C
5,320 COG
1 OOOOCO
>
DATE JJ-f6-7<> pcvisiOM »0._
REVISION OATE-
PAGE MO..
Faun
E-154
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER r* (\ f U
LOCATION
PROJECT A •)• Moi-"1?** CAR&I
f\ DESCRIPTION O U M M
CASE
• 4oo h
U S. «M
»tf»T£ "8w«2tf
ART
5
4> W-
COAL
PROP. NO.
CONT. NO. PS ' Z 1 8
UAnr HV- J •»• «*•
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities ~
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense j
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance j
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense r
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office J
.Eriqineennq Development Cost Not Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5%
Equipment Rental ) |hcludee{ in. Inject
Small Tools J pifil-4 C*&tt-
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax )4(rf |rtc.|uci ed.
SUB-TOTAL
Pen allies (Precjp.'idfd*' t Ducf*)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTCO
LABOR
44100
47200
40400
—
43 540
I6E300
63 7fl0
40 100
1 506
463340
70%x L .
tor.xM.'
15*
SUB-CONTRACTS
-
-
—
6550G
^34-700
»
5500
/*<*
*l 1,700
1 037400
'
-
MATERIALS
—
63ZQO
—
634 2 W
22.4700
15^100
257 700
600
f 433 560
TOTAL
4-4 WO
1 I 0500
134700
65 5CO
i £ i o £r, .^
1. w 1 cL .> w v
357 OCO
Z4B 400
2^7 ffliJ
^3 80C
2 ^4300
470700
34^5000
5iq 800
^J I u ** O v V
1 Q Cv ^ rt ^
.
4,184000
420000
PATF H- \C-1Q
10..
REVISION DATE-
PAGE NO..
4-31
Font
E-154
-------
CUSTOMER
1 OCAT10N
PROJECT A. /. M*<.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
^lAPCA DESCRIPTION St/MMdRV
T*U CA88'f>*Tt ^Kac
£4{
CA5G (a
400 M. \A/,
6% -S. /A) COAL.
PROP. NO.
CONT. NO. ^$ '"Llf
Uinr RV V-*J'
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM 4 DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities "~\
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense j
Craft Fringe Benefits I
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday 1
Payroll Burdens & Insurance J .
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense *
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office j
Engineering; Development Cost Not Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5 '/.
Equipment Rental ") Include^ Ih / hfiil r 4 c"f*
Small Tools j fieJ^ £05 1$
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax
SUB-TOTAL
penafhes (Prec*f>itct/r ^p^<:f<)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
69 tfQO
75300
56100
74100
224600
IZ5600
55500
I 600
680800
70/iy L-
15%
SUB-CONTRACTS
-
—
—
65505
1 353600
—
5200
[4
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER N A F C #
LOCATION
41 /"* V
,1. M0LY?l) ^-A8Bi>A>AT£ I]
DESCRIPTION -^t-I fV
CA5(
1000
j 3% -S
fe»c*«
1 M A KY
5 7
M.U/,
PROP. NO.
CONT. NO.
MADE BY
APPROVED
?S'T.[%
J.-r.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
^J
^i o o
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities "1
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense f"
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense «•
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office J
(Engineering Development Cost Not Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5'/,
Equipment Rental •) Ucltt4«l 'b Wire*."**
Small Tools \ Fie(fj Cfi f t.
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax fJ0-f lhCl'i'4^^
SUB-TOTAL
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CENT* OMITTED
LABOR
103 a1 oc
II t>200
84-bQO
—
128700
340200
177300
I 04400
4000
I,056UO
70%vL
lOT *M
*
15%
,
SUB-CONTRACTS
«•
—
IB 600
' -
10700
2 36 (,00
2/?JfH00
MATERIALS
—
\4l3oo
R7500
f g<\2, g$0
510300
34^^00
sguooo
t ooo
3,6647/30
TOTAL
\Q30VO
Zt>k 100
£82 l£3
16 6CO
4,476700
£50503
537200
242600
7, 52 4 200
1, 1ft ^, 500
8,633760
1 2. ^ 5" 0 06
1, fc I V
o a o $ 7 0 J
4-
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION _
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
\OO<> M-
. PROP. NO. .
. CONT. NO..
PROJECT
AL
. MADE BY
.APPROVED.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense f'
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance _j
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting J
Purchasing & Accounting J
Office Expense v
Office Payroll Burdens I
Indirect Costs-Office J
(EhjjineeMhcj Development Cost Not Included.)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5 In
Equipment Rental ") |nclur!*f/ »n Ipcltr^Tr
Small Tools J £,g j^ fa \
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax Vi"\ jrtfrl «fi{ £#f
SUB-TOTAL
\&t*C(\i\e$ C n'c^'pi idS" \ yttc-'iJ
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTCD
LABOR
71360
QQSbO
235"7oo
3400
72l9ooc
«
>
SU8. CONTRACTS
load
U2bw
2, 0456o6
MATERIALS
\014M
\$t>too
£4\foo
TOTAL
713CJ
312?ol
417 So
I O\ 5o-v
•?864oo
34i?2-Ct5
72 7 0 OCO
3 63 Otic
1 (,13Mb
DATE
Revision »o.l
REVISION DATE.
PAGE NO..
4-34
FORM
E. 154
-------
CUSTOMER N
LOCATION
PROJECT A . I . Mfl t-1 ZfJ
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
/4RC4 DESCRIPTION f3tfMM4£Y'
^AF9at)ti7£, ftft3cJeff
r,A5E 9
\ooo M • U/i
(s>'/t $, itn <^^4c*
PROP. NO.
CONT. NO. P £ —"2.1 #
• u»nr RY 4 . J • J •
APPROVER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
rt
T 0 0
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance ^
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office ^
EngihetftMnef Development Cost Not Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5%
Equipment Rental") Udi^W/ '•» l^lt&C^'
Small Tools j pi&ldi £04*4
Royalty/Know-How
Sales Tax \| 4t lh&lufJ£c£
SUB-TOTAL
Penalties CfVtcipif^ttf ^ 3>u&fc.)
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
r
>
ESTIMATED COST
CCMTl OMITTIO
LABOR
IZ4-400
14-1600
1 1 4 3fl£
—
154300
4) 1 100
1 (o^oOC
1106
It? r* jt A
j O A- 1 ^ 0
7o%xL
• ^ f
i
15%
,
SUB-CONTRACTS
—
-»-
—
7B600
Esaeooo
*-•
i "3 00£
—
2g63ad
3 lQ
40140(5
o (tbAffi?
1 1t)D
45ZIZoo
TOTAL
i e4 400
3 I q I0i)
340806'
5,4-0^200
I 0271Cu
'64^ ICO
6S3005
Z<\Z (00
^, Q14QOO
1,4-ao 5od
104745"oo
I.51UOO
12. 04>?7iy
'/ n? ^n ^
.
12. 64^(5(30
z; 3 52.0 a
DATE
BFVISIOli «0..
REVISION DATE.
PAGE HO..
4-35
Fo«u
E. IS4
-------
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT A.I, to
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
MA PC A DESCRIPTION StfMMARY
C A. *f f™ I ^^
^** ^» B' ^-* 1 tx
CflPPftR. S"HclT$S
£*" ^
\o\st st* CARSOI)AJS. uwie«5
f
PROP. NO.
5- CONT. NO.
MAoe or_
APPROVED
p* -Mg
•J-/.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ITEM & DESCRIPTIOH
Excavation & Grading
Concrete & Masonry
Structural Steel
Building Components
Machinery & Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instruments & Controls
Insulation, Painting & Scaffolding
DIRECT FIELD COSTS
Temporary Construction Facilities *"N
Miscellaneous Services, Supplies & Expense
Constr. Tools & Equip. (Service & Handling)
Travel Time & Expense (Field Personnel)
Field Staff, Subsistence & Expense
Craft Fringe Benefits
Vacation, Sick Leave & Holiday
Payroll Burdens & Insurance
INDIRECT FIELD COSTS
TOTAL FIELD COSTS
Engineering & Drafting
Purchasing & Accounting
Office Expense <
Office Payroll Burdens
Indirect Costs-Office J
EtiqinaeKirq Development Cost Not Included)
TOTAL OFFICE COSTS
TOTAL FIELD & OFFICE COSTS
Fee 5%
Equipment Rental
Small Tools
Royalry/Know-How
Sales Tax
SUB-TOTAL
Escalation Labor
Material
Contingency Labor
Material
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CCNTS OMtrrco
LABOR
ZZopo
itfxci
70°^x- L
lOHxM.
15%
,.„>
SUB.CONTRACTS
S^CGd
46Sco
4 7 $006
MATERIALS
54200
11 001
4-65loo
//$ 24)
•
TOTAL
32 oca
IIO^OC;)
It04ti
14-0 ZCd
lt t>"5loti
111 OM
/& /% ^ A S*A
/ W £j & I* iS
& (f *** & ** J
7, I ?73Gs)
'376 WO
/I- f7-7a BEVISIOII »o..
REVISION DATE.
PAGE NO..
FORK
E-IS4
-------
5. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS-PROBLEMS
In evaluating the Molten Carbonate Process for removal of SOX
from new and existing power plants and copper smelters it has be-
come evident that the available bench scale data are insufficient
to fully define the design and economic aspects of the process.
Certain-problem areas were recognized by Atomics International;
other apparent problem areas have come to light during this study.
Still more may become evident in a pilot plant program.
This section of the report contains a discussion of both tech-
nical and economic problems that may be encountered should this
process be applied to power plants and copper smelters.
a. Absorber
Atomics International has proposed the following criteria
for the design of the absorber:
1) Maximum superficial gas velocity: 25 ft/sec.
2) Inlet molar ratio to the absorber, M2C03 to SOX:
10:1 maximum.
3) Melt recycle rate to the absorber: 3:1 maximum.
4) Mol percent M2C03 in the absorber exit melt:
68.0 minimum.
Atomics International has reported detailed feasibility
studies on the spray absorption of SOX compounds in molten car-
Donates. These tests were made on a laboratory bench scale. Ef-
fective SOX removal was determined at superficial column gas ve-
locities as great as 25 ft/sec. The adjustment of experimental
results for absorption by the wetted column wall also showed ade-
quate spray absorption at this range of gas velocity.
The absorption of sulfur oxides in molten carbonates was
also demonstrated on the bench scale using a wetted wall tube and
a baffle column. The use of absorber designs such as slats, trays
or packed towers was not excluded by Atomics International for
future consideration.
The proposed absorber design criteria are summarized in
Figure 5-1 with the design range shown as a cross-hatched area.
These demonstration values do not include a small increase in
M2C03 quantity in the melt, as needed to maintain specified molar
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5-1
-------
Ui
I
ts>
3
M
O
CO
4J
cd
g
n)
M
1
U
a
o
O
U
100
90
80
70 i,
60
50
40
30
20
10
L=2724
1=2724
L/G=0.0116
68%
L=1622
1=1622
L/G=0.0069
=3243
1=1622
L/G=0.01
No Recycle
1:1 Recycle
2:1 Recycle
3:1 Recycle
1622
L/G=0.0207
1=64^6
1=1622
L/G=0.0276
10:1
_L
I
_L
_L
_L
I
I
Design range is shown.
cross hatched.
L is total moIs of melt
to absorber, per hour.
1 is total moIs of melt
to reducer, per hour.
G is total mols of gas
to absorber, per hour.
Recycle is the number of
mols of melt which is
returned to the absorber
divided by the number of
mols of melt advancing
to the reducer.
Flow rates pertain to
the base case: 800MW,
3% S in coal.
Dissolved KCl not in-
cluded in melt compo-
sitions.
0123456789 10 11
Ratio of mols M^CC^: mols SO^ Entering Absorber
Figure 5-1. Absorber Operating Limits (Based on A-I Design Parameters)
12
-------
concentrations in the presence of dissolved KCl derived from
chlorides contained in the coal.
A 1:1 ratio of absorber melt to fresh melt with 68 mol
percent M2C03 concentration in the melt at the absorber outlet
was selected as a desirable design target. Higher recycle rati-
os can be achieved by increasing the capacity of the absorber
pumps. Such an increase in recycle ratio may be necessary if
the absorber design departs from the spray concept proposed by
Atomics International. These inlet conditions were used for
the material balance appearing in Drawing PS-218-0001, and also
in the materials flows presented for the alternate cases. All
power plant material balances include dissolved KCl in the melt.
The process flow diagram (Drawing PS-218-0001) shows a
M2c°3:S°x rati° of 6:1 with a 1:1 melt recycle ratio. (It
should be noted that the corresponding conditions in Figure 5-1
apply to a slightly lower M2C03:SOX molar ratio of 5.4:1 since
dissolved KCl was not included in these demonstration calcula-
tions.) This results in an L/G ratio (total mols of melt to
total mols of gas) of 0.015, when columns are connected in par-
allel for both gas and liquid flow. The absorber pumps as de-
signed are capable of a 3:1 melt recirculation ratio. If oper-
ated in this manner, the M2C03:SOX ratio would be about 10:1,
giving an L/G ratio of about 0.03.
There are a number of questions which must still be
resolved for the final design of the absorber.
1) The performance of a commercial sized absorber
with this low L/G ratio is questionable. To improve further
the L/G ratio, the absorbers have been designed for series
flow on the liquir" side (while maintaining parallel gas flow)
at the maximum absorber recycle ratio of 3:1. This change
further increases the L/G ratio from 0.03 to about 0.12.
This series-parallel arrangement, however, changes certain
flow characteristics basic to the design of the absorber.
Thus, the M2C03:SOX ratio in the first absorber would be
about 40:1. In the other absorbers, the incoming flue gases
would come into contact with progressively decreasing con-
centrations of M2CC>3. The melt leaving the last absorber
remains at the specified minimum M2C03 concentration of 68
mol percent. The effect of this M2C03 concentration gradi-
ent requires further examination although the ability to
remove SOX is not expected to be significantly impaired.
2) The scaleup of the absorber design from bench
scale data requires confirmation, perhaps more than any
other part of the process. Particular attention is needed
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5-3
-------
to identify the wetted wall effect in bench or pilot scale spray-
tower absorption. Atomics International has attempted to account
for and to correct for the wall effect, in their experiments. How-
ever, it appears that additional work on a larger unit is necessary
to check these initial test results. Wetted wall effects are ex-
pected to be minimal in full scale operation.
3) Atomics International found that spray droplet size
was critical to absorber efficiency. The critical calculations
indicate a droplet in the range of 100 microns should prove ef-
fective. Bench scale tests showed that small droplets performed
much better than large ones although actual droplet size proved
difficult to measure with assurance of accuracy.
The spray nozzles to be used in a commercial unit
should be thoroughly evaluated.
4) The demisters will require detailed study* The ob-
jective will be to design a demister which will hold melt carry-
over to an acceptable minimum while.conforming with pressure loss
considerations, and at the same time not be plugged with melt or
fly ash.
Although Atomics International has obtained good SOX
removal efficiencies using high.gas velocities, about 25 ft/sec,
the possible effects of such high velocities -must be determined
in a large unit-. The prime concern of high gas velocity is that
in a spray absorber small droplets of melt will be carried off
with the scrubbed gases, in spite of the use of demisters. This
loss of melt is undesirable from an economic standpoint and not
acceptable from a corrosion standpoint because the scrubbed gases
are returned to the boiler where the materials of construction
are not likely to be compatible with melt. Furthermore, the melt
carryover may be emitted to the atmosphere from the boiler stack
causing additional pollution problems.
5) The possible plugging of the spray nozzles producing
the fine droplets by fly ash must be checked by additional test-
ing. The melt is recycled to the absorbers upstream of the fly
ash filter, in order to reduce the filter load. Consequently,
there will be some fly ash in the melt which is recycled to the
absorbers which may limit the usefulness of recycle melt if it
is needed for flushing the demisters.
6) !Another area where further work is desirable is the
evaluation of other types of columns, such as a slat tower, tray
tower or a packed tower. The work should be performed to evalu-
ate the absorption efficiency at minimum pressure drop and melt
carryover. These absorbers do not require as fine a liquid
5-4
-------
droplet as the spray tower, and are likely therefore to reduce
melt carryover. However, the gas pressure drop is considerably
higher for these types than for spray towers and the towers them-
selves are generally more expensive.
In summary, large scale absorption development is de-
sirable to confirm the bench scale absorption performance re-
ported by Atomics International. Larger scale tests would also
define demisting requirements as well as localized effects such
as nozzle plugging or solids buildup. The results of such tests
would develop a firmer basis for design utilizing the unique ab-
sorption properties of molten carbonates.
b. Reducer
There are a number of problems associated with the re-
ducer which are still to be resolved by further experimentation.
One of the areas which still requires investigation is
the matter of materials of construction. From this standpoint
this is the most crucial part of the process because the temper-
ature, at 1500° F, is higher than elsewhere in the system.
In Section 6, Paragraph d, there is a discussion of sev-
eral methods of construction that were investigated. The method
selected includes the use of a high alumina brick, such as Alun-
dum, as back-up to Monofrax which is in contact with melt. The
Monofrax (which is much costlier than Alundum and has a higher
thermal conductivity) is known to be resistant to melt.
The Monofrax, however, is not completely free of voids,
and melt which seeps through the Monofrax voids and joints will
come into contact with the Alundum. It has been assumed that
melt will not detrimentally affect the Alundum but this will
have to be tested.
The design of a vessel with three dissimilar materials
in contact with each other presents extensive design problems
because of differential expansion. It will be necessary to ob-
tain accurate temperature profiles to facilitate the design of
such a unit.
The concept of a two-zone reducer is another area which
requires additional work to insure operability. The object of
the two-zone approach is to separate the oxidation gases - ni-
trogen (contained in the combustion air), from the reduction
gases - essentially CO? evolved in the reduction of metal sul-
phates to the metal sulphides. The oxidation gases, after be-
ing exchanged against combustion air, are returned to the power
SINGMASTER S BREYER
5-5
-------
plant along with the scrubbed flue gases. The reduction zone gases
are fed to the Regenerator.
The mechanical design of the reducer will have to be inves-
tigated to determine the proper parameters for making this separa-
tion as fine as possible. Factors which will have to be checked
include area and configuration of openings between oxidation and re-
duction sections to obtain proper circulation. It is important to
attain a good separation here because any nitrogen from the oxida-
tion section which reports with the reducer gases will go through
the Regenerator, into the Glaus Plant. Equipment sizing would be
affected, and the heat content of the gas not be easily recoverable.
Dilution of reduction zone gases, however, may be beneficial to the
number of theoretical trays required in the Regenerator (see Section
5, Paragraph d).
A third area where further test work should be performed is
in the coke addition. In our estimate, we have allowed for blow
tanks for introduction of the coke into the reducer section. How-
ever, it might be better {or necessary) to bring the coke in.as a
slurry with the melt. This could be accomplished by installing an
agitated, atmospheric tank ahead of the reducers, where the coke
could be added to the melt. The effect that this would have on
whether melt input should be to the oxidation or reducer section
should be investigated.
While the recovery of relatively pure carbon dioxide from
the reducer would be beneficial it is not critical to the success
of the process. An alternate source of carbon dioxide would be the
absorption of carbon dioxide from a portion of the boiler flue gas
in a conventional amine type absorber with subsequent stripping.
Neither the capital investment nor the operating cost of such a
unit are likely to affect the overall capital investment or total
operating cost significantly.
c. Reducer Off-Gas Cooling
The process scheme as conceived and shown on the Process
Flow Diagram utilizes the heat in the Reducer Oxidation Zone off-
gases to preheat the incoming combustion air to a temperature of
600° F. As a consequence, the off-gases are cooled from 1500° F
to a temperature of approximately 1120° F. (No credit has been
taken for the heat content of these gases).
If the off-gases were cooled to 850° F, the combustion air
can be heated to 915° F. The Air-Oxidation Zone Exchanger, E-2,
has been conservatively designed for this latter case. The coke
consumption for raising the combustion air to the 1500° F reducer
temperature has been based on the 600° F preheat.
5-6
-------
Consideration must be given to the possibility that chlo-
rides dissolved in the reducer melt may vaporize and be carried
with the off-gas to condense on the tubes of the exchanger thus
seriously reducing the heat transfer coefficient and introducing
a serious danger of corrosion. This possibility must be examined
during the pilot plant program as to problems in heat transfer
as well as the release of chlorides to the flue gas stream re-
turning to the boiler. If it occurs, shot cleaning of the ex-
changer tubes can be incorporated in the design of the exchanger
to minimize the effect of the chloride solids condensing on the
tubes. The shot cleaning equipment has not been included in the
capital cost estimate.
Carryover of hot melt with the off-gas must also be con-
sidered since this too may cause corrosion of the exchanger
tubes at temperatures above 1000 °F. At lower surface tempera-
tures, the entrained melt may condense on the tubes to reduce
the heat transfer coefficient.
An alternate to preheating combustion air with oxidation
zone gases is to use a portion of the waste heat available in the
reduced melt or in the Regenerator melt streams. The capital
cost for the exchanger to accomplish the air preheat by this
method has not been estimated but could approximate the cost of
the Air-Oxidation Zone Exchangers. A danger exists in the use
of this type of exchanger; the melt is cooled by relatively cold
air which may cause freezing. In the air-cooled exchangers pres-
ently contemplated for cooling the reduced melt and regenerator
streams there is also a danger of freezing melt but these units
are equipped with external air bypasses to recirculate hot air
to temper the inlet air which will minimize the freezing. They
are also equipped with steam coils to heat the air during start-
up should this be required. It is probable that a similar system
could be designed for a combustion air preheater using hot melt
as the source of heat.
There are two advantages that are apparent in elimina-
ting the Air-Oxidation Zone Exchanger.
1) The heat available in the return of 1500 °F off-gas
to the boiler above an 850 °F datum is 18 million BTU/HR for the
base case plant. This is equivalent to an annual saving assum-
ing the boiler equipment can take advantage of this additional
heat, of $33,000 at a value of 30£ per million BTU.
2) Any problems associated with chloride or melt con-
densation on exchanger tubes will be eliminated from the process.
The gases can be mixed with the absorber off-gas at 850 °F where
the small amount of chlorides will condense on contact with the
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5 = 7
-------
colder gas and be carried as fine particulate matter to the boiler.
The penalty for not preheating the combustion air is
additional coke consumed in the reducer. Waste heat valued at
30£/million BTU's is being used to replace coke valued at approxi-
mately 48C/million BTU's which would otherwise be required.
The off-gas from the reduction zone of the reducer is
cooled to the Regenerator temperature by the addition of water
and/or low pressure steam in the amount required for the regener-
ation reaction.
d. Regeneration
Atomics International, in their previously reported work,
used the McCabe-Thiele approach to determine the number of theoret-
ical trays required for the regenerator. It is believed that this
approach is valid from the preliminary information contained in the
reports.
The effect of changes in gas composition and flow on the
number of theoretical trays required to accomplish the desired
regeneration of M2S contained in the feed melt has been examined.
These studies were based on regenerator tower temperatures
ranging between 850-950°F using intermediate coolers and partial
recycle of cooled melt to upper trays. Atomic^ International
studies were based on an isothermal regenerator with cooling pro-
vided at each tray to maintain the temperature at 850°F.
Carbon Dioxide Required
The equilibrium curve for XK^S versus YH2S is based on the
following Atomics International equilibrium equations:
!.9x
Kequil =
1 + 1.24 x 10~3 Pn_ (e15'400)
\*> \J ^ TDT*
^ i\JL
XM2C03 PH2S
3 PC02 PH2O
5-8
-------
Substituting
= 1.9 x 10~6 (e 28/°°0 ) and
rjrn
RT
K2 = 1.24 x 10~3 (e 15f40° ) in equation (1)
RT results in
vs
Kequil =
(3)
Equating equations (2) and (3) at one atmosphere pressure
where the partial pressure of the gases are equal to their respec-
tive mol fractions results in the following XM2s equilibrium equa-
tion:
x
= (XM2C03) (YH2S) (1+K2
Kl (YC02)
(4)
at 850 °F, K2 = 52.9
at 950 °F, K2 = 24.7
For a constant XM2C03, Y{j2Sf and YH20 the equilibrium
equation reduces to
X
M2S
K3 (1+K2
(5)
C02
When the C02 concentration in the exit gas is above about
0.04 mol fraction, K2Yco2 is t*16 dominant factor in (l+K2Yco2) °f
equation (5) and maintaining a C02 concentration of two to three
times this value will make the equilibrium curve substantially in-
dependent of C02.
Equation (1) was developed empirically by Atomics Inter-
national on the theory that M2S and C02 act to form intermediates
such as M2CO2S. All the tests were carried out with excess amounts
of M2S. At the bottom of an actual tower, the concentration of
M2S will be quite small. Therefore, in the lower section of the
SINGMASTER S BREYER
5-9
-------
tower, the independence of the equilibrium curve on YCO$ mav not be-
valid. If so, this would cause the equilibrium curve to shift un-
favorably requiring more theoretical trays. It may be necessary to
add only H20 with less than the required amount of C02 to the bottom
of the tower and the remainder of the C02 to intermediate points.
Water Required
Inspection of equation (4) shows that for constant Xjy^CC^,
YH2S and YcO2 • tne value of X^2S is inversely proportional to Y^O-
This means that the equilibrium curve will shift favorably to de-
crease the number of theoretical trays as YH20 increases.
Number of Theoretical Trays
To substantiate our conclusions regarding the gas concentra-
tion effect on the equilibrium curve, calculations were performed to
determine the number of theoretical trays at various gas flows and
concentrations.
Figure 5-2 shows the number of theoretical trays required
for 95% regeneration of M2S as a function of gas flow for equimolar
concentrations of CO2 and H20. It also shows the effect on the num-
ber of theoretical trays for various gas flows with a constant flow
of C02 entering of 620 mols per hour for the base case with the dif-
ference constituting H20. The constant flow of 620 mols per hour was
arbitrarily selected to maintain the C02 mol fraction in the exit gas
at approximately 0.08. This is approximately 25 percent above the
stoichiometric quantity required as compared to an 85 percent excess
indicated by Atomics International.
For the base case, at YcO2 =0-5 and a C02 flow of 620mols
per hour, an infinite number of theoretical trays is required even
with an isothermal tray.
Stoichiometric quantities of CC>2 and H20 only cannot attain
the desired regeneration because it produces a Yn2S at the regener-
ator outlet of 1.0 which is above that in equilibrium with the inlet
feed.
A diluent gas such as N2 would allow essentially stoichio-
metric quantities of C02 and H2O to be used. The diluent would
lower the YH2S in the exit gas to a point where it would be in equi-
librium with the XM2s ^ the' feed. However, a greater number of
trays would be required as the quantity of H20 and C02 approaches the
stoichiometric level. Water vapor could also serve as a satisfac-
tory diluent but amounts sufficient to have a significant effect
also have a detrimental effect on the performance of the Glaus plant.
5-10
-------
Figure 5-2= Regenerator Theoretical Trays
11
10
9
to
(0
£ 8
H
m
•3 7
0
O c.
jC
^
o 5
M
V
A/\ 0
/ "^^^
^^^ O
Inlet CO^ = 620 mols/hro — — n
-------
Tray Efficiency
The actual number of trays depends on tray efficiency for
this type of contactor.
Tray efficiencies of distillation systems range between
45 and 90 percent with the lower efficiencies generally indicated
for viscous materials greater than 5 cp. It is expected that the
tray efficiency in the regenerator would be below 45 percent be-
cause
1) of the high viscosity and
2) the reaction rate must be added to a mass transfer
rate. Distillation is a mass transfer operation only.
The actual number of trays selected for this study is 15.
The theoretical number of trays required is approximately 4 based
on equimolar quantities of CC>2 and H20 at an excess of 85% with
little or no inert diluents present in the gas. /The equivalent
tray efficiency is 27 percent. It is expected the design of the
two-zone reducer will minimize the inert diluent gases (N2) that
can affect the theoretical number of trays.
Tray Type
Sieve trays were suggested by Atomics International to
permit draining of the tower to the pump tanks. However, bubble
cap trays or valve trays can be designed for drainage. Sieve
trays have a narrow range of liquid to vapor ratio for satisfac-
tory operation which in this case is constantly changing through-
out the tower. Bubble cap or valve trays have a greater range of
operation. Sieve trays must be relatively level whereas minor
variations can be tolerated with bubble cap or valve trays. On
this basis, bubble cap trays have been selected for the capital
cost estimate.
Temperature Control
The regeneration reaction is exothermic and must be con-
trolled to hold the temperature above the melting point (750-
800 °F) and below 1000 °F to limit corrosion of type 347SS.
The range of tower operation has been restricted to between
850 °F and 950 °F. To achieve this control, it is planned to
recycle cooled melt from a lower tray in the tower to an upper
tray. The design that has been used in this estimate is for
one intermediate cooler with partial recycle by temperature
control to the top section of the tower and one bottom cooler
with partial recycle again under temperature control to the
5-12
-------
lower section of the tower. This reduces the overall tower effi-
ciency because of the increased liquid to gas ratio and results
in a slight increase in the number of trays. A rise in tray tem-
perature is corrected by the addition of cooler melt containing
less M2S. This reduces the rate of reaction due to lower tempera-
ture and lower concentration of reactants.
More external coolers can be provided to reduce the re-
cycle but each additional cooling unit requires a pump tank,
pumps, cooler and controls which will cost substantially more
than the cost of additional trays and tower height.
An isothermal tower with cooling coils on each tray can
be employed but was not considered for regenerator cooling be-
cause of the following disadvantages:
1) A heat transfer medium is required for the coils.
2) The available operating area may be reduced resulting
in a larger diameter tower.
3) Higher liquid level will be required on each tray to
submerge the coils increasing the pressure drop and back pres-
sure on the reducer operation.
4) Increased costs for installing the tray.
Tower Design Parameters
The design parameters furnished by Atomics International
for sizing the tower are:
Superficial Gas Velocity 4 FPS
Holdup Time 15 minutes
Based on the net flow of melt feed to the tower, a 19
foot diameter column results in one inch of liquid level per
tray to obtain the 15 minute holdup time. If the recycle melt
used to cool the trays (1:1 recycle ratio) is assumed to be
completely regenerated, the level on each tray will have to be
increased to approximately two inches to maintain the holdup
time. The actual residence time in the regenerator will prob-
ably exceed the 15 minutes. The effect of the pump tanks and
external coolers on holdup time has not been considered.
On the basis of a superficial inlet gas velocity of 4
FPS and an 85 percent excess of CC>2 and H2O with no nitrogen
or other inert diluents, the tower diameter is less than 14
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5-13
-------
feet. An 18 foot diameter tower has been arbitrarily selected for
the determination of capital cost. Reducing the diameter to 15
feet would lower the capital cost approximately $40,000.
Pilot plant work is required to:
1) Confirm the effect of varying the quantities and concen-
tration of CO2 and H20 on tower performance and regeneration.
2) Determine the number of trays required to accomplish
the regeneration at the expected liquid and gas flows and concen-
trations.
3) Establish the design parameters such as retention time
and superficial gas velocities.
Additional test work should be performed to determine the
effect of pressure on regeneration. Increased pressure has the
potential for reducing the diameter of the regenerator.
e. Fly Ash and Coke Filtration
In the Molten Carbonate Process traces of fly ash, as well
as sulfur dioxide, are removed from the flue gases. The fly ash
must be continuously or periodically removed from the molten salt
stream otherwise it would accumulate and make the system inoper-
able. The fly ash filtration is performed downstream of the absor-
bers. The coke filtration, to remove the unreacted coke added in
the reducers, is performed downstream of the reducers.
Atomics International has done experimental work on fly ash
filtration using a Croll-Reynolds wire wound filter. This type of
unit is not suitable for a commercial size installation because it
is not capable of a "dry cake" discharge. (Dry cake refers to the
solids plus associated wetting liquid). Discussions were held with
Croll-Reynolds, and they indicated that their unit could not easily
be converted to a dry cake discharge type.
In a non-dry cake discharge type of filter, the entire con-
tents of the filter are discharged at the end of each cycle. The
filter area required for the fly ash filtration based on data ob-
tained by Atomics International using a Croll-Reynolds test unit
is 1000 square feet at a cycle time of 45 minutes. A 1000 square
foot Croll-Reynolds filter has a volume of about 2000 gallons.
Therefore, 30,.000 pounds of melt would be discharged every 45
minutes if such a unit were employed. Such a loss could not, of .
course, be tolerated. An elaborate recovery system would be re-
quired.
5-14
-------
Even "dry cake" discharges carry measurable quantities of
melt. Atomics International has found that the fly ash cake con-
tains 65% melt, and it has been assumed that the cake from a suit-
able plant scale filter would contain 50% melt. The implications
of these losses are discussed in Section 5, Paragraph f.
Hence, the primary problem associated with the filtration
steps is to find a dry cake discharge unit which performs in a
satisfactory manner.
Based on discussions with several filter manufacturers
the "Auto-Jet" pressure leaf filters, as manufactured by U.S.
Filter Corporation, were selected for the capital estimate. Suit-
ability of this type of filter will have to be verified by test.
In this type of unit, the liquid contained in the filter is
drained and displaced by gas prior to discharging the cake. Hot
flue gas or alternatively heated air will have to be used for
displacing the melt. The filter leaves are attached to a shaft
which rotates against a fixed wire or blade at each leaf during
cake discharge.
Atomics International has found the maximum fly ash cake
thickness reached within tests is approximately 1/8" at reason-
able pressure drops of about 50 psi. This makes it difficult to
design a suitable cake-scraping device, since it is desirable not
to have such scrapers come too close to the filter media.
Increasing the cake thickness is an area which will have
to be investigated in order to apply the U.S. Filter type machine.
Coke can possibly be used as a filter aid, introduced as precoat
and/or add-mix, to assist in producing a thicker cake and reduc-
ing the melt content of the dry cake.
Because of the difficulties involved in mechanically dis-
charging a thin cake, another method was investigated. This en-
tailed the introduction of water directly into the filter at the
end of the cycle, to dissolve and sluice out the cake. It is
debatable whether this method deserves further study because of
many inherent problems.
1. Long periods of time would be required for cool-down
and heat-up of equipment prior to reintroduction of melt. Cap-
ital costs would be greatly increased because of this necessity
for "idle" time.
2. Frequent thermal cycling leads to problems in design
and construction of the units„
3. The water initially used for direct cooling flashes
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5-15
-------
to steam, which is lost, as is the heat content.
4. Possible introduction of water into the melt circuit
may not be desirable.
5. Large vents would be required to handle the steam
generated (An explosion hazard exists).
It is recommended that this scheme be discarded, and ef-
fort concentrated on thickening the cake. In addition to easing
the design of the U.S. Filter type of unit, a thicker cake might
change the picture in relation to the Croll-Reynolds unit, for
now a tank full of liquid would be discharged, say, every 8 hours
instead of every 45 minutes.
The calculation of filter area was based on the following
empirical relationships developed by A.I.: (Based on a Croll-
Reynolds test unit with 25 micron spacing).
= 16.3 + 2530£ For^ greater than 0, less than
0.067
= 88 + 610.21 For ^greater than 0.067, less than
1.25
Where:
is pressure drop across filter, psi
£_ is ash loading, Lb Ash/ft2 of filter area
(j) is flow rate per unit of filtration area, GPM/ft2
These relationships were developed for the fly ash fil-
ter. No correlations were developed for the coke filter. It
has been assumed that these equations will hold for the coke
filter also. On this basis, the coke filter was calculated to
require about the same area, 1000 sq.ft., and have about the
same cycle time, 45 minutes, as the fly ash filter. A total of
four filters have been allowed - 2 for fly ash filtration and 2
for coke filtration. In final design, three interchangable units
may be possible, two operating with one standby and automated for
proper time cycling.
The material of construction for all the filters was type
347 stainless steel.
The possibility of using centrifugal separators was dis-
cussed with vendors, but discounted because of difficulties
5-16
-------
associated with the design of high speed-rotational equipment at
high temperatures and the use of centrifuges is not indicated be-
cause of the relatively small difference in melt"and filter cake
specific gravities.
Several manufacturers declined to propose the use of Ro-
tary Drum Filters because of the service conditions.
f. Carbonate Makeup
In the Molten Carbonate Process, melt is lost in the
cakes discarded from the fly ash and coke filtration steps. In
addition, melt can be lost from the process in the absorber off-
gas. It has been assumed that this loss is negligible and there-
fore it was not considered in the determination of operating
costs. The actual absorber loss can be substantial and must be
determined in future test work.
The losses of melt associated with the fly ash and coke
filter cakes have been calculated on the following basis:
1. An electrostatic precipitator efficiency of 99.5 per-
cent r
2. Potassium chloride (KC1) solubility in melt is limited
to three weight percent and the solids are removed at the fly ash
filter.
3. Fly ash and KCl filter cake contains 65 percent melt.
4. The coke filter cake contains 50 percent melt. It
also retains the heavy metals contained in the original coke
charged to the reducer which must be removed from the process.
The coke usage in the reducer and the subsequent unreacted amount
to be filtered from the reduced melt is based on carbon oxida-
tion rather than sulfide (M2S) oxidation to provide the reducer
sensible heat and heat of reduction. This assumption results in
a lesser amount of coke to be filtered than would be anticipated
if the heat were provided by M2S oxidation. The M2S oxidation
route could increase the unreacted coke to be filtered by ap-
proximately 50 percent.
5. Both fly ash and coke filters provide a dry cake dis-
charge.
6. Lithium carbonate can be recovered to the extent of
88 percent in the aqueous recovery process as conceived. The
justification for this process is demonstrated in Section 6,
Paragraph f.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
5-17
-------
7. Potassium and sodium salts are not recovered in the
aqueous lithium carbonate recovery process.
The required makeup of sodium, potassium, and lithium car-
bonates associated with the various "inert" constituents of the
filter cakes are indicated in Table 5-1. In addition, the potas-
sium carbonate required for the reaction with chlorides in the
flue gas to produce the KC1 is also listed in this table.
Inspection of Table 5-1 shows the impact of melt losses on
the plant operating costs even with the inclusion of an aqueous
process to recover 88 percent of the lithium salts.
In the analysis of melt losses it has been assumed that
all of the chlorides in the flue gas react with potassium carbon-
ate (K2C03) to form potassium chloride which must be rejected from
the process to minimize its buildup. The amount of K2C03 required
for this reaction is fixed by the chloride content of the coal
(0.04%) and results in an annual cost of $220,000 (0.045 mils/KWH).
Very little can be done to reduce this cost if the reaction takes
place as assumed, except to use coal with a lower chloride content.
The melt losses associated with fly ash filtration depend
solely on the "wetness" of the cake discharged from the filter.
Laboratory data on the filtration of fly ash in melt using a
wedge-wire wound filter element of 25 micron spacing indicated
that the cake contained 65 weight percent melt which is under-
standably high due to the nature of the cake.
The physical form of the fly ash will have a marked affect
on melt content of the cake. If the fly ash is in the form of
hollow particles, then more melt may be retained by the cake than
would be expected with solid particles. Furthermore, no test work
has been performed on the filtration characteristics of fly ash
that passes through the electrostatic precipitator. This too,
may affect the data used in the evaluation.
As stated above, the KC1 produced by reaction of chlorides
with K2C03 must be removed from the process. A conservative ap-
proach has been used in this analysis by assuming that the KC1 is
removed at the fly ash filter and retains the same amount of melt
as the fly ash. The melt content of .a combined fly ash and KC1 fil-
ter cake must be determined in future test work, in addition, if
a commercial filter provides a dryer cake than is available from a
test unit, substantial savings can be realized. Furthermore, an ad-
mix (body feed) of coke to the fly ash filter could possibly reduce
the cake "wetness". Another possibility to reduce the melt losses
associated with fly ash filtration would be to eliminate the step
completely and filter the fly ash with the unreacted coke from the
5-18
-------
Table 5-1. Carbonate Makeup Requirements - Assuming 88% Li2CC>3 Recovery
Ul
Basis: Filter Cake Constituent: Fly Ash - 225#/Hr )
KCl - 403#/Hr ) ~Removed at the Fly Ash Filter
Coke - 800#/Hr - Removed at the Coke Filter
Cost Per Pound
Makeup Ratio Required for
Non-Recovered Salt, #/# of
Fly Ash and KCl Filter
Cake
Coke Filter Cake
KCl Produced
Annual Replacement
for Loss From
Fly Ash Filter Cake
KCl Filter Cake
Coke Filter Cake
KCl Production
Total
Annual Cost for Makeup
$0.42
K2C03
$0.096
$0.028
0.067
0.043
_
0.611
0.368
0.926
0.573
0.361
—
93,000#
167,000
211,000
47l,000#
843,000#
1,510,000
1,805,000
2,288,000
6,446,000#
791,000#
1,417,000
1,771,000
3,979,000#
SINGMASTER S BRI
Due
to Losses in
Fly Ash Filter Cake
KCl Filter Cake
Coke Filter Cake
KCl Production
Total
Mills/KWH
TOTAL Mills/Kl
$ 39
70
89
$198
0
,000
,000
,000
,000
.041
$ 81,
145,
173,
220,
$619,
0.
000
000
000
000
000
126
$ 22
40
50
$112
0
,000
,000
,000
,000
.023
$142,
255,
312,
220,
$929,
0.
000
000
000
000
000
190
0.029
0.052
0.064
0.045
0.190
-------
reduced melt in the coke filter. The unreacted coke could possi-
bly act as an admix and aid in filtration. However, serious prob-
lems may result in the reducer quench system due to solubility of
the fly ash in the melt at the elevated reducer temperature and its
subsequent precipitation at the lower temperature of the reducer
quench system. A benefit of this approach could be the possible
rupturing of hollow sphere fly ash particles in the reducer which
may minimize the amount of melt retained with the fly ash cake if
it were filtered with the coke. These variations must be deter-
mined from actual pilot plant test work. The fly ash and coke fil-
ters are the subject of a discussion in Section 5, Paragraph e.
If the KCl were removed from the process in a form other
than a solid, the melt losses would be reduced. It is possible
that some, if not all, the KCl will be vaporized in the reducer
and be rejected with the oxidizer off-gas stream returning to the
boiler. The amount vaporized will depend on its vapor pressure
and solubility in the melt at the operating conditions of the re-
ducer. This would reduce or eliminate the melt losses associated
with the KCl filter cake. However, the actual location in the
process where the KCl is removed must be determined in a pilot
plant program.
No test data are available on melt loss associated with
coke filtration. It is believed that it will be less than that
found with fly ash filtration. An arbitrary value of 50 percent
melt contained in the cake has been used for the analysis which
must be confirmed by test work.
Delayed petroleum coke has been selected as the source of
carbon for reduction (See Section 6, Paragraph e). This material
and fluidized petroleum coke, an alternate source of carbon, con-
tain heavy metals, such as vanadium and nickel in amounts ranging
up to 2000 ppm. No test data are available on where these heavy
metals will concentrate. It has been assumed that this will oc-
cur in the unreacted coke which must be filtered and discarded
resulting in a substantial melt loss.
If the heavy metals do not concentrate in the unreacted
coke, the coke filter cake can be recycled to the process elim-
inating the carbonate makeup to compensate for the loss, but the
heavy metals will have to be removed somewhere else from the proc-
ess by some other means.
5-20
-------
The amount of unreacted coke to be filtered (i.e. 800#/Hr)
is based on complete (100%) oxidation of carbon in the coke to
provide the reducer sensible heat and heat of reduction. A con-
version of 95% of the M2S04 to M2S by carbon is assumed resulting
in the 800#/Hr of material to be filtered. An alternate to pro-
viding the reducer heat by carbon oxidation is to assume oxida-
tion of M2S to M2S04 resulting in a greater recirculation of J^SO^.
to the reduction zone. This requires more coke for reduction and
perhaps 50 percent more unreacted material to be filtered. The
actual amount may fall somewhere between these two limits and must
be determined by a pilot plant program. The increased coke filtra-
tion resulting in an increase in melt loss has not been considered
in the evaluation because of:
1. The arbitrary nature of selecting the melt content of
the coke filter cake/ and
2. the assumption that the cake must be discarded due to
the rejection of heavy metals.
The carbonate makeup costs presented in Table 5-1 are arbi-
trary due to the lack of sufficient test data to establish a basis
for analysis. Pilot plant work is definitely dictated to establish
a firm basis for evaluation.
If the pilot plant work can demonstrate a reduction in the
melt content of the fly ash filter cake it may change the justifi-
cation for a 99.5 percent efficient electrostatic precipitator and
a lithium carbonate recovery process.
Decreasing the melt loss with the coke filter cake may also
affect the decision to include the lithium carbonate recovery proc-
ess.
The use of salts other than carbonate for makeup should be
investigated. Potassium sulfate is less expensive than the car-
bonate and could possibly be added at an appropriate point in the
process.
g. Carbonate Recovery
1. Lithium Carbonate Recovery
The justification for a lithium carbonate recovery
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5-21
-------
process is described in Section 6, Paragraph f. However, its
justification may not be valid if melt losses can be reduced in
the fly ash and coke filtration steps (See Section 5, Paragraph f) .
The process will have to be developed to determine recovery data
and design parameters.
2. Potassium and Sodium Carbonate Recovery
The potassium and sodium carbonate makeup requirements
are listed in Table 5-1 of Section 5, Paragraph f. Except for
^2^03 needed to react with chlorides, the makeup requirements are
arbitrary due to the nature of the assumptions of the melt losses.
In all evaluations, it has been assumed that the potassium
and sodium salts are not recovered after the aqueous lithium car-
bonate recovery process because:
1. The fly ash filter cake contains the KCl which is sol-
uble along with the other potassium and sodium salts, and
2. The coke filter cake contains the heavy metals which
are removed along with the soluble potassium and sodium salts.
The discarded sodium and potassium salts are mixtures of
carbonates, sulfites, sulfates, and sulfides in addition to the
potassium chloride.
The annual cost for K2CC>3 makeup to compensate for the
mixed salt loss, excluding that required to react with the chlo-
rides, is $399,000? for Na2CC>3, it is $112,000. With a capital-
ization charge of 14 percent, over $3 million can be spent for a
process plant to recover potassium and sodium salts.
Ion exchange is a possible process for removal of the
chlorides reporting with the fly ash filter cake. The remaining
salts can be recovered by evaporation using the waste heat avail-
able in the Molten Carbonate Process. The recovered salt can be
analyzed for its constituents and fresh sodium, potassium and
lithium carbonate added to prepare the proper ratio of the eutec-
tic for recycle to the Molten Carbonate Process. The effect of
any soluble heavy metals on ion exchange will have to be deter-
mined by test work. The justification for a process to recover
potassium and sodium salts will have to be evaluated after pilot
plant work establishes melt composition and losses.
5-22
-------
The salts that are discarded may result in a water pollu-
tion problem. Recovery may be necessary to minimize this poten-
tial problem. In this study, it has been assumed that the salts
are discarded with the fly ash from the electrostatic precipitator.
h. Waste Heat Recovery
The Molten Carbonate Process provides substantial sources
of heat that must be rejected to maintain the thermal balance of
the plant.
To maintain melt at 850°F in the base case plant, approx-
imately 15 million BTU's per hour must be removed (approximately
50 million in the reducer quench system and 25 million in the re-
generator coolers). If this heat is valued at 30C per million BTU,
the annual value of recoverable heat is approximately $138,000.
It is possible that these streams could be cooled by a
portion of the boiler flue gases exiting the air heater (approx-
imately 350°F). The boiler flue gases could be reheated to a
temperature of 600-650°F and be returned to the air heater sec-
tion of the boiler for recovery of the waste heat. This scheme
was not considered in the evaluation because of the plan to
separate the Molten Carbonate Process from Power Plant operations.
An alternate to this scheme is to reject the process heat
to a lower freezing ppint cooling medium, such as DuPont Hi Tec,
and recover the heat from the medium by generation of low pres-
sure steam. This too was not considered because there is no need
for low pressure steam in the process except at the Regenerator
and this was presumed to be available from the waste heat boiler
in the Claus Plant. The power plant would probably have no need
for any low pressure steam.
Steam can be generated directly by using waste heat
boilers to cool the process melt. However, in order to reduce
the possibility of freezing the melt, high pressure boilers are
needed; and it is questionable whether this high pressure steam
would be at a pressure satisfactory for use in the Power Plant.
Air cooled exchangers were selected for use in the
capital cost evaluation for ease in control and low capital cost.
These exchangers are bare tube units with external air bypassing
SINGMASTER & BREYER
5-23
-------
to minimize the possibility of freezing the melt. They do not
recover waste heat.
The recovery of waste heat from the process by some alter-
nate scheme must be thoroughly evaluated at the time the process
is considered for installation in a power plant or smelter.
i. Integration into Existing Power Plants
In existing coal-fired power plants, a low temperature.
electrostatic precipitator is generally located after the air
heater. In order to integrate the Molten Carbonate Process into
existing plants the flue gases must be reheated to the absorber
temperature or alternatively withdrawn from before the economizer
and a new high temperature electrostatic precipitator installed.
In most power plants, space is at a premium and it will
be difficult to install a large size duct to feed a new high tem-
perature precipitator. The problem is compounded because a return
duct from the absorber to the boiler will also be required.
The breechings into most boilers can be accommodated by
making modifications to the boiler internals. The return of fly
ash free flue gas to the boiler will permit smaller extended sur-
faces to be used for the economizer and air heater sections rather
than bare tube sections. A boiler manufacturer has estimated
that this modification including breechings, but excluding duct-
work will cost $1,000,000 and take ten weeks to install.
A comparison of the costs of integrating the Molten Car-
bonate Process into an existing hypothetical 800 MW power plant
is presented in Table 5-2. The data are based on the results of
the investigation on "The Optimum Location of the Electrostatic
Precipitator in the Process" (Section 6, Paragraph a).
The capital costs include the new high temperature elec-
trostatic precipitator, modification of the boiler to accommo-
date the large breechings, and the indirect exchanger to retain
the existing low temperature electrostatic precipitator. It
excludes:
1) the combustion chamber for the retention of the ex-r
isting low temperature precipitator because vendors of this type
of equipment declined to provide estimating prices.
5-24
-------
Table 5-2. Comparative Cost for Integration into Existing
Power Plant
Precipitator
Existing Low
Temperature Precipitator
(99.5% Efficient)
Existing,assumed
to be amortized
Indirect Exchanger
Installed Cost
excluding Combustion 1,950,000
Chamber
Boiler Modifications ;
New High Temperature
Precipitator (99.5%
Efficient)
3,240,000
1,000,000
Total 1,950,000
4,240,000
Annual Costs
Capitalization Charge 273,000
Power for Precipitator 90,000
Power for Indirect
Exchanger Pressure Loss 128,000
Fuel for Reheat
(100°F Rise)
Total Comparative
Annual Cost
429,000
920,000
594,000
149,000
743,000
5-25
SINGMASTER S BREYER
-------
2) ductwork costs.
3) modification or new boiler fans to overcome increased
pressure loss.
4) fly ash disposal equipment for the new high tempera-
ture precipitator. It is assumed that this equipment can be
salvaged from the abandoned low temperature precipitator.
5) scrap and salvage value of the low temperature pre-
cipitator if a new high temperature unit was installed.
The operating cost excludes:
1) capitalization charge for the existing low tempera-
ture electrostatic precipitator. It is assumed to be amortized.
2) power required to overcome the combustion chamber
pressure drop if the existing precipitator were retained.
3) plant downtime to make internal boiler modifications
or connections to a reheat system.
For the hypothetical case, the installation of a new
high temperature precipitator results in a lower annual cost.
However, the integration of the Molten Carbonate Process using
this method into existing power plants will depend on the space
available in the plant and, the ability to make the necessary
boiler modifications. Each plant must be individually analyzed
for the best way to integrate the process.
j. Copper Smelter
The Molten Carbonate Process shows promise for removal of
SC-2 from copper smelter reverberatory furnace flue gases. It has
not been considered for use with roaster off-gases because of the
high SC-2 content of the gases which can be utilized in a conven-
tional contact acid plant. The process has not been considered
for removal of SC>2 from converter off-gases in this study. The
converter operations are of a cyclic nature and some smelters stag-
ger the blow of the converters to reduce the cycling so that the
gases can be fed to an acid plant. However, it is possible that
the process can be applied to such a cyclic process where the gas
5-26
-------
flow and SC>2 concentration varies by designing the absorber
system for the extreme gas condition and the remainder of the
process for an average melt flow. Additional melt surge capac-
ity may be required as a "fly wheel" to compensate for the S02
variation in the gas feed.
The location in the reverberatory furnace process scheme
where the off-gases should be withdrawn for removal of SC>2 will
depend on the actual plant under consideration. If the gases
are taken for removal of S02 after an existing low temperature
bag house or electrostatic precipitator then they will have to
be reheated to absorber temperature. Alternately, the gases
may be taken after the waste heat boiler operating at 800-850°F
and sent through a new high temperature electrostatic precip-
itator. The point at which the gases should be withdrawn and
how they should be treated to provide the necessary absorber
temperature is discussed in Section 6, Paragraph g.
The problems that may be encountered in the Molten Car-
bonate Process if it were applied to a copper smelter are es-
sentially those that would be encountered in the power plant
case discussed in previous paragraphs of this section of the
report. The basic difference between the two, other than SC>2
concentration, is in the contaminants in the gases that are to
be treated.
Besides a higher SC>2 content of the reverberatory fur-
nace off-gas, these gases may contain fluorides which may react
differently from the chlorides present in power plant stack
gases. The effect of this contaminant on the process must be
determined.
Another contaminant present in the gases is the heavy
metals in the fume and particulate matter that is not collected
in the bag house or electrostatic precipitator. If these are
absorbed in the process melt they will have to be removed at
the point where they concentrate. This may be at the filter
after the absorber (termed "the fly ash filter" in the power
plant case) or at the coke filter, or elsewhere.
The particulate matter that is not removed in the bag
house or electrostatic precipitator is different from power
plant fly ash. Tests would be necessary to determine its
SINGMASTER S BREYER
5-27
-------
filtration characteristics if it had to be filtered.
The effect of these contaminants on the Molten Carbonate
Process would have to be determined in a pilot plant program uti-
lizing actual smelter gases.
5-28
-------
6. ECONOMIC STUDIES
Various economic studies (tradeoffs) were performed to
(1) select the optimum equipment or process scheme,
(2) evaluate the necessity for a process operation,
such as lithium carbonate recovery, and
(3) establish the lowest cost raw material, such as
the type of coke to use for reduction.
The results of a pilot program may establish the need
for additional tradeoff studies. Anticipated future studies
are:
1. Recovery of waste heat from process melt or gases
in a fully integrated plant consisting of Power Plant or Copper
Smelter, Molten Carbonate Plant, Lithium Carbonate Recovery
Plant and a Glaus Plant (see Section 5, Paragraphs c and h)„
2. Recovery of sodium and potassium salts from waste
streams presently discarded (see Section 5, Paragraphs g).
The economic evaluations performed for this study are
contained in this section of the report. All evaluations un-
less otherwise stated assumed the following:
a. base case power plant of 800 MW capacity burning coal
containing 3 percent sulfur and 0.04 percent chlorides and oper-
ating at a 70 percent plant factor.
b. an annual capitalization charge of 14 percent of the
installed cost.
c. Utility Costs
Fuel - $0.04/million BTU
Steam - $0.05/million BTU from the power plant
Steam was assumed available from the Glaus Plant at no
charge. No credit to be allowed for export of steam.
Power - 6 mills/KWH
Other assumptions relating to the specific evaluation are in-
dicated for each subject.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-1
-------
a« Optimum Location of the Electrostatic Precipitator
in the Process
Current practice for removal of fly ash in coal-fired
power plants is to locate an electrostatic precipitator operating
at about 300°F after the air heater. At this temperature it will
be necessary to reheat the gases to obtain the required 850°F
operating temperature of the absorber in the Molten Carbonate Pro-
cess.
To eliminate reheat, high temperature gases can be
removed from an appropriate point in the boiler and directed
through an electrostatic precipitator before being sent to the
absorber.
An evaluation was performed to compare the cost of a
high temperature electrostatic precipitator to a low temperature
electrostatic precipitator at different efficiencies.
In the high temperature case, flue gases are removed from
the boiler before the economizer at a temperature of 850°F. The
gases pass through the electrostatic precipitator to the absorber
and are returned to the boiler at the economizer. The temperature
of the gases at any withdrawal point in the boiler will vary de-
pending on the load. It may be necessary to provide facilities at
the boiler to overcome serious temperature fluctuations that may
affect the absorber. These facilities are beyond the scope of this
study and have not been considered.
The process schemes for the above precipitator locations
are shown in Figure 6-1.
6-2
-------
FIGURE 6-1. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR LOCATION
RETURN TO
850 °F
BOILER
FROM BOILER
@ 850 °F
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR..
850
ABSORBER
HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROSTATIC PRBCIPITATOR
FLUE GA
350
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
TO STACK
INDIRECT
EXCHANGER
430 °F
850 °F
FUEL
AP = 11 INCHES HoO
(5.5 INCHES EACH SIDE)
TEMPERATURE ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPPTATOR
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
850^.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-3
-------
Estimated equipment costs for the two cases were obtained
from vendors and utility cost estimates were calculated from
data provided by the vendors.
The evaluation of capital costs include only the electro-
static precipitator and indirect exchanger for the low temperature
case. It excludes:
1) The combustion chamber for the low temperature case
because vendors of this equipment declined to provide esti-
mating prices.
2) Increased costs for larger ductwork in the high tem-
perature case which may be offset by more extensive ductwork
in the low temperature case,
"i*
3) Increased cost o£ large size boiler breechings in the
high temperature case which mayi be offset by the reduced cost of
the boiler economizer and air heater because of the return of clean
flue gas.
4) Precipitator fly ash disposal equipment which will be
the same for both cases.
The operating, costs for the low temperature case exclude
the power required to overcome the combustion chamber pressure
drop.
The evaluation, summarized in Table 6-1, clearly shows that
the high temperature electrostatic precipitator results in a lower
annual cost. The excluded items listed above economically favor
the low temperature electrostatic precipitator scheme. As a re-
sult, the high temperature electrostatic precipitator has been
used in the study of the overall process.
A further study was performed to determine the optimum effi-
ciency of the precipitator. This study is discussed in Section 6,
Paragraph b. *
6-4
-------
Table 6-1. Comparative Costs for Location of Electrostatic Precipitator
I
en
I
I
Low Temperature (325°F)
Efficiency
99 99.5 99.9
Precipitator Installed Cost $1,640,000 $1,980,000 $2,740,000
Indirect Exchanger Installed
Cost excluding Combustion
Chamber
Total Installed Cost
Electrostatic Precipitator
Power Requirements, KWH
Indirect Exchanger Pressure
Loss, in
1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000
$3,590,000 $3,930,000 $4,690,000
2,070 2,440 3,650
Reheater Fuel Requirements,
Million of BTU/Hr.
Annual Costs.$
Capitalization Charge
Power for Precipitator
Power for Indirect Exchanger
Pressure Loss
11
175
11
175
11
175
503,000
76,000
128,000
550,000
90,000
128,000
657,000
134,000
128,000
Fuel for Reheat (100°F Rise) 429.000 429.000 429.000
Total Comparative Annual $1,136,000 $1,197,000 $1,348,000
Cost
High Temperature (850°F)
Efficiency
99 99.5 99.9
$2,672,000 $3,240,000 $4,448,000
$2,672,000 $3,240,000 $4,448,000
3,470 4,050 4,700
374,000 454,000 623,000
128,000 149,000 173,000
$502,000 $603,000 $796,000
i
-------
b» Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency & Penalties
The efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator controls
the amount of fly ash that is carried with the flue gases to the
absorber. The fly ash which is not removed in the precipitator is
removed in the absorber by the molten carbonate and is subsequently
filtered and discarded from the melt before the reduction step.
The fly ash filtration tests carried but :by Atomics In-
ternational used a wedge wire-wound filter element of 25 micron
spacing. They showed that the filter cake contains 65 percent
melt and 35 percent fly ash.
A study was performed to determine the optimum efficiency
of the high temperature electrostatic precipitator to minimize the
costs associated with melt loss in the fly ash filter cake.
The evaluation was based on the following assumptions:-
1. The filter provides a dry cake discharge - i.e. no
melt is carried along with the fly ash greater than the 65 percent
melt content of the filter cake.
2o Chlorides present in the flue gas reacts with K2003 to
form KCl which is slightly soluble in the melt. The insoluble KCl
is removed from the process with the fly ash filter cake. Therefore,
filter installed costs -were not considered for fly ash removal since
a substantial portion of its cost is attributable KCL filtration.
fhe melt loss associated with KCL content of the fly ash filter cake
was not considered in evaluating the efficiency of the electro-*
static precipitator since it would be a constant at the different
efficiencieso
3o Lithium salts can be partially ^recovered from the dis-
carded filter cake in an aqueous process as presently conceived un-
der the following conditions:
(a) soluble lithium salts react with soluble carbon-
ate salts to form insoluble lithium carbonate.
(b) twelve percent of the insoluble lithium carbon-
ate cannot be recovered in the process.
(c) delivered cost for Li2CC-3 - $0.42 per pound.
6-6
-------
4. All sodium and potassium salts are lost in the aqueous
lithium carbonate recovery process as presently conceived. De-
livered cost for replacing the salts are:
K2CO3 - $0.096 per pound.
Na2CO3 - $0.028 per pound.
The results of the tradeoff study for four high temperature
precipitator efficiencies are summarized in Table 6-2. The
least annual cost unit falls somewhere above the 99 percent
efficiency with 99.5 percent being the lowest of the four cases
studied.
For purposes of the process evaluation, the 99.5 percent
efficient high temperature electrostatic precipitator has been
selected as the basis for comparison to precipitator equipment
normally found in a power generating station without an S02 re
covery process.
Existing power plants generally have located the precipitator
in the flue gas stream after the air preheater. Consolidated
Edison's Ravenswood No. 30 unit is an exception to this rule.
Selection of the efficiency of the precipitator is based on
existing local codes and no general rule can be applied to
define the typical efficiency. It is very likely that power
plants will be faced with more stringent fly ash control in the
future. An efficiency of 99 percent for a low temperature elec-
trostatic precipitator in a power plant without an S02 recovery
system has been selected as the basis for determining the penalty
that must be applied to a 99.5% efficient high temperature pre-
cipitator when installed in a power plant burning 3 percent sulfur
in coal. Table 6-3 compares these costs and lists a $1,600>000
capital cost penalty that has been applied to the Molten Carbon-
ate Process for use of the more efficient and higher temperature
electrostatic precipitator that the process requires.
At high electrostatic precipitator temperatures, the resis-
tivity of the dust in the flue gases is not affected by the SC>2
content in the gas and the size, price, and power requirements of
a precipitator are the same for the same efficiency. This is not
the case at lower temperatures. A larger size unit is required
for a low temperature precipitator in a power plant burning coal
containing one percent sulfur than is required for burning coal
containing three or six percent sulfur at the same efficiencies.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-7
-------
Table 6-2. Melt Losses Attributable to Electrostatic
Precipitator Efficiency
Precipitator
Precipitator Installed
Cost
Precipitator Power
Requirements, KW
Fly Ash to Filter, #/Hr.
Equivalent Carbonate
Losses, #/Year
Li C03 (0.067 #/# fly
ash
K2C03 (0.611 #/# fly
ash)
Na2C03 (0.573 #/# fly
ash)
Annual Costs, $
Capitalization Charge
Power
Li2C03 Replacement
K£C03 Replacement
Na2C03 Replacement
Total Annual Cost:
95
$2,000,000*
1,600
2,250
925,000
8,430,000
7,906,000
280,000
59,000
389,000
809,000
221,000
$1,758,000
99
$2,672,000
3,470
450
185,000
1,686,000
1,581,000
374,000
128,000
78,000
162,000
44,000
$786,000
Efficiency
99.5
$3,240,000
4,050
225
93,000
843,000
791,000
454,000
149,000
39,000
81,000
22,000
$745,000
99.9
$4,448,000
4,700
45
19,000
169,000
158,000
623,000
173,000
8,000
16,000
4,000
$824,000
* Based on A.I. Data
6-8
-------
Table 6-3.
Molten Carbonate Process Electrostatic
Precipitator Penalty
Precipitator
Precipitator
Installed Cost
Power Consumption
KW . • . .
Annual Cost, $
Capitalization
Charge
Power Cost
Total Annual Cost
Mills/KWH
Low
Temperature
99%
$1,640,000
2,070
230,000
76,000
306,000
0.062
High
Temperature
99.5%
Penalty
$3,240,000 $1,600,000
4,050
454,000
149,000
603,000
0.123
1,980
224,000
73,000
297,000
0.061
6-9
SINGMASTER S BREYER
-------
Table 6-4 lists the estimated installed costs obtained from
an electrostatic precipitator vendor for units in an 800 MW plant
operation at different efficiencies with 1,3 and 6 percent sul-
fur in coal. These prices were used for determination of the
panalties to be applied to the alternate power plant cases.
c. Absorber-Size/ Number, Configuration
The absorber is the key element in the Molten Carbonate
Process, for it is here that the sulfur dioxide in the flue
gas is scrubbed with the circulating molten salts.
Atomics International has expended a good deal of effort
on experimentation in this area, and came to the conclusion
that a spray tower where the superficial gas velocity is 25
feet per second and an average droplet size of 100 microns will
give a sulfur dioxide removal efficiency above 95 percent.
We have selected four absorbers, one per electrostatic pre-
cipitator. It is possible to design for two (or maybe even one)
absorber, but we have selected four for the following reasons:
1. Duct manifolding becomes complex if there are fewer
absorbers than precipitators.
2. Absorber diameters become quite large if the number
is less than four.
3. One absorber per electrostatic precipitator gives ad-
equate scrubbing ability if one absorber is out of service.
The diameter of each of the four absorbers, based on the
superficial gas velocity being maintained at 25 ft/sec, is
28' -6".
The straight height has been estimated at 34 feet, made
up as follows:
2' clearance at bottom.
11' size of gas inlet connection.
15' active section, to inlet spray nozzles,
3' from spray nozzles to top of deraister.
3' top clearance.
6-10
-------
Table 6-4. Estimated Installed Cost of Electrostatic
Temperature, °F
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
850
850
850
Precipitators
S in Coal,%
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
6
6
1,3,6
1,3,6
1,3,6
for 800 MW Power Plant
Efficiency,%
99
99.5
99.9
99
99.5
99.9
99
99.5
99.9
99
99.5
99.9
Estimated*
Installed
Cost, $
2,700,000
3,280,000
4,200,000
1,640,000
1,980,000
2,740,000
1,520,000
1,920,000
2,680,000
2,672,000
3,240,000
4,448,000
* Excludes - ductwork and fly ash removal equipment.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
6-11
-------
Type 347 stainless steel has been selected as the material
of construction, with an allowance for 5" of external insulation.
This method of construction is ideal from a process standpoint,
since 347 SS is corrosion resistant to melt below 1000°F and the
use of external, low conductivity insulation minimizes the heat
loss. However, the cost of an all 3_47 SS unit is quite high, so
other possible construction methods were examined.
In general, whenever one speaks of a costly stainless
steel piece of equipment, one is tempted to try using carbon steel
with a stainless steel cladding. This approach will not work here
since, with external insulation, the metal temperature will approach
melt temperature, which would be, as a design value, 95QP&. At such
temperatures, the stress value of low carbon steel, or low alloy
steel, is too low.
Stainless clad steel construction was considered but re-
jected since the allowable stress in the carbon steel section at
950°F is so low as to force the use of a very heavy steel plate.
The next approach is to find a lining material which will
reduce the metal temperature to the acceptable range for carbon
steel. The ideal substance to use would be a low thermal conduc1-
tivity material such as that used for external insulation. Un-
fortunately, there are, at present no known low thermal conduc-
tivity insulating materials which are compatible with the lithium
carbonate - sodium carbonate - potassium carbonate melt.
A high alumina brick, such as Alundum, is compatible with
melt, but has a relatively high thermal conductivity. The low con-
dictivity insulation cannot be used in conjunction with the Alundum
for the following reasons:
1, If the insulation is external, (melt-Alundum-metal-
insulation) the metal temperature will be too high for carbon steel.
2. If the insulation is internal, (melt-Alundum-insulation-
metal) the melt can be expected to seep through voids in the Alundum,
and come into contact with the insulation with which it is not com-
patible.
6-12
-------
•This situation is similar to the reducer, as discussed in
Section 6, Paragraph d.
The alternate to an all 347 SS unit, then, is a carbon
steel or low alloy steel vessel, lined internally with Alundum
only. A 9" layer of Alundum was investigated as a lining in a
vessel with a low alloy steel shell and floor. Type 347 SS was
selected for the roof because of anticipated problems with brick
lining. The diameter of metal shell was 30' to maintain a 28'
-6" inside diameter for gas velocity considerations.
An absorber constructed in this manner has a much greater
heat loss than an all 347 SS unit with external insulation -
4,000,000 BTU/hr. vessel vs. 407,000 BTU/hr. per vessel. In
calculating comparative annual costs for the two methods of con-
struction, it has been assumed that the difference in heat loss
would be evident at the power plant, and a value of $.30/million
BTU was allowed.
Table 6-5 lists the comparative costs of the two types of
absorbers and shows that the units constructed of Type 347 SS
are less expensive.
There are also problems of a practical nature associated
with theAlundum lined case. As pointed out previously, ex-
ternal insulation cannot be used in this case, and the metal
temperature would be about 400°F. This is a dangerous situation,
and great care would have to be exercised in the design of stairs,
operating platforms, connections, etc.
In the Alundum lined case, about 10% of the capital cost
can be saved if low alloy steel is replaced by low carbon steel.
This would not be enough to change the conclusion. Furthermore,
it is questionable whether it would be sound to use low carbon
steel here, since localized hot spots could cause the metal tem-
perature to be too high for low carbon steel.
d. Reducer - Size, Number and Configuration
The basic parameters for design of the reducers are:
Liquid Retention Time - 20 minutes
Static Depth of Melt - 2-3 feet
Superficial Gas Velocity - 3 FPS
Bed expansion - 100% maximum
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-13
-------
Table 6-5. Absorber Costs
A) Low Alloy Steel
w/9" Alundum
Case internal Lining
Cost of Metal,
per unit $136,000
Cost of Alundum,
per unit 220,000
Cost of Insulation
per unit
Total Cost,
per unit $356,000
Annual Charge,
per unit 50,000
Annual Value of
Heat Loss,
per unit 7,000
Comparative Annual
Cost, per unit $57,000
Comparative Annual
Cost, 4 units $228,000
B) 347 SS w/5"
External Insulation
$305,000
27,000
$332,000
47,000
1,000
$48,000
$192,000
6-14
-------
Calculations of the vessel sizes required to accomplish the
above design parameters were performed for various multiple
units of vertical and horizontal vessels. For each of the
multiple horizontal units, the lengths were kept constant at
a nominal 20' and the diameter calculated to give the required
retention time and superficial gas velocity.
In calculating vertical units/ the height was kept constant
at 6', and the diameter changed to maintain the required resi-
dence time and gas velocity.
In comparing the costs of the same number of vertical units
to the same number of horizontal units/ the vertical case
always results in a significantly higher cost. This is due,
primarily, to the fact that vertical units have very large dia-
meters, compared to horizontal units and the thickness of the
vessel shell required to contain the pressure is substantially
greater. For example, if 4 vertical units were used instead of
4 horizontal units, the diameters would be 18'-6" instead of
ll'-O", and the total weight of 4 units would be about 135,000
Ib. instead of about 50,000 Ib. On this basis it was decided
to evaluate horizontal vessels for use in the reduction step.
Several cases for horizontal vessels were evaluated, the
variable being the number of units. As the n\imber of units
decreases, the diameters, of course, increase. The total cost
of the units themselves remains about the same as the number
is decreased. However, the overall cost of the installation
decreases as the number of units is decreased. This is because
there are fewer foundations, less piping, etc.
Four horizontal vessels were selected because with this
quantity the calculated diameters are ll'-O" which approaches
the limit for rail shipment and permits the vessels to be shop
fabricated. It is desired to avoid, where possible, larger
diameter vessels and the need for field fabrication.
The design temperature of the melt is 1500°F. Many materials
of construction were studied, bearing in mind the following
considerations:
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-15
-------
1. A fused cast alumina product, such as Mono f rax, withstands
melt at 1500°F.
2o A high alumina insulating material, such as Alundum can be
used as back-up to the Mono f rax.
3» 347 stainless steel is corrosion-resistant to melt below
1000°Fo
4, Silica containing insulation products are not suitable
against melt.
5. Carbon steel or low alloy steel is corrosion-resistant to
frozen melt.
The selection of Monofrax in contact with melt is based on work
performed by Atomics International. The selection of the less
expensive Alundum as back-up will have to be confirmed.
The first reducer construction method investigated was the
"skull" or cold wall concept in which sufficient heat is removed
from the reducer by an external cooling jacket to cause a thin layer,
or "skull", of melt to freeze at the surface. This frozen layer of
melt protects a metal vessel wall. This method would work if the
inside coefficient of heat transfer were low. However, in an article
called Designing Gas- Sparged Reactors by J.R. Fair &' t it is re-
ported that inside coefficients in sparged vessels have been found
to be very high, even with relatively low gas flows. In the re-
duction step under consideration, air is provided to oxidize the
M^S to M2SO. and CO2 is produced by the reduction of M2SO4 with
carbon. Applying the experience of this article to the design con-
ditions of the reducer result in an inside coefficient of heat
transfer on the order of 1000 BtuAr-ft2 -°F.
This high heat transfer rate makes the "skull" concept imprac-
tical because of the large amount of heat to be transferred which
must be replaced by burning coke. The heat to be transferred can
be calculated as follows:
The effective area for heat transfer, in the liquid phase is
approximately 350 square feet for a reducer 11' diameter x 20'
long (based on inside of brick dimensions). If a skull exists,
6-16
-------
it implies that a freezing temperature of approximately 750°
has been attained. Therefore, the amount of heat transferred
from melt (at 1500°F) to skull (at 750°) would be (1500-750)
(1000)(350) = 260,000,000 Btu/hr for each of four reducers.
This amount of heat would, of course, also have to be trans-
ferred out of the vessel, and is much higher than can be
tolerated. Furthermore, the quantity of coke needed to main-
tain the reducer at the operating temperature is not economi-
cally practical.
Other methods investigated involved the "hot wall" con-
cept, i.e. non-jacketed vessels with internal insulation,,
The first of the "hot wall" methods evaluated was a vessel
in which 4" Monofrax was used against melt, followed by 4"
Alundum 4" silica insulation, and then the metal wall.
This type of configuration gives a low metal temperature
(about 200°F) and a low heat loss (about 100,000 Btu/hr per
vessel). However, the temperature profile (see Figure 6-2
is not satisfactory) because the freezing point occurs some-
what within the silica layer. Consequently, melt may be in
contact with silica insulation because of the probable seep-
age of melt through Monofrax and Alundum causing attack on the
insulation.
It will be seen from Figure 6-2 that Monofrax and Alundum
are relatively poor insulators and result in low temperature
gradients.
The next "hot wall" approach evaluated, was to use suffi-
cient thickness of Monofrax to lower the metal wall tempera-
ture permitting use of carbon steel. With 24" of Monofrax
the wall temperature is approximately 500*5" and the heat loss
per vessel is about 800,000 Btu/hr. This is a satisfactory
design to permit use of a carbon steel shell with only Mono-
frax in contact with melt but the cost of 24 inches of Mono-
frax lining is high.
If, as has been assumed, the less expensive Alundum can
be used as back-up to Monofrax, then another possible method
of construction is suggested - a relatively small layer of
Monofrax in contact with melt, and then a layer of Alundum.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
6-17
-------
Figure 6-2,
Temperature Profile of
Reducer Internally Lined
with Monofrax, Alundum
and High Silica Insulation
1600
6-18
-------
Figure 6-3. Temperature Profile of
Reducer Internally Lined
With Monofrax and Alundum,
With Various Thicknesses
of External Insulation
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-19
-------
This was evaluated for 4" Monofrax, 9" Alundum»and various thick-
nesses of external insulation. The temperature profiles are
plotted in Figure 6-3 which shows that carbon steel can be used
only if no external insulation is used. Thus, we see that a low
thermal conductivity insulating material cannot be used as internal
or external insulation. If used externally, it raises the metal
wall temperature above the range of carbon steel construction. If
used internally, it can be expected to come into contact with
melt seepage and be attacked. At present, Atomics International
are not aware of low thermal conductivity insulating materials
which are compatible with the melt at the operating temperature
of the reducer.
The proposed construction is for 4" of Monofrax and 9" of
Alundum. The material selected for the reducer shell is ASTM A-
204, which is a low alloy steel that is somewhat more expensive
than low carbon steel, but retains usefuL stress values up to
temperatures of about 900°P. The calculated temperature of about
450°F is within the useful range of carbon steel, but the use of
A204 will allow for localized hot spots. (The savings in using
low carbon steel instead of low alloy steel is relatively small
i.e. in the order of 5-10% of the overall cost of the vessel).
The heat loss is expected to be about 550,000 Bjtu per hour per
vessel.
\
Neither Monofrax nor Alundum are completely free of voids
or joints. The possibility of cracks developing in the lining
cannot be overruled. The performance of these refractories in
freezing and thawing service remains one of the areas for inves-
tigation in a pilot plant.
Table 6-6 shows the development of the capital cost compari-
son for one reducer 11' diameter by 20' which leads to the
selection of the "no insulation" case. The Monofrax and Alundum
would be present in all the cases, so the cost is not shown.
Aside from economic considerations, the last two cases above
should be discarded because the melt temperature in contact
with the 347 SS is too high.
6-20
-------
Table 6-6. Reducer Construction
External Insulation
Metal Temperature, °F
Outside Temperature, °F
Heat Loss, Btu/Hr
Material of Construction
None
450
450
950
300
l" 2"
1,120* 1,270*
250 200
550,000 300,000 210,000 120,000
A 204 347 SS 347 SS 347 SS
Cost of Metal $11,300 $33,800 $33,800 $33,800
Cost of External Insulation 0 1,000 1,600 2,500
Total Capital Cost
$11,300 $34,800 $35,400 $36,300
Annual Costs, $
Capitalization Charge
Cost of Coke to off-set
Heat loss (based on
14,000 Btu/lb,$ll/ton Coke)
Comparative Annual Cost
1,600
1,400
4,900
800
5,000
600
5,100
500
$3,000 $5,700 $5,600 $5,600
Reject due to anticipated corrosion of vessel wall by melt.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
6-21
-------
e. Coke-Economic Aspects
In Progress Report No. 3, Atomics International states
"that almost any form of carbon can be used as a reducing agent".
Several materials were satisfactorily tested as available
sources of carbon, and an economic evaluation performed by A.I.
indicated that fluidized petroleum coke was the least expensive
source of carbon. ^Sreen delayed high sulfur petroleum coke was
considered as another economically acceptable raw material.
The present-day prices for coke reflect, to some degree,
the energy shortage which is now being experienced. Table 6-7
compares the analysis and unit prices of two forms of coke
currently available.
In the base case plant, approximately 9 tons of carbon
are required per hour to reduce the sulfate to sulfide. This
neglects any reducing agent advantage that may occur due to the
volatile content of the coke. It further assumes that the heat
of combustion of the volatile matter is sufficient to satisfy
the increased heat required to vaporize the free water contained
in the coke. At a plant factor of 70 percent, the operating
cost saying using delayed coke, rather than fluidized coke,
amounts to $215,000 per year.
The use of delayed coke presents a minor handling
problem that is not present with fluidized coke. In their re-
duction experiments, Atomics International used "as received"
delayed coke of minus % inch. Most delayed coke producers do
not screen coke fines from their product, which can be used in
the process; but instead sell their material as indicated in
Table 6-7 at minus 2 inches with 50% minus % inch. It is
possible that this minus 2 inch coke could be used for reduc-
tion; however a crushing and screening circuit has been provided
in the facilities to prepare material of the size used in the
bench-scale work. These additional facilities cost less than
$75,000 to install, which is equivalent to an annual cost of
$10,500 using 14 percent capitalization charges. This is sub-
stantially less than the savings realized by using the delayed
coke, thereby justifying its inclusion in the process scheme.
If further experimentation proves that the minus 2 inch material
can be used, the crushing and screening circuit can be eliminated.
6-22
-------
Table.6-7 Coke Comparison
Green Delayed
Fluidized Petroleum High Sulfur
Coke Petroleum Coke
particle Size
Analysis (Dry Basis):
Inerts
Sulphur
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Water
96+% minus 8 mesh
0.6 wt.%
7
6
86.4
1 wt.%
Cost per ton/FOB works $10.00
Allowance for Freight, $5.00
per ton
Delivered Cost per ton $15.00
of coke
Delivered Cost per ton $17.36
of carbon
Minus 2 inch;
50% minus h inch
0.4 wt.%
6
12
81.6
5-8 wt.%
$6.00
$5.00
$11.00
$13.48
6-23
SINGMASTER S BREYER
-------
Tests will be required to determine the effect of the
higher volatile and water content of the delayed petroleum
coke on the reduction step.
As a result of the above analysis, delayed petroleum
coke at a; delivered cost of $11,00 per ton has been used as
the basis in the operating cost determination; and, the
Engineering Flow Diagram - Coke Handling Facilities, Drawing
No. PS-218-0003 is the basis for the capital cost of the
process.
The continued availability of coke at these price
levels will depend on the market demand. Alternate low cost
raw materials should be investigated as sources of the carbon
required for reduction. Coal is a possible alternate but
the ash content will add appreciably to the load on the coke
filter and may affect the reducer operation.
f. Li_CO Recovery Process
£• -J
The filter cakes from the fly ash and coke filtration
steps of the process retain appreciable quantities of melt.
Experimental data indicate that the fly ash cake contains 65
percent melt while the coke filter cake has been assumed to
contain 50 percent melt.
In prior work, Atomics International describes a
theoretical aqueous process in which 88 percent of the lithi-
um carbonate can be recovered. In this study, an estimate
has been made of the value of the lithium carbonate that
can be recovered by this process and was based on the follow-
ing assumptions:
1) KCl if formed in the absorber by reaction of
the chlorides in the flue gases with potassium salts. Its
solubility is 3 percent in carbonate melt and any excess over
this solubility is removed with the fly ash in the fly ash
filter.
6-24
-------
2) The fly ash filter cake, containing the insoluble
KCl, has a composition of 65 percent melt and 35 percent
solidSo
3) The coke filter cake contains the heavy metals
and must be removed from the process. It contains 50
percent melt. The coke usage in the reducer and the
subsequent unreacted amount to be filtered from the
reduced melt is based on coke oxidation rather than M2S
oxidation to provide the reducer sensible heat and heat
of reduction. MoS oxidation may require more coke for
reduction and therefore may also result in more un-
reacted coke to be filtered. This is the subject of
a discussion in Section 6, Paragraph f.
4) Both the fly ash and coke filters provide a
dry cake discharge.
5) Soluble lithium salts react in the aqueous
phase with soluble carbonate salts to form insoluble
Li2CO and is recovered to the extent of 88 percent.
Li CO delivered cost is 42 cents per pound.
The result of this evaluation for a high tempera-
ture electrostatic precipitator operating at an
efficiency of 99.5 percent, is summarized in Table 6-8.
At other efficiencies, only the Li^CO associated with
fly ash will be affected since the KCl and coke are
constant at the different efficiencies.
The table lists the equivalent capital investment
required to recover the lithium carbonate contained
in the inerts. An engineering flow diagram of the
tentative aqueous process was prepared and estimates
indicate that the installed cost for such a process to
recover the lithium carbonate from all sources would
be less than $500,000. The justifiable capital cost
of the recovered lithium carbonate in the fly ash only,
is substantially greater than the $500,000 installed
cost of the process thereby justifying its inclusion
in the overall process scheme.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
6-25
-------
Table 6-8. Value of I^CO-, Recovered in
an Aqueous Recovery Process
Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency
99.5%
Filter Cake Inerts
FlyAsh, #/Hr. 225
KC1, #/Hr. 403
Coke, #/Hr. 800
Recovery, #/Yr, From
FlyAsh, (0.492#/#Flyash) 679,000
KC1, (0.492#/#KC1) 1,216,000
Coke, (0.308#/#Coke) 1,511.000
Total 3,406,000
Annual Value for Li2C03
Recovered From _
FlyAsh $285,000
KC1 511,000
Coke 635,000
Total Annual Value
of Recovered Li2CO3 $1,431,000
Justifiable Capital Investment
Required to Recover I^CO From
FlyAsh $2,035,000
KCl 3,650,000
Coke 4.535,000
Total $10,220,000
6-26
-------
The engineering flow diagram for the lithium carbon-
ate recovery process is shown on Drawing No. PS-218-0004
and is the basis for the capital costs used in the process
evaluation. , '
The economics for inclusion of a lithium carbonate
recovery process should be reevaluated if the associated
melt losses can be reduced at the fly ash filter.
g. Copper Smelter
The study of the removal of SO- from copper
smelter gases has been limited to those gases emanating
from reverberatory furnace operations only. Roaster
gases contain high SO concentrations and can be utilized
in conventional acid plants as can the converter gases.
The possibility of converter gases being used as feed to
the Molten Carbonate Process is discussed in Section 5,
Paragraph j.
The treatment of reverberatory furnace gases for
removal of particulate matter varies considerably from
smelter to smelter. The gases generally flow from the
reverberatory furnace through a waste heat boiler exiting
at temperatures ranging from 600°F to 700°F. At this
point some smelters cool the gases to about 350°F by
dilution with ambient air so that a bag house can be used
to remove the particulate matter, Current practice in
new plants is to employ electrostatic precipitators
operating at the 600°F-700°F temperature level for re-
moval of particulate matter.
For this study, a hypothetical reverberatory
furnace has been selected that will produce 200 tons per
day of copper. It has been assumed that the gases from
the furnace and waste heat boiler contain 2 percent S02
by volume with the equivalent of 50 tons per day of
contained sulfur. - . • •
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-27
-------
Several cases have been investigated:
Case (a): Integration of the Molten Carbonate Process into
the hypothetical smelter with existing bag house filters by
reheating the 350°F gas to 850°F by indirect exchange of heat
with absorber off-gas followed by direct combustion of fuel
into the gas stream.
Case (b): The smelter has an existing 600°F electrostatic
precipitator and the off-gases must be reheated as in Case
(a).
Case (c): The gases from the waste heat boiler exit at
800-850°P rather than 600-700°F and are passed through a new
high temperature electrostatic precipitator.
The results of the investigation are listed in Table 6-9.
The operating costs have been based on the following:
1. 7920 hours per year of operation(90% Plant Factor).
2. Fuel costs for reheat in Case (a) and Case (b).
3. Penalty at the value of equivalent fuel for Case
(c) due to rejecting heat at the Waste Heat Boiler at 850°F
rather than 700°F. No benefit has been applied to the
possible use of the 850°F absorber off-gas as a source of
heat in a recuperator.
4. Power costs for cases (a) and (b) include in-
creased pressure drop for the reheat system and absorber.
5. Power cost for case (c) includes the increased
pressure drop for the absorber.
6. The power cost attributable to the bag house pressure
drop in case (a) is approximately the same as the electron
static precipitator power costs in cases (b) and (c) and
therefore these costs were not considered.
6-28
-------
The capital cost does not include any salvage or scrap
value for discarded equipment. Nor does it include possible
new fans to overcome the increased pressure drop in cases
(a) and (b).
The evaluation shows that in the hypothetical smelter
with an existing bag house it is less expensive to abandon
the bag house and install a new electrostatic precipitator
operating at 800-850°F. This is not true if the smelter
is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator operating
at 600°F; it is then less expensive to install the reheat
system." -
The capital and operating costs for the application
of the Molten Carbonate Process for removal of S02 from
reverberatory furnace gases has been based on a smelter
equipped with an existing 600°F electrostatic precipita-
tor.
The method that is to be employed to provide the
800°F-850°F gas to the absorber in the Molten Carbonate
Process must be re-examined when an actual existing
smelter is selected.
>
If a new copper smelter were to be considered, it
is clear that an electrostatic precipitator operating
at 800-850°F and a suitable resistivity would result in
lowest cost.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
6-29
-------
Table 6-9. Integration Into Existing Typical Copper Smelter
Reverberator^ Furnace Circuit
Type
Capital Costs
Reheat System
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Case (a)
Reheat (Off-Gases
from Bag House
@ 350 °F)
$240,000
Not Required
cr»
u>
o
Absorber Cost & Size 100.OOP(14'-6"(
TOTAL $340,000
Case (b)
Reheat (Off-Gases
from Electrostatic
Precipitator @ 600 °F)
$176,000
Existing, Assumed
Amortized
60^000(9 f-6l'0)
$236,000
Case (c)
No Reheat (Off-Gases
at 850 °F through
new electrostatic
precipitator)
Not Required
$300,000
60.000(9'-6"0)
$360,000
Annual Costs
Capital Charges
(14% of capital costs)47,000
Fuel(40c/million BTU) 25,300
Power (6mills/KWH) 14.400
TOTAL 87,300
33,000
13,100
8,900
55,000
50,400
23,300
(Penalty for rejecting
waste heat at higher
temperatures)
2.200
76,900
-------
7. EQUIPMENT - BASE CASE PLANT
a. List of Equipment
1) SOX Removal and Coke Handling Facilities
Tag Number Description
B-1A, IB, 1C, ID Combustion Air Blower
B-2 Filter Displacement Blower
C-l Crusher
E-1A,1B Reducer Product Cooler
E-2A,2B,2C,2D Air-Oxidation Zone Exchanger
E-3 (Not Used)
E-4 Regenerator Bottoms Cooler
E-5 Regenerator Intermediate Cooler
F-1A,IB Fly Ash Filter
F-2A, 2B' Coke Filter
G-l Transfer Conveyor with
Vibrating Feeder
G-2 Bucket Elevator
G-3 Coke Bucket Elevator
G-4 Reversing Conveyor
G-5 Coke Belt Conveyor with
Movable Tripper
G-5A Elevating Belt Conveyor
G-6,7,8 Dust Collectors
SINGMASTER & BREYER
7-1
-------
G-9 Carbonate: Bucket Elevator;
G-10 Eutectic Conveyor
G-ll M2CO3 Silo Feed Conveyor with
Tripper
P-1A,1A(S),1B,1B(S) Absorber Pump
1C,1 (S) ,10,1
P-2A, 2A(S),2B,2B(S) Reducer Pump
P-3,P-3(S) Regenerator Bottoms Pump
P-4,P-4(S) Regenerator Intermediate Pump
P-5 Makeup Pump
S-l Screen
T-l,T-2 coke Silo
T-3 Na2C03 Silo w/Dust Collector
T-4 K2CO3 Silo w/Dust Collector
T-5 Li2C03 Silo w/Dust Collector
V-1A, IB, 1C, ID Absorber
V-2A, 2B, 2C, 2D Absorber Pump Tank
V-3A,3B,3C,3D Reducer
V-4A,4B Reducer Quench Tank
V-5 Regenerator
V-6 Regenerator Bottoms Pump Tank
v-7 Regenerator intermediate Pump
V-8A,8B,8C,8D coke Bin
7-2
-------
V-9
W-1A,1B,1C,1D
X-1A,IB,1C,ID
X-2
X-3
M2C03 Melt Tank
Coke Weigh Feeder
Electrostatic Precipitator
Instrument Air Compressor
Instrument Air Dryer
2)
Tag Number
A-101
A-10 2
A-103
A-104
A-105
A-106
A-107
B-101
B-102
D-101
F-101
F-102
Recovery
Description
Agitator for Dissolving Sump, T-110
Agitator for Fly Ash & Coke Slurry
Tank, T-101
Agitator for LiHCOs Reactor, V-101
Agitator for Fly Ash Filter Cake
Receiver, T-102
Agitator for LiHC03 Reactor Product
Surge, T-103
Agitator for Li2C03 Reactor, V-102
Agitator for Li2CO3 Reactor
Product Surge, T-104
Exhaust Fan
Hot Air Blower
Li2CO3 Dryer
Li2CC>3 Fly Ash Filter incl.
Vacuum Pump
Fly Ash Filter incl. Vacuum Pump
SINGMASTER S BREYER
7-3
-------
F-103 Li2CO3 Filter incl. Vacuum Pump
G-101 Redler Conveyor
P-101,101(S) Dissolving Sump Pump
p-102 Soluble Salt Receiver Pump
P-103,103(S) Fly Ash Goke Slurry Tank Pump
P-104,104(S) LiHCOs Reactor Product Surge Pump
p-105 Li2C03 Reactor Transfer Pump
p-106 Li2CO3 Reactor Product Surge
Tank Pump
P-107 Li2CO3 Filtrate Receiver Pump
P-108 Li2CO3 Fly Ash Filter Cake Receiver
Pump
P-109 LiHCO3 Filtrate Receiver Pump
T-101 Fly Ash Coke Slurry Tank
- T-102 Li2C03 Fly Ash Filter Cake Receiver
T-103 LiHCOs Reactor Product Surge
T-104 Li2C03 Reactor Product Surge
T-105 Surge Drum
T-106 (Not Used)
T-107 Soluble Salt Receiver
T-108 LiHCO3 Filtrate Receiver
T-109 Li2CO3 Filtrate Receiver
V-101 LiHC03 Reactor
7-4
-------
V-102 Li2C03 Reaqtor
X-101 Inert Gas Generator including
Compressor
b. Specifications
The specifications for major equipment required in
the SOX removal process are attached to this section of the
report. Tftie specifications are of a functional nature rather
than a detailed nature.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
7-5
-------
Functional Specification for
Combustion Air Blower B-lA,B,C*D
Number of Units
Gas Handled
Quantity Handled
Design Temperature
Operating Temperature
Suction Pressure
Pressure Difference
Across Blower
- 4
Atmospheric air
6000 SCFM
- 150
- Ambient
(range 20 °F
- Atmospheric
- 7 psi
-90 °F)
SINGMASTER & BREYER
7-6
-------
Functional Specification for
Filter Displacement Blower B-2
Number of Units - 1
Composition of Gas Handled
Quantity Handled
Design Temperature
Operating Temperature
Suction Pressure
Pressure Differential Across
Blower
- N2 - 75% by volume
CO2- 13%
H2P- 8%
02 - 4%
SO2- Trace
- 150 ACFM
- 1000 °F
850 °F
- 10" W.G. negative
3 psi
An alternative design would call for air heated
by melt or electric heaters.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
7-7
-------
Exchangers E-1A & IB, E-4 & E-5 specified hereafter are
to be the air-cooled type with external air recirculation to
minimize freezing of the process liquid, and intake air heat-
ing coils for start-up operation.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
7-8
-------
OtNERAL INOINCIRINO D'VI«.ON
,0«M M-S7 *-" «-'
ITEM NO. -
HEAT EXCHANGER SPECIFICATION
SINGMASTER & BREYER
VENDOR MUST COMPUTE THIS SPECIFICATION SHEET BEFORE RETURNING.
ITEM! MARKED • MAY BE OMITTED UNTIL SELECTION OF VENDOR.
Reducer Product Cooler
Req-a: 2 in parallel
SHEET NO.
REV.
DATE 10-27-70
CHK'O
JOB NO. PS-218
n,,TV 23.7X10°
_BTU/HR. EXCHANGER TYPE: HoHiz.. VERT. Air-Cooled "Fin-Fan" Type
MFRS. IDENT. NO.
TOTAL FLOW LBS/HR
SHELL OR TUBE SIDE
LIQUID (EXCLUDING WATERJ LBS/HR
DENSITY LBS/CU FT
THERMAL COND.. .BTU/HR X SO FT X V/FT
VISCOSITY CENTIPOISES
THERMAL CONO... BTU/HR X SO FT X "P/FT
STEAM LBS/HR
ADDITIONAL DATA ON SHEET NO
OPERATING TEMPERATURES V
roUL. RESIST SOFT X HR X *P/BTU
MIN. CORROSION ALLOWANCE IN.
NUMBER OF PASSES PER SHELL
FLOW ARRANGEMENT
Air
She
® 'r
9 'r
@ -F
® >
® V
® V
0.25 ®averv
® -F
0 v
A • B7
e v
a -P
e *P
e -P
« V
e 'P
a *F
850
CALC.
TEST
CALC,
EXCH. IN SERIES
TOT. ARIA (HOT! B) BO FT
CORRECTED MTD
TRANSFER RATE. CLEAN
SERVICE
CODE REQUIREMENTS.-..
REMOVABLE TUBE BUNDLE
FLOATING HEAD
IMPINGEMENT BAFFLE . . .
MATERIALS (MARK STRE9
TU*ES
TIC RODS • SPACER*. -
•HELL COVER
CHANNEL COVER
FLOATING HEAD COVER
REMARKS: * Me
AFI-ASME: TCMA
TES NO
cl*M»-nmc:run.TH»o
YES NO
• HELL (OR SECTS) TOTALNO.
I.D
TUBES, NO. PER SHELL. . . .
O.O. X
LENGTH
P-ITCM
TUBE LIMIT DIAM. OR WIDTH
WEIGHTS
EACH BUNDLE.. .
BUNDLE » SHELL
FULL OP WATER
S RELIEVED — S.R.. RADIOGRAPHED — X.R.)
Type 347 SS
THICK.. IN.
•
.
•
.
*
*
*
.
.
.
IN.
IN. X
IN.
AVE.. MIN. WALL
IN. A
no
IN.
LBS
LBS
LBS
NOZZLES (NOTE C)
|Hun.
RELIEF
CASKETS
CROSS SAFFLES. TTPE. .
NUMBER X
• PACING
.
SEGMENT CUT
TUBE HOLE
DIAM.. .
.
RADIAL CLEARANCE..
LONG BAFFLE
LENGTH ...
TYPE . .
•
DIST. ABOVE SHELL. .
REBOILER WCIR HEIGHT
SHELL AFTER WEIR. .
TUBE SJTC
SIZE
'
Lt Comoosition. Mol% Aorsrox.! Mif
__ FT-pp^inq Point 750°F
LOlA
RATING
X IN.
• IN.
• IN.
• IN.
IN.
IN.
FT.
SHELL SIDE
LIQ.
VAP. RATING
j
1.3: MoCO, 62.9:KC1 3.8
J
Quantities Listed are for One Cooler.
VOTE Al fO* CONDIN3EIIS *HO THCIMOSTFHCN »CIOIIC« PDCSSUIt D*OP ITATro fHAIL INCIUBI STATIC HtAD •tTWtlK CtNTCIlINC* OF INLET AMD OUTLET ritNCIS.
BOT( S: OUTSIDE TUIt AIEA E1CLUDINC A*tA IN TU1E SHEETS. ~J _Q DOTE Cl (ATE Pl» ASA f HE— !•>• 01 At A • Iftf — I Ml.
-------
t*>HO DIVISION
*-*• «-•
HEAT EXCHANGER SPECIFICATION
SINGMASTER & BREYER
4 Req'd in parallel
SHEET NO. 2
REV.
DATE
VENDOR MU»T COMPLETE THIS SPECIFICATION SHEET BEFORE RETURNING.
ITEMS MARKED * MAY BE OMITTED UNTIL SELECTION Or VENDOR.
1Q-27-70
E-2A,B,
ITEM NO. CrD SERVICE Mr-Oxidation Zone Exchanger
OUTY 4.5 10" BTTU/HR. EXCHANGER TYPE: HORIZ.. VERT. Vertical
SD
CHK'D
JOB NO. PS-218
VENDOR MFRS. IDENT. NO.
TOTAL. Ft-OW LBS/HR
SHEUL OR TUBE SIDE
LIQUID (CXCLUDIMO WATER) LBS/HR
OENiirr LBS/CU FT
THERMAL COND.. -»TU/HHJ X »OFT X 'F/FT
SPECIFIC HEAT BTU/LB X V
MOLECULAR WE1OMT.
THERMAL CONO...smi/HR X "OPT X *F/FT
WATER ......-* LBS/HR
ADDITIONAL, DATA ON SHEET NO
OPERATING TEMPERATURES *F
MIN. CORROSION ALLOWANCE IN.
NUMBER OF PASSES PER SHELL.
FLOW ARRANGEMENT
Air
23.850
Shell
@ V
® -F
a -r
9 V
e -F
23, 350
29
@ *F
0.242® Avg. v
<8 *F
® V
500
153
7
0 V
e v
e v
e v
« V
e v
« V
e v
e v
915°
ALLOW. 6"W-G. CALC,
MIN. ACTUAL 10 TEST
MIN. CALC.
i Gas*
i 25,500
i Tube
a v
e -P
® *F
« v
i @ v
: 30.3
« v
0~271 ® Avcr.v
« v
e v
325
! 1500
9 -r
9 *F
a *F
e v
O V
a v
« *F
a v
« v
850°
I ALLOW. 3PSI CALC.
MIN. ACTUAL TEST
' MIN. CALC.
li
PAR. BANKS OF EXCH. IN SCRIES It PAR. BANKS OF EXCH. IN SERIES
TOT. AREA (MOTE •) SOFT
LMTD
TRANSFER HATE. CLEAN
SERVICE
CODE REQUIREMENTS.-..
REMOVABLE TUBE BUNDLE
FLOATING HEAD. .......
IMPINGEMENT BAFFLE
MATERIALS (MARK STRES
TIE MOO* • SPACERS. .
•HELL
CHANNEL
PLOAT1MO HEAD COVER
REMARKS: * G<
API-ASME: TEMA
YES NO
ct»M-m»c:miLTMiiu
YES NO
SHELL (OR SECTS) TOTAL NO.
TUBES. NO. PER SHELL. • . .
0.0. X
GAUGE, BWa
PITCH
TUBE LIMIT DIAM. OR WIDTH
WEIGHTS
EACH BUNDLE...
BUNDLE ft SHELL
S RELIEVED — S.R.. RADIOGRAPHED — X.R.)
Type 347 SS
THICK.. IM.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOZZL
INLE
OUT!
DRAI
VEN1
RELI
IN.
IN. X
IN.
AVE.. MIN. WALL
IN. A D O
IN.
LBS
LBS
LBS
CROSS BAFFLES. TYPE..
NUMBER X
SPACING
.
TUBE MOLE
DIAM.. .
.
RADIAL CLEARANCE..
LONG BAFFLE.
LENGTH . . .
TYPE. .
•
DIST. ABOVE SHELL. .
REBOILER WEIR HEIGHT
SHELL AFTER WEIR. .
TUBE SIDE
.ES (NOTE C) SIZE
EF
GASKETS
'
as Analysis (Mol%) CO-,-16.8; No-80.
RATING
5; H^O-2.
X IN.
• IN.
• IN.
• IN.
IN.
IN.
FT.
SHELL SIDE
LIQ.
VAP. RATING
1
3 ; Hydrocarb-0 .
— *- f.
Quantities Listed Are For One Cooler.
BOTI *l FOR CO1OCNSEM AND THCHIIOStPXON »ttOllt«S FUESSUIII OtOF ITtTTO *1ft-i INCLUDE STATIC HEAD KTWCtN CCNTCHLINCf OF INLET AHD OUTLET FIANCES.
•Oil »; OUTSmlTUM A»!A HCLU01N6 A«t» IN TU«£ SHtCTJ. 7~10 - NOTE Cl SATE FCII ASA S III - lt» OK ASA S UII - II4>.
-------
iRiN<5 01 vi now
••»• *-'
HEAT EXCHANGER SPECIFICATION
SINGMASTER & BREYER
VENDOR MUST COMPUTE THIS SPECIFICATION SHEET BEFORE RETURNING
One Req'd
SHEET NO.
REV.
DATE 1 n-7_7-7D
ITEMS HARKED * MAT BE OMITTED UNTIL SELECTION OF VENDOR. BY SD :: CHK'D
ITEM NO. E-4 SERVICE Regenerator Bottoms cooler
DUTY J0xl0b BTU/HR.
VENDOR
TOTAL FLOW. . . LBS/HH
•HELL OR TUBE SIDE
LIQUID (EXCLUDING WATER) LBS/HR
DENSITY LBS/CU FT
THERMAL COND... BTU/HR X SO FT X *F/FT
SPECIFIC HIAT BTU/LB X *T
THERMAL COND... BTU/HR X SO FT X 'F/FT
ADDITIONAL DATA ON SHEET NO
OPERATING TEMPCHATURES *F
FOUL. RESIST.. .... .SOFT X MR X *F/»TU
NUMBER OP PASSES PER SHELL
FLOW ARRANGEMENT
EXCHANGER TYPE:
JOB NO. PS-218
HORIZ.. VERT. Air-Cooled "Fin-Fan" Unit
MFRS. IDENT. NO.
Air
Shell
« -r
9 'F
@ -r
9 V
® 'r
& "r
® V
® *F
e -p
70°
a v
e . «P
e v
e v
e *p
c v
e v
« V
e «F
ALLOW. CALC.
MIN. ACTUAL TEST
MIN. CALC.
PAR. BANKS OF CXCH. IN SERIES
Molten Carbonates
300.000
i Tube
e v
e
Q.45 » Avg.v
: « V
e v
; 100 Appro:
« • >
T a v
e >
e v
1 925°
e v
e 'F
® v
« v
« V
<.
e >
« >
« *F
« *F
850°
1 ALLOW. 25 PSI CALC.
MIN. ACTUAL TEST
: MIN. CALC.
PAR. BANKS OF CXCH. IN SERIES
TOT. AREA (MOTE B> SOFT
CORRCCTCO MTD........
TRANSFER RATE. CLEAN
•OIVICX
OOOC RE.OUIREMENT9. . . .
•CMOVABLC TUBE BUMOLC
BfPINUCMCMT BAFFLE . . .
MATERIALS (MARK STRC5
BAFFLKB
TUBE SUPPORTS
TIC RODS • SPACERS..
FLOATIMO HEAD COVER
MEMARKS: Me
AFt.ASME: TCMA
TES NO
YES NO
SHELL (OR SECT!) TOTALNO.
TUBES, NO. PER SHELL. ...
O.O. X
LENGTH
PITCH
TUBE LIMIT DIAM. OR WIDTH
WEIGHTS
EACH BUNDLE...
FULL OF WATER
S RELIEVED — S.R.. RADIOGRAPHED — X.R.)
Tvpe 347SS
THICM.. IN.
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
*
*
NOZZl
INLE
OUT!
IN.
IN. X
IN.
AVE.. MIN. WALL
IN. A D O
IN.
LB3
LBS
L8S
CROSS BAFFLES. TYPE. .
NUMBER X
SPACING
.
TUBE HOLE
DIAM.. .
RADIAL CLEARANCE..
LON6 BAFFLE.
LENGTH . • .
TYPE. .
•
DI»T. ABOVE SHELL. .
REBOILER WEIR HEIGHT
SHELL AFTER WEIR..
TUBE SIDE
.ES (NOTE C) SIZE
T
RELIEF
CASKETS
.
It Composition, Mol% Approx: M-jS 1.
M9CO3 93.3; KCl 3.8; Freezing Point
RATING
X IN.
* IN.
• IN.
• IN.
IN.
IN.
FT.
SHELL SIDE
LIQ.
VAP. RATING
\
.6%; M7S04 1.3?
750°F
-
T AND OUTLET rLANCIS.
-------
One Req'd
>L tNONEERINO DIV
«.„ «-»4 K-l
NO. E-5
- 1
5xlOb
HEAT EXCHANGER SPECIFICATION
1SION
SINGMASTER & BREYER
VENDOR MUST COMPLETE THIS SPECIFICATION SHEET BEFORE RETURNING.
ITEMS MARKED * MAY BE OMITTED UNTIL SELECTION OP VENDOR.
SERVICE Regenerator Intermediate Cooler
BTU/HR. EXCHANGER TYPE: HORIZ.. VERT. Air— COOled
4
DATE 10-28-70
BY SD CHK'D
JOB NO. PS- 2 18
"Fin-Fan" Unit
VENDOR MFRS. IDENT. NO.
TOTAL FLOW IBS/HR
BHELL, OR TUBE SIDE
LIQUID (EXCLUDING WATER) LBS/HM
OtNSITY LBS/CU FT
THERMAL COKO.. .BTU/HR X SOFT X *F/FT
SPECIFIC HEAT BTU/LB X *T
THERMAL. COND... BTU/HR X SOFT X *F/FT
ADDITIONAL DATA ON SHEET NO
OPERATING TEMPERATURES *F
NUMBER OF PASSES PER SHELL
FLOW ARRANGEMENT
Air
Shell
® >
e -F
® V
9 >
e ' v
® V
e v
e v
& -r
70°
a v
« v
9 'P
e v
e v
e v
« v
9 V
« V
ALLOW. CALC.
MIN. ACTUAL TEST
MIN. CALC.
Molten Carbonates
334.000
i .. TyTpe
9 V
® V
0.45 « Avq.v
' « V
e v
: lOOApprox.
a vl
t « v
a v
0 V
qso°
« V
e v
e v
L a v
e v
e v
« >
e -p
« -P
850°
! ALLOW. 25 PSI CALC.
i MIN. ACTUAL TEST
' MIN. CALC.
1
li
PAR. BANKS OP EXCH. IN SERIES |l PAR. BANKS OF EXCH. IN SERIES
TOT. AREA (NOTE B) BQFT
TRANSFER RATE, CLEAN
SERVICE
CODE REQUIREMENTS....
REMOVABLE TUBE BUNDLE
FLOATING HEAD. .......
IUP1NUCMCNT BAFPLE
MATERIALS (MARK STRES
TIC ROOS « SPACERS..
CHANNEL. COVER
PLOAT1NO HEAD COVER
REMARKS: Me.
AIM-ASME: TEMA
YES NO
«..«^-«1«:~iiTfi«u
YES NO
SHELL (OR SECTS) TOTALNO.
TUBES. NO. PER SHELL. . . .
0.0. X
LENGTH
PITCH
TUBE LIMIT DIAM. OR WIDTH
WEIGHTS
EACH BUNDLE...
BUNDLE • SHELL
PULL OP WATER
S RELIEVED — S.R.. RADIOGRAPHED — X.R.)
Tvr>e 347SS
THICK.* IM.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
•
•
NOZZl
INLE
OUT!
DRAI
VEN1
RCLI
IN.
IN. X
IN.
AVE.. MIN. WALL
IN. A O <0
IN.
LBS
LBS
LBS
CROSS BAFFLE!, TTPE. .
NUMBER X SPACINO.
SEGMENT CUT
TUBE HOLE DIAM.. . .
RADIAL CLEARANCE..
LONG BAFFLE., TYPE...
DIST. ABOVE SHELL.. .
REBOILER WEIR HEIGHT
SHELL AFTER WEIR..
X IN.
• IN.
• IN.
* IN.
IN.
IN.
FT.
TUBE SIDE SHELL SIDE
.ES (NOTE o size
r
EP
CASKETS
t
Lt Composition, Mol% Approx.: M2S 1
MofrO-j 81.1; KC1 3.8 Freezincr Point
RATING LIQ. VAP. RATING
-
i
3.8; M7S04 1.3;
750°F
•OTI Ai F0» CONOCKSEIIS «NO TNCITMOSrPNON «f »3ltt«J FUtSSUM DIOP STATED SHAU. INCLUOI STATIC MIAO SITWCEK CtNTE*LIN» Of INLET AND OUTLET FLANCIS.
•OTI B: OUTSIDE TUSE ASE* EICLUOINS A»E» IN TUIE SHEETS. *7 1O *"Tt Cl SATE »E» ASA S I»E — lljt OS AS» S 1*1* — !•«.
7-12
-------
Functional Specification for
Fly Ash Filter, Tag No. F-1A & F-lB
Types of Units - Pressure leaf
2 units in parallel.
Cyclic operation - one unit in operation
while other unit is being drained and
"dry" cake is discharged.
Material of - Type 347 stainless steel
construction
Design Pressure
Design Temperature
Type of Cake Discharge
Filtration Area
Cycle Time
Cake Thickness at
End of Cycle
Cake Washing
Liquid Flow
Liquid Composition
Liquid Specific Gravity
Liquid Viscosity
Solids Flow
Media Opening
Percent Solids in "Dry Cake"
150 psig
1000 °F
Fixed blades against
rotary leaves
1000 sq. ft. per unit
45 minutes
- 1/8"
- None
- 180,000 lb/hr.
- Mixture of molten salts-
sodium, potassium and lithium
carbonates, sulphates, sulphites
and sulphides
- 2.0
- 12 cp
- 630 lb/hr. (400 lb/hr of KCl,
230 lb/hr. of fly ash) plus trace,
_ 25 micron o£ COKe<
- 35%
SINGMASTER & BREYER
7-13
-------
Type of Units
Materials of
Construction
Functional Specification for
Coke Filter, Tag No. F-2A & F-2B
- Pressure leaf
2 units in parallel
Cyclic operation - one unit in
operation while other unit is being
drained and "dry" coke is discharged.
- Type 347 stainless steel
Design Pressure
Design Temperature
Type of Cake Discharge
Filtration Area
Cycle Time
Cake Thickness
End of Cycle
Cake Washing
Liquid Flow
Liquid Composition
150 psg
1000 °F
Fixed blade against rotary leaves
1000 sq. ft. per unit
45 minutes
- 1/8"
- None
Liquid Specific Gravity-
Liquid Viscosity
Solids Flow
Medium Opening
Percent Solids
in "Dry Cake"
180,000 Ib/hr.
Mixture of molten salts
sodium, potassium and
lithium carbonates, sulphates,
sulphites, and sulphides
2.0
- 12 cp
- 880 Ib/hr. of coke plus traces
of KCL and fly ash
- 25 microns
- 50%
SINGMRSTER & BREYER
7-14
-------
P-lB, 1B(S) CtNTftlFUGAl PUMP SPECIFIC*
P-lC, 1C(S) SINGMASTER ft BREYER
P— ID, lD(S) VSJiOOBJ MUST COMPLETE THIS SPECIFICATION SWEET
ITEM NO. SERVICE Absorber Pumps
nON ' •HEKTNO. 1 MKV.
DATE 11-16-70
P""»l •*TV»»I»» *T .._?* • CHK'D.
JOB NO. p.q_21R
NO. REQ'Q. 8 MOTOR DRIVEN. AND DRIVEN. VENDOR MFH'S TYPE NO.
LIQUID PUMPED Molten Carbonate Salt
CORROSION OR EROSION FACTORS
OPERATING CONDITIONS
PUMPING TEMPERATURE OjO — y 00 *r.
FLOW® P.T. 720 «PM DIFFERENTIAL! 1 2 PSI FT. d)
SPEC. en. & P.T. 2.0 DISCHARGE PSIG
VISCOS. @ P.T. 12* CP- SUCTION PSIG
BAROMETRIC PSIA
NPSH AVAILABLE FT.
NPSH REQUIRED FT.
MATERIALS
CASE! INNER
OUTER All Wetted Parts
WJCAR RINGS to be S.S. Type 347
STUDS AND NUTS
GASKETS
IMPELLER
WEAR RINGS
DIFFUIERS
INTERSTO. PIECE
INTERSTO. BUSHING
SHAFT
STUFF. BOX SHAFT SLEEVES
INTERSTG. SHAFT SLEEVE
STUFFING BOX
PACKING GLAND
•LAND STUDS
LANTERN RING
THROAT BUSHING
BALANCING DRUM
PRESS. BAL. SLEEVE
BEARING HOUSING
• t.HMCLl
«(«••• PARTt
PUMP TYPE: (HORiz: VERT. SUBMCRO: VERT. SUCT.I REBEN. TVJRS.I
PUMP SIZE : NO. OF STAGES : SPEED RPM
BHP @ RATING FOR SP. GR. (1)1
MAX. BHP W/IMPELLER SUPPLIED FOR BP. OR. (1)1
MAX. BHP W/MAX. IMPELLER FOR SP. OR. (1)1
CONSTRUCTION
CASE! SWP (» PSIG O "F.I MYDTEST. PSIC
MIN. THICKNESS *. CORR. ALLOW. ".
SUPPORT TYPEl (CENTERLINE: FOOT: BRACKET)
IMPELLER OVERHUNGl (VE1I: NO)
SPLIT: (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL! BARREL)
INSULATION
IMPELLER DIAMl SUPPLIED "\ MAX. 'l MIN. *.
TYPE! (OPEN: SIMI -ENCLOSED: ENCLOSES)
IYE VELOCITY & BATING FT./SXC.
DIRECTION OF ROTATION (FACING PUMP COUPLING) (CW: CCW )
CLEARANCE 1 RADIAL) WEARING RINGS '.
INTERSTG. PIECE '| PRESS. RED. DRUM ".
COUPLING. FLEXIOLE. (SINGLE; SPACER: FLOATING)
SLEEVE TYPEl ADJUSTABLE: (YEBiNO)
MFCR.
CUARD
STUFFING bOXESt 8ORC *! DEPTH ".
JACKETED . (YEBI NO)
PACKING TYPE (3)
SIZE: * I.D.: " O.D.: ' SQ.
NUMBER OF RINCS
MECHANICAL SEAL
SMOTHERING GLAND: (YES: NO)
FLUSHING OIL TO. LANTRN RING. ( YES; HO): WEAR. RING! (YES: NO)
BASE PLATE TYPE
FLOOR SPACE REQ-O.
BEARINGS: THRUST. TYPE. (BALLl STEP: KINGSB.) TYPE NO. ; LUBRICATORS (OIL) GREASE) TYPE. CAPi
RADIAL! TYPE: (BALLl SLEEVE) TYPE NO. : LUBRICATORS (OIL: GREASE) TYPEl CAP.
MFGR. SHALL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING DRAWING NO.
SERIAL NUMBER
PERFORMANCE CURVES (CALCULATED: TEST) (HOTS B>
OUTLINE DRAWING
CROSS SECTION DRAWING
5-W. TOr BEAR'GSi THRl (YEBI NO) OPM WT. OF PUMP LBS.
BEAR'CS. RADl (YEBI NO) «PM WT. OF PUMP AND BASK LBS.
STUFF. BOX. (VEB: NO) CPM WT. OF DRIVER LB«.
PEDESTAL! (YES! NO) OPM SHIPPING WT. LBS.
NOZZLES SIZE RATINGI4) FACING* 4 > LOCATION
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
VENTS
DRAINS
COOLING WATER
WITNESS TEST
STATIC BALANC'O. OFi IMP.i > YESi NO)) ROTVT-C. ASSBY.i (YZSl NO)
DYNAM. BALANC'O. OFi IMP.! (YES: NO)I ROTAT'O. ASSBY.I (YESl NO
DRIVER: SUPPLIED BY
MOUNTED BY
EXEC. MOTOR. MAKE
TYPE
SPECIAL INSULATION
M.P. 1 RPM
VOLTB i PH. | CYC.
START. (LOW VOLTAGE! ACROSS LINE)
BEARINGS
BEARINGS LUB.
POWER CONSUMPTION
TURBINE. MAKE
TYP«
M.P.
PRESS. 0 THROTTLE PSIG
TEMPERATURE *F.
QUALITY OBJ SUPERHEAT
BACK PRESS P9IG
WATER RATE LBS./H.P. HR.
MAX. ALLOW. SPEED RPM
ENGINE. MAKE
TYPE
: M.P.
FUEL
HEATING VALUE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
spreo: OPCR.
SPEED REDUCCRt
LHV.
• TU/BHP./MR.
RPM; MAX. ALLOW itPW
IV -BELT: GEAR)
VENDOR SUPPLY: SPEED REDUCER. MUFFLER, RADIATOR. GCNERATCR-
•TARTER
AIR CLEANER. OIL FILTER. FUEL REG.. BATTtIT
REMARK* _ _ _
(I) FDt A IARCI OF ST. Bt. US! LOWTST FOI IMrCUtI SIBNC AND CCUEN MEAD. MISHtJT FOI H. f. CALC (I) OK SAtt VOIKIHC riESS. SHAU U CIVtR AFTII IUITIACT. COIIOS. AU.OB.
(I) FACKIN8 WILL BE INSTALLED tN HtLa VtNDOl TO SHIP IN INDIVIDUAL LABELLED MCKACeS. «) Mil P£> ISA BliC LATtST SUPrUHCXT. T_1 S
CO Plt/Dm. CUntS MUST INCLUDE: HZAO. CAPAOTY. tmC-SMF. UO^NFSHrOIDCSI«NIHPUUt:AUO MAD. CArAOTT FOI Bit. AII9 MAX. IUPQJLIIS. '
-------
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP SPECIFICATION
P-2A, 2A(S) SINGMASTER a BREYER
P— 2B» 2B(S) VEWOOSJ MUBT COMPLETE THIS BPEaPlCATION B41EET BETOBE »ETUBJ«U««
ITEM NO. SERVICE Reducer Pumps
NO. REO* 0. 4 HOTOR DRIVEN. AND DRIVEN. VENDOR
LIQUID PUMPED Molten Carbonate Salt
CORROSION OR EROSION FACTORS
OPERATING CONDITIONS
PUMPING TEMPERATURE 950 'f.
FlOW @ FVT. 585 0PM DIFFERENTIAL 15 6pSI FT. <1)
•PEC. CR- @ r.T. 2.0 DISCHARGE PSIC
BAROMETRIC PSIA
NPSH AVAILABLE FT.
NPSH REQUIRED FT.
MATERIALS ..I.NUL
CASEI iwitm *"«•• '*•"
OUTER All Wetted Parts
WE** RING* To Be S.S. Type 347
•TUC> AND HUT*
GASKETS
IMPELLER
WEAK RINGS
OIFFUSEM*
iMTERsre. PIECE
INTXHSTO. BUSHING
•HAFT
STUFF. BOX *MAFT SLEEVES
INTERSTO. BHAPT SLEEVE
•TUFFINO VOX
PACKINO GLAND
•LAND STUDS
LANTERN BUNS)
THROAT BUSHING
BALANCING) DRUM
PWCSS. BA1_ BLECVK
•EARING MOUSING
SHUT NO. ^ NKV.
DATE 11-16-70
BY SF . CHK'D.
JOB NO. PS_?1fl
MFR'S TYPE NO.
PUMP TYPE: IMOIIIZ: VERT. BUBHEROl VKRT. BUCT.I HI6CN. TURB.)
PUMP SIZE : NO. OF STAGES : SPEED RPM
BHP & RATING
MAX. BHP W/IMPELLER SUPPLIED
MAX. BHP W/MAX. IMPELLER
FOB SP. OH. (1)1
POM SP. OR. (1)1
FOR SP. OR. (1»
CONSTRUCTION
CA«CIBWP ' P»IO Q
MIN. THICKNESS
*F.| HYDTEBT. PS la
*. CORR. ALLOW. *.
SUPPORT TYPEi (CENTERLINE: FOOT: BRACKET)
IMPELLER OVERHUNOI
SPLITt (HORIZONTAL:
(YES: NO)
VERTICALl BARREL)
INSULATION
IMPELLER DIAMl SUPPLIED
*! MAX. "| MIN. '.
TYPEi (OPCNt SEMI -ENCLOSED! ENCLOSED)
EYE VELOCITY @ BATING FTVsEC.
DIRECTION OF ROTATION (FACING PUMP COUPUNG) (CW; CCW)
CLEARANCE I RADIAL) WEARING RINGS '.
INTERSTG. 7IECE
"l PRESS. RED. DRUM ".
COUPLING. FLEXIBLE. (SINGLK; SPACER: FLOATING)
SLEEVE TYPEt
ADJUSTABLE: (YES: NO)
MFC*.
GUARD
STUFFING UOXeti BORE
JACKETED
*: DEPTH '.
(YES! NO)
PACKING TYPEO>
SIZE: * I.D.:
" O.D.: * «o.
NUMBER OF RINCS
MECHANICAL SEAL
SMOTHERING GLAND:
FLUSHING OIL TO. LANTRN RING'
(YES: NO)
IYC8I NO): WEAR. RINGl (YES; NO)
BASE PLATE TYPE
FLOOR SPACE REO'D.
BEARINQ9: THRUST. TYPEi (BALLl BTEPl KIMOSB.) TYPE NO. ; LUBRICATORS (OILl CREASE) TYPEi CAPl
RADIAL. TYPE: (BALL: SLEEVE) TYPE NO. : LUBRICATORS (OIL: GREASE) TYPE. ' CAPl
MFCR. SHALJL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING DRAWINO NO.
BERIAL NUMBER
PERFORMANCE CURVE* (CALCULATIOl TE»T) (NOTI •)
OUTLINE OWAWINO
CROSS SECTION DRAWIHa
C-W. TO. BEAR'OSl THRi (THI NO) OPM WT. OF PUMP LB«.
•EAR'O*! RADl (YE»1 NO) aPM WT. OF PUMP AND BABE LBB.
•TUFF. BOXt FACINOI4) LOCATION
STATIC BALANCra. OF. IMP.. I YESi NO): ROTATB. ASSBV.t (>«•: NO)
DYNAM. BALANC'O. OFi IMP 1 (YES: NO)I ROTAT'O. ASSBT.I (YCSi NO)
DRIVER:
MOUNTED BY
CLEC. MOTOR. MAKE
TYPE
SPECIAL INSULATION
H.P. , nm
VOVTB 1 PH. 1 CYC.
START. (LOW VOLTAGE! ACROSS LINE)
BEARINGS
BEARINGS' LUB.
POWER CONSUMPTION
TURBINE. MAKE
TYPE
H.P.
PRESB. O THROTTLE PSIO
TEMPERATURE *F.
QUALITY OR SUPERHEAT
BACK PRESS - PSIO
WATER RATE LBS./H.P. HR.
MAX. ALLOW. SPEED RPM
ENGINE. MAKE
TYPE
: H.P.
FUEL
HEATING VALUE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
SPEED: OPER.
SPEED REDUCE*!
VENDOR SUPPLY! SPEED
STARTER. AIR
LHV.
• TU/BHP./HR.
RPM: MAX. ALLOW RPM
IV- BELT: GEAR)
REDUCER. MUFFLER. RADIATOR. GENERATOR.
CLCANER. OIL FILTER. FUEL KEG.. BATTERY.
"• Vertical Cantilever Type 4' Long Shaf t-4' Long Tail Piece
(I) ro» * tAMCi OF v. •«. o« LOWIST rot IMFOUI «tn«« AND DESIGN HEAD. MICHETT FOI a r. CALC. u> CAIE wn womnxs p»tss. SHALL K eivui Arnt «J*T*«CT. cotaoi. ALLOW.
(I) P*CKIIie BSLL SI IHITAtUO III FICLO. VCMOOI TO SHIP IN INDIVIDUAL LUEUED FACXACCS. (4) MfC FCt «M Sl!£ L*TCST lUFFUMCITr. 7—16
CP POrOEBV CVtYU HUIT tUCLUOt tOAIX CVAOTT. CFTTC. IHP. EEO*D NPSH F0» DCJ)«H IHFCLLEI: ALSO XIAO. CAFAOTT F0» MIX. AM) MAX, IMPtLLim.
-------
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP SPECIFICATION
. . SINGMASTER a BREYER
^~" ' ' V&/ VKNOOM MUBT COMPLETE THIS SPECIFICATION CHUT BEFORE RETURNIHB
ITEM NO. SERVICE Regenerator Bottoms Pump
NO. REO'O. 2 MOTOR DRIVEN, AND DRIVEN. VENDOR
LIQUID PUMPED Molten Carbonate Salt
CORROSION OR EROSION FACTORS
OPERATING CONDITIONS
•UMPINO TEMPERATURE 950 V.
FLOW@P.T. 300 an* DIFFERENTIAL 14>»i 171ir. M>
SPEC. CR. @ P.T. 210 DISCHARGE 147 PSIG
VISCO*. @ P.T. 1 2 CJ". SUCTION 0 PSIO
BAROMETRIC PSlA
NPSH AVAILABLE FT.
NPSH REQUIRED FT.
MATERIALS
CASEl INNER
OUTER. All Wetted Parts
WEAR RING. SS Type 347
STUD* AND NUT»
GASKETS !
IMPELLER . i
WEAK RINa* i
DIFFUSERS
INTERSTO. PIECE
INTERSTO. BUSHING
•HAFT
•TUFF. BOX »HAFT SLEEVES
IHTERSTG. «HAFT SLEEVE
STUFFING BOX
PACKING GLAND
•LAND STUDS
LANTERN RINa
THROAT BUSHING
BALANCINB DRUM
PREIS. BAI_ SLEEVE
BEARING HOUSING,
•RIHNELi
VIA*'* PARTI
•HCKT NO. ^ NKV.
DATE 11-16-70
•Y SF . CHK'D.
JOB NO. PS 218
5P —
PUMP TYPE: (HORIZ: VERT. SUBHERGI VERT. SUCT.I RECEM. TURB.)
PUMP SIZE : NO. OF STAGES : SPEED RPM
BMP 6 RATING
POM SP. OR. (l)i
MAX. BMP W/IMPCLLER SUPPLIED FOR SP. OR. (1)1
MAX. BHP W/MAX. IMPELLER
FOR SP. OR. (1)1
CONSTRUCTION
CASEl SWP .(*) PSIO O
MIN. THICKNESS
•F.| HYOTEST. PSIB
*. CORR. ALLOW. ".
SUPPORT TYPEI ICENTERLINSI FOOT) BRACKET)
IMPELLER OVERHUNGi
• PLITt 1 HORIZONTAL: VERTICALl BARREL)
INSULATION
IMPELLER DIAMl SUPPLIED
TYPE!
"l MAX. *, MIN. '.
(OPENl SEMI-ENCLOSEDl ENCLOSED)
EYE VELOCITY & BATING PT./SEC.
DIRECTION OF ROTATION (FACING PUMP COUPLING) (CWl CCW )
CLEARANCE (RADIAL) WEARING
(NTERSTO. fllC*
RINGS '.
'l PRESS. RED. DRUM '.
COUPLING. FLEXIOLEi (SINGLE! SPACER: FLOATING)
SLEEVE TYPEi
ADJUSTABLE; (YES: NO)
MFCR.
GUARD
STUFFING bOXCC: BORE
JACKETED
*t DEPTH ".
(YESl NO)
PACKING TVPE(J)
SIZEi * I.D.:
• 0.0. : ' sa.
NUMBER OP RINGS
MECHANICAL SEAL
SMOTHERING GLAND:
(YES: NO)
FLUSHING OIL TOi LANTRN RINGi 1 YESl NO): WEAR. RINGl (YES: NO)
BASE PLATE TYPE
FLOOR SPACE REQ'O.
BEARINGS: THRUSTl TTPEl (BALU BTEP: KINGSB.) TTPE HO. i LUBRICATORS (OILj CREASE) TYPIt CAPt
RADIALl TYPE! ( BALLl SLEEVE) TYPE NO. : LUBRICATORS (OIL: CREASE) TYPEi CAP!
MFOR. SHAUL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING DRAWINd NO.
BERIAL NUMBER
PERFORMANCE CURVES (CALCULATED: TEST) (NOTE S)
OUTLINE DRAWING
CROSS SECTION DRAWING
C.W. TOi BEAM-aSi THKI fYI«t NO) OfH WT. OF fUHF LBS.
BEAR-aSl RADl (YXSt NO) «PM WT. OF PUMP AND BASK LBS.
STUFF. BOXl (YES: NO) CPM WT. OF DRIVER LBS.
PEOCSTALl (YESl NO) GPM SHIPPING* WT. LBS.
NOZZLES SIZE HATH
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
VENTS
DRAINS
COOLING WATER
•IQHl FACINGI4)| LOCATION
!
WITNESS TEST
STATIC BALANC-a. OFl IMP.i rYES: NOIt ROTATES. ASSBY.I (YE»J NO)
DYNAM. BALANC^O. OF; IMP.t (YES: NO» ROTAT'O. ASSSY.t (YESl NO)
MOUNTED BY
CLEC. MOTOR. MAKE
TYP«
SPECIAL INSULATION
M.P. 1 RPM
VOLTS I PH. | CYC.
STARTl (LOW VOLTAGE: ACROSS LINK)
BEARINGS
BCARIN6S LUB.
POWER CONSUMPTION
TURBINE. MAKE
TYPE
H.P.
PRESS. & THROTTLE PSIO
TEMPERATURE *P.
QUALITY OR SUPERHEAT
BACK PRESS PSIO
WATER RATE LBS./H.P. HR.
MAX. ALLOW. SPEED RPM
ENGINE. MAKE
TYPE
I M.P.
FUEL
HEATING VALUE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
SPEED: OPER.
SPECO REDUCERi
VENDOR SUPPLY! SPI
STAWTTR.
LMV.
BTU/BHP./MR.
RPM: MAX. ALLOW RPM
(V-SCLT: GEARI
[ED REDUCER. MUFFLER. RADIATOR. GENERATOR.
Ain CLEANER. OIL FILTER. FUEL KEG.. BATTERY.
REMAP*. * vertical Cantilever Type - 4' Long Shaf t-2' Long Tail Piece
.,..-__ „_ _ — .„„-...._ (i) CAJE s»n B-oiwms PUSS. SHALL »t «vt» trriinimtct.
fi)pAcnrw *Tun7iiiTAU£D litntui.VWDCHTO jwiTi-mavtouu.USEOEOr«CK»etv (0 »AHn* »»HIMLATTJI SUPTUMENT. 7—17
tt pura«n. CU»YU Murrir»a.uot HEA& CVAOTY. trnc, sw. ETST) NMH res oaisumFiui* AUOHIAD.CAtAOTT ro» MIH. AHOP«»X,
coitot. ALLOW.
-------
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP SPECIFICATION
P-4~ 4 (S) 8INGMASTER ft BREYER
»EMOOI» MUST COMPLETE TMI* SPECIFICATION SHEET BEFORE RETURN IMS
ITEM NO. SERVICE Reqen«?rator Intermediate Pump
NO. REQ'O. 7 MOTOH DRIVSNVAND OKIVEN. VENDOR
LIQUID PUMPED Molten Carbonate Salt
CORROSION OR EROSION FACTORS
OPERATING CONDITIONS
PUMPING TEMPERATURE 950 V.
PLOW @ P.T. 350 am DIFFERENTIAL 10 IPSI 117 rr. («>
•PTC. en. & P.T. 2.0 DISCHARGE 101 PSIG
viscos. @ P.T. 12 c-r. SUCTION 0 PSIG
BAROMETRIC PSIA
NPSH AVAILABLE FT.
NPSH REQUIRED IT.
MATERIALS .....in
CAM! INNC* ""•'• "«"
oum All Wetted Parts
WXARP.ING. SS Tyt>e 347
STUDS ANO NUT*
GASKETS
IMPELLER
WEAK RINGS
DIFFUSERS ' !
INTERSTG. PIECE
INTERSTG. BUSHING
•HAFT
•TUFF. BOX SHAFT SLEEVES
IMTERSTO. SHAFT SLEEVE
STUFFING BOX
PACKING QLAND
•LAND STUDS
LANTERN »IN«
THROAT BUSHING
BALANCING DRUM
PKCSS. BAL. SLEEVE
•EARING HOUSING
•HOT MO. 4 "EV.
DATE 11-16-70
•Y SP . CHK'D.
JOB NO. PS- 2 18
* • —
PUMP TYPE: IHORIZl VERT. SUBUEROl VERT. SUCT.I REOEN. TURB.)
PUMP SIZE : NO. OF STAGES : SPEED RPM
BHP 6 RATING
MAX. BHP W/IMPCLLER SUPPLIED
MAX. BHP W/MAX. IMPELLER
FOR sp. an. (I).
FOR SP. OR. (Ill
FOR SP. OR. (I)|
CONSTRUCTION
CASE! SWP .(1) PSia 9
MIN. THICKNESS
SUPPORT TYPEl ICENTERLI
IMPELLER OVERHUNOl
SPLITt 1 HORIZONTAL:
>.l HYDTEST. PSia
*. CORR. ALLOW. '.
NE: FOOT! BRACKET)
(YESl NO)
VERTICAL! BARREL)
INSULATION
IMPELLER DIAMt SUPPLIED
*l MAX. *i MIN. '.
TTPCi (OPEN: SEMI-ENCLOSEDl ENCLOSED!
EYE VELOCITY & RATING FTystC.
DIRECTION OF ROTATION ( FACING PUMP COUPLING) ICWiCCW)
CLEARANCE 1 RADIAL) WEARING RINGS *.
INTERSTG. PIECE
'l PRESS. RED. DRUM '.
COUPLING. FLEXIOLEl (SINGLE! SPACER: FLOATING)
SLEEVE TYPEt
ADJUSTABLEt (YES.! NO)
MFCR.
GUARD
STUFFING BOXCCi BORE
JACKETED
*i DEPTH '.
(YE*| NO)
PACKING TYPE(J)
SIZEt * I.D.:
* O.D.: ' SO.
NUMBER OF RINGS
MECHANICAL SEAL
SMOTHERING GLAND:
FLUSHING OILTOl LANTRN RING>
(YES: NOl
(YES: NO): WEAR. RING. (YES: NO)
BASE PLATE TYPE
FLOOR SPACE REQ'O.
BEARINGS: THRUST. TYPE. (BALLl STEP: KINOSB.) TTFK NO. : LUBRICATORS (OIL: GREASE) TYPti CAPi
HADIALl TTFC: (BALL) SLEETO) TYPE NO. : LUBRICATORS FOIL: GREAttl TTPEt CAP.
MFGR. SHALL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING DRAWING NO.
SERIAL NUMBER
PERFORMANCE CURVE* (CALCULATED: TEST) (NOTE S)
OUTLINE DRAWINO
CROSS SECTION DRAWINa
S-W. TOt BCAR'CS. TMIli (YESl NO) OPM VTT. OF FUMP L»S.
•EAR-OSl RADl (YESl NO) OPM WT. OF PUMP AND BASE LBS.
STUFF. BOXl (YES: NO) CPM WT. OF DRIVER LBS.
PEDESTALi (YES! NO) CPM SHIPPING WT. LBS.
NOZZLES SIZE RATIN
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
VENTS
DRAINS
COOLING WATER
WITNESS TEST
a<«> FACINGI4) LOCATION
STATIC BALANC'O. OFl IMP.. .YES; N3): ROTATG. ASSBY.I (YESl NO)
OYNAM. BAUANC-a. OFi IMP.t ( ftS: NOll ROTAT'a. ASSBV.i (YESl SOI
MOUNTED BY
ELEC. MOTOR, MAKE
TTPE
•PECIAL INSULATION
M.P. I RPM
VOLT* | PH. I CYC.
START. ( LOW VOLTAGE! ACROSS LINE)
BEARINGS
BEARINGS LUB.
TURBINE. MAKE
TYPE
H.P.
PRESS. & THROTTLE
TEMPERATURE
PSIG
V.
QUALITY OR SUPERHEAT
BACK PRESS
WATER RATE
P9IG
LBS./H.P. HR.
RPM
ENGINE. MAKE
TYPE
I M.P.
FUEL
HEATING VALUE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
SPEED: OPER.
SPEED REDUCER.
LMV.
• TU/DHP./HR.
RPM: MAX. ALLOW RPM
I V. BELT: GEAR)
VENDOR SUPPLY: SPEED REDUCER. MUFFLER. RADIATOR. GENERATOR.
STARTER.
AIR CLEANER. OIL FILTER. FUEL MO.. BATTERY
*vertical Cantilever Type 4' Long Shaft; 2' Long Tail Piece
) roi * UMt or v. •». u * uwwr rot mrtutt jnms «ND DUIGN «AO. HISHEJT ro« H. f . CALC (U e*« tat wonntn PKJS. 5M»u. K «»w AFrnjujT
) PAcrans wu re mjTAUED m nan. vcxoot TO JHIP IN iKaviDU»L LASCU.U r*CK»«t«. W »*i f* **» B"E L»TUT SUPPUWEHT. / — J.O
ruroiB. cunts BUST iwauot HEAD, CAPAOTT. tmc. BUT. *vro HWH FO» oait* IMPCUI* AUO KIAO. CAMOTT FO» HJN. ARO MAX. iHpautv
. eot»o». «u o».
-------
• CENTBIFUGAL PUMP SPECIFICATION SHEBT NO. -1
8INGMASTER ft BREYER
_ V**00» MOST COMPLETE THIS SPECIFICATION SHEET
,TEMNO. P-3 __ SERVICE MoCO-, MaVwip Pllmp
HEV.
DATE 11-16-70
BEFORE RZTURMUia *Y $p 1
CHK'D.
JOB NO. PS-21R
NO. REO'D. 1 MOTOB, DRIVEN. AND DRIVEN. VENDOR MFR'S TYPE NO
UQUID PUMPED Molten Carbonate Salts
CORROSION OR EROSION FACTORS
OPERATING CONDITIONS
PUMPING TEMPERATURE oOO *F.
PLOW @ P.T. 4 0PM DIFFERENTIAL 1 2 PSI 14 FT. (1)
•PEC. CM. @ P.T. 2.0 DISCHARGE 1 2 PSIG
VISCDS. @ P.T. 1 2 CP. SUCTION Q PSIG
BAROMETRIC PSIA
NP9H AVAILABLE • FT.
NP8H REQUIRED FT.
'
MATERIALS ....urn.
CASt, INNER •««»'• "»'«
ovrmm All Wf»t-.t-*»rl Part's
KEAR RINGS Type 347 SS
STUDS AND NUTS
BASKETS '
IMPELLER
WEAR RINGS
CirrUSERS
INTERSTG. PIECE
INTZRSTG. BUSHINA
•HAFT
STUFF. BOX SHAFT SLEEVES
INTERSTG. SHAFT SLEEVE
STUFFING BOX
PACKING GLAND
•LAND STUDS
LANTERN RfNB
THROAT BUSHING
BALANCING DRUM
PRESS. BAL. BLXEVK
BEARING HOUSING
PUMP TYPE: (MORIZ) VERT. SUBMERG) VERT. SUCT.I REGEN. TURB.)
PUMP SIZE ; NO. OF STAGES : SPEED RPM
BHP Q RATING FOR BP.
MAX. BHP W/IMPCLLER SUPPLIED FOR SP.
MAX. BHP W/MAX. IMPELLER FOR SP.
OR. (1)1
OR. (1)1
OR. III.
CONSTRUCTION
CASElSWPJS) PSIO 0 *P.| MYDTEBT. PSI«
MIN. THICKNESS *. CORR. ALLOW. '.
SUPPORT TYPEi (CENTERLINE: FOOT. BRACKET)
IMPELLER OVERHUNGl (YES) MO)
SPLIT: (HORIZONTAL) VERTICAL)
BARREL)
INSULATION
IMPELLER DIAMl SUPPLIED "l MAX.
*\ MIN. *.
TYPEi (OPEN) SEMI. ENCLOSED: ENCLOSED)
EYE VELOCITY & BATING
prysEC.
DIRECTION OF ROTATION (FACING PUMP COUPLING) (CW: CCW)
CLEARANCE (RADIAL) WEARING RINGS '.
INTERSTG. 7IECE "\ PRESS. RED.
DRUM *.
COUPLING, FLEXIBLE! (SINGLE) SPACXRt FLOATING)
SLEEVE TYPEi ADJUSTABLE) (YES: NO)
MFGR.
GUARD
STUFFING bOXECt BORE *i DEPTH ".
JACKETED (YESl NO)
PACKING TYPE(S)
SIZEl " I.D.: ' O.D
: 'so.
NUMBER OF RINGS
MECHANICAL SEAL
SMOTHERING GLAND: (YES: NO)
FLUSHING OILTOl LANTRN RINGi IYESI NO): WEAR. RINGl 1 YES: NO)
BASE PLATE TYPE
FLOOR SPACE REO'O.
•EARINO9: THRUST. TYPE. IBALU STEP) KINOSB.) TYPE NO. , : LUBRICATORS (DILI GREASE) TYPEi
RADIAL. TYPEt (BALLl SLEEVE) TYPE NO. : LUBRICATORS (OIL: GREASE) TYPEi
MFGR. SHALL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING DRAWING NO.
SERIAL NUMBER
PERFORMANCE CURVES (CALCULATED: TEST) (NOTE •)
OUTLINE DRAWING
CROSS SECTION DRAWING
S.W. TOf BEAR'GSi THRi CYEBj NO) OPM WT. OF PUMP LBB.
BEAR-GSl RAOl (YES, NO) OPM WT. OP PUMP AND BASK LBB.
STUFF, BOXl (YES: NO) CPM WT. OP DRIVER LBB.
PEDESTAL, FACINGI4)
CAPi
CAPi
LOCATION
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
VENTS
DRAINS
COOLING WATEH
WITNESS TEST
STATIC BALANC'G. OFl IMP.i (YES: NO): ROTATG
DYNAM. BALANC'0-OFi IMP.I (YES: NO)! ROTAT'O
ASSSY.i (YES: NO)
ASSBY.i (YXSl NO)
MOUNTED BY
TYPE
SPECIAL INSULATION
HJ«. 1 HPM
VOtT« t PM. 1 CTC.
•TART. (LOW VOLTAGE) ACROSS UNO
BEARINGS
BEARINGS LUB.
TURBINE. MAKE
TYPE
N.P.
PRESS. O THROTTLE PSIG
TEMPERATURE *P.
QUALITY OR SUPERHEAT
BACK PRESS P9IG
WATER RATE LBB^H-P. H».
MAX. ALLOW. SPEED RPM
ENGINE. MAKE
TYPE 1 H.P.
FUEL
HEATING VALUE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
SPEED: OPER. RPM: MAX. ALLOW
LHV.
BTU/BHP./HR.
RPM
SPEEO BEOUCERl (V-BELT: GEAR)
VENDOR SUPPLY: SPEED RE3UCER. MUFFLER. RADI
ATOR. GENERATOR.
STARTER. AIR CLEANER. OIL FILTER. FUEL KIG.. BATTERY.
REMAP*. * vertical Cantilever Type - 3' Long Shaft; 2' Long Tail Piece
(I) ro»* UMI or v. i»..B«L<»mro» IMPCLUI mw »HD DUICN mto. HISHEST roi H. r. CMX. (t) c»M s«i •OIEIR* r w>s. JH»U re WVM tntt turt»»CT. cotwi. AIIOS.
W P*CKI!«6 WU. n IIIJTALUID III n£La.VENOOI TO JHIf IH IKDIVIDUAL U3EU.E3 MCKASIJ. M •»« «» »H BISt UTUT idmiHOn. /—J.y
W KE*O»«. cums null IMOJIDE; Mi*a orAOTT, OTIC. »HF. scan WJH roi DEJISH IMKUJK »uo HIAO. CWAOTT ro» w». *no MAX. mnuitv
-------
c. Vessel Sketches
Sketches of vessels, tanks or bins required for the
removal process that are not provided with major equipment
are attached to this section of the report.
SINGMASTER & BREYER
7-20
-------
<1
-Sjf
/? 5 /6.i
Dgm/s&r
\ i i r i
-for WJmtcUr? ar>t€.
of
Itt'-t
H-®
OATE_?'.
CHK'O
APP'D
-/A, B,C,£Z>
VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE
OTHER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS. 0 TEMP.
/PSI«
OPER. PRESS. 6 TEMP.
STRESS RELIEVING
WELD EXAMINATION
JOINT EFFICIENCYJSHELL
HEADS
CORR. ALLOWANCE (SHELL
HEADS
LINING
MAX.ALL.PRESS.(NEW ft COLD)
PS I
HYDROSTATIC TEST
PS I
HAKWER TEST
PS I
SHELL
HEADS j -Z40 Tf>3-f7
SUPPORT
INTERNALS
TRAYS
FIREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
INSULATION
THK.
SQ.FT.
INS. SUPP. RINGS
PAINT
WT. OF
TRAYS
WT.&NO.
OF CAPS
fTJRN. BY
INST'D BY
INST'P BY
LBS.
REQ'D.
LBS.
NET FAB.WT.
,L£JST»*Y5
( AND C*»«
EMPTY WEIGHT
OPERATING WEIGHT
LBS.
TEST WEIGHT
WIND
FT.LBS.
EARTHQUAKE
FT.LBS.
MANHOLE
HANDHOLE
NOTES a REF.DWGS.:
MC. RTG. FCG. SIZE
to*
l&
13?'
Z 5
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
-i o
O. U.I
NO.
SIZE
WIDTO
PLATFORM
WEIGHT
83-:
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE III
VESSEL DAVIT
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
PIPE GUIDES
3000*
/2 CPUGS.
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
OA
7-21
SINGMASTER a BREYER
-------
nqrr
\ \
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAMP M>- Ur->vc Dzs. <£,
OTHER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS. S TEMP.
2. PSI e
OPER. PRESS. 8 TEMP.
/ PSI 0
STRESS RELIEVING A/<3
NOTES » REF. DWGS.
WELD EXAMINATION
'
JOINT EFFICIENCY SHELL
* HEADS
CORR. ALLOWANCE
SHELL
HEADS
20'
LINING
MAX. ALL. PRESS. {NEW 4 COLD)
PSI
12"
HYDROSTATIC TEST
PSI
r/o
HAMMER TEST
PSI
o
jo"
(D
_!
<
cc
SHELL SA-243- TP 347
HEADS
a/*
„£_
/So"
°UMP
SUPPORT
M(.
RTG. FCG. SIZE
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
FIREPROOFING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
WT.
NSULATION
SQ.FT.
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
AINT
PUMP
NET FAB WEIGHT
3SO 0 LBS.
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
OPERATING WEIGHT
LBS.
EST WEIGHT
LBS.
MANHOLE
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
HANDHOLE
DATE
APP'D
PS-2/&-40/&
7-22
SINGMASTER ft BREYER
-------
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAMP /V<9- UPVC
NOTES ft REF. DWGS.
OTHER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS. « TEMP.
PSJ
OPER. PRESS. 8 TEMP.
PSI 0
STRESS RELIEVING
WELD EXAMINATION
JOINT EFFICIENCY SHELL
7O •>. HEADS /£?«•>
CORR. ALLOWANCE SHELL
HEADS
LINING —
/r.f
20"
S-SSL CiT/vV
•»„
MAX. ALL. PRESS. (NEW « COLD)
PSI
HYDROSTATIC TEST
PSI
D
HAMMER TEST
PSI
SHELL
3^7
5
-10
HEADS
A
PUMP
SUPPORT
V "
-. C- .
MK. RTG. FCG. SIZE
?
^ ^xJ £ r 'S
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
IREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
WT.
NSULATION
g" THK.
SQ.FT.
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
A INT
NET FAB WEIGHT
LBS.
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
V-2D
PERATING WEIGHT
LBS.
EST WEIGHT
LBS.
MANHOLE
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
HANOHOLE
DATE
APP'O
7-23 SINGMASTER & BREYER
-------
LE6END
- Mo no fray
2/8-40/9 r—B
4
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAI*> Yes - U Pvc- jLafesf
OTWER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS, a rap.
OPER. PRESS. 8 TEMP.
<£, PSI e
STRESS RELIEVING
WELD EXAMINATION
JOINT EFFICIENCYISHELL
NOTES ft REF. DWGS.
6-2:£~4oje>
CORP. ALLOWANCE SHELL
JL
HEADS
3*
'ff- 2 f
LINING
MAX. ALL. PRESS. (NEW & COLO)
PSI
C,"
HI/ i-trie.
HYDROSTATIC TEST
PSI
HA^WER TEST
PSI
cr
UJ
|
SHELL
2 O4
_B
HEADS
SUPPORT
C (or be
Me/r fn/af
MK.
RTG. FCG. SIZE
INTERNALS
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
(REPROOFING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
rr.
NSULATION
THK.
SQ.FT.
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
AI NT
ET FAS WEIGHT
24.000 LBS.
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
DERATING WEIGHT
LBS.
EST WEIGHT
LSS.
MANHOLE ("j;s»,8') g- Daw Fed
CONTRACT NO.
HANOHOLE
DATE
f/iCHK'D
APP'D
DWG. NO.
PS- 2/8- 40/3
7-24
SINGMASTER & BREYER
-------
oaco
' 0
Dctcff/3 f
or
V-2A, £, Cf»
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
7-25
SINGMASTER & BREYER
-------
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAW No- UPVC D£s.
J(ELD EXAMINATION
JOINT EFFICIENCY JSHELL
b* HEADS
/CO %
CORR. ALLOWANCE SHELL —
HEADS —
2-2
LEVEL co.'M/.
LINING
MAX. ALL. PRESS. (NEW & COLD) —
PSI
HYDROSTATIC TEST—
PSI
D
3'
HAMMER TEST
PSI
£>
LU
SHELL
J,° 547
HEADS
'! J
A
SUPPORT .
MK. RTG. FCG. SIZE
INTERNALS ^ - 2 4 O TP 3J 7
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
IREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
WT.
NSULAT i ON
<5" 'THK .
so . FT.
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
A 1 NT
NET FAB WEIGHT
. I/-
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
OPERATING WEIGHT
EST WEIGHT
, ?^ ^LBS .
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
HANOHOLE
DATE
APP'D
7-26
SINGMASTER a BREYER
-------
,
BY tf .
DATE
CHK'D
APP'O
VERTICAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAMP
^•.g - 6' A3 i/ £'• /s _fj°!p*cs. . _'
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
7-27
SINGMASTER & DREYER
-------
' f3'-0
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAMP /V>
CoMSt-
OTHER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS. » TENP.
.£ PSI 8 tOOO °F
OPER. PRESS. S TEMP.
PSI 9
STRESS RELIEVING /V<3
WELD EXAMINATION /VO
JOINT EFFICIENCY I SHELL
HEADS
NOTES ft REF. DWGS.
H
3"
CORR. ALLOWANCE SHELL —
HEADS —
2'
LINING ~
He t
MAX. ALL. PRESS. (NEW ft COLD)
PSI
2o
HYDROSTATIC TEST
PSI
D
2"
o
HAKWER TEST -
PSI
0
o:
u
SHELL
- 2 4O- 7P 34-7
HEADS
d
A
ISO
SUPPORT
M<. RTG. FCG. SIZE
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
FIREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
WT.
NSULATION
so. FT.
LADDER
CAGE -
WT.
\J
A 1 NT
BOTTOMS
NET FAB WEIGHT
9 OO ^LBS.
POMP
EKff>TY WEIGHT
LBS.
OPERATING
EST WEIGHT
44 > 09 3 LBS.
MANHOLE (* L*tllif*}
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
HANDHOLE
DATE
CHK'D
APP'D
7-28
SINGMAST^-R & BREYER
-------
is'-o
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAI*> Mo-UPVC
OTHER
DESIGN PRESS. S TEKP.
PSI S
/OOO°f
OPER. PRESS. 8 TEMP.
O PSI 9
.5.5V3 °F
Tf?ESS RELIEVING
A/i>
WELD EXAMINATION
JOINT EFFICIENCY | SHELL "TO CHEAPS
ENSITY
I »
CORR. ALLOWANCE SHELL —
HEADS
NOTES ft REF. DWGS.
LINING
/r
is"
MAX. ALL. PRESS. (NEW a COLD)
PSI
HYDROSTATIC TEST —
PSI
HAVMER TEST
PSI
C
SHELL 64- 240 TP 347
6
HEADS
A
SUPPORT
MK. RTG.
FCG. SIZE
>'•'£>- -S A /93
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
IREPROOFING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
WT.
NSULATION
SQ.FT.
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
AINT —
ET FAB WEIGHT
& OOOLBS.
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
V-7
PERATING WEIGHT
£,/,
EST WEIGHT
33, /OijLBS.
MANHOLE {"'""V*
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
HANDHOLE
DATE
CHK'D
APP'D
7 — 29 SINGMASTETR ft EREYER
-------
VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE
OTHER SPECS.;
DESIGN PRESS. 0 TEMP.
PS I
OPER. PRESS. 8 TEMP.
PSI 0
STRESS RELIEVING
WELD EXAMINATION
JOINT EFFICIENCY SHELL — % HEADS—
CORR. ALLOWANCE [SHELL /a \CoM= &
LINING
MAX.ALL.PRESS.(NEW ft COLD)
PSI
HYDROSTATIC TEST
PSI
HAMPER TEST
PSI
SHELL.COH5£ TOP- A -££$
HEADS
SUPPORT
INTERNALS
TRAYS
5F1/77-
FIREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
INSULATION
THK.
SQ.FT.
INS. SUPP. RINGS
PAINT
WT. OF
TRAYS
WT.ft NO.
OF CAPS
FURN. BY
INST'O BY
FURN. BY
IHST'O BY
LBS.
REQ'D.
LBS.
NET FAB.WT.
/LES9TKAY9 >
(*«» CAP! I
3/ 2OO LBS.
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
OPERATING WEIGHT
LBS.
TEST WEIGHT
LBS.
WIND
FT.LBS.
EARTHQUAKE
"8 =
FT.LBS.
LAAUU/V C /
MANHOLE (
HINtID Oil
HANDHOLE
NOTES ft REF.DWGS.:
E>
. RTG. FCG. SIZE
IS'
12
QtJH^r
Level
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
• vi
_i Oi
0. U.|
NO.
SIZE
WIDTH
PLATFORM
WEIGHT
TYPE
TYPE II
TYPE III
VESSEL DAVIT
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
IPE GUIDES
CONTRACT NO. DWG. NO.
PS- ?!*-4oi7
7-30
S1NGMASTER & BREYER
-------
HORIZONTAL VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAMP
C Dfs,^CcA/$r/?,
OTHER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS. 0 TEW.
£7 PSI 9
&SO °F
OPER. PRESS. 8 TEMP.
Q PSI 0
QOO
NOTES & REF. DWGS.
STRESS RELIEVING //i>
WELD EXAMINATION
„''•->
JOINT EFFICIENCY | SHELL
7O%| HEADS
? MAT L -
CORR. ALLOWANCE SHELL
HEADS -
SO"
LINING
MAX. ALL. PRESS. (NEW & COLD)
PSI
14
HYDROSTATIC TEST —
PSI
D
T.'
HAMMER TEST
PSI
12
SHELL
-
HEADS
150
SUPPORT
M<.
RTG.
FCG. SIZE
R c- M <-\
INTERNALS
NOZZLE SCHEDULE
B3C.
VESSEL FABRICATOR TO SUPPLY CLIPS ONLY FOR
FIREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
PLATFORM
WT.
NSULATION
SQ.FT.
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
AINT
NET FAB WEIGHT
LBS-
EMPTY WEIGHT
LBS.
OPERAT 1 NG WEI GHT
LBS .
EST WEIGHT
2 9' OOC LBS.
MANHOLE
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
HANDHOLE
- 4005
DATE
CHK'D
APP'D
7-31.
• SINGMASTER a BREYER
-------
M NJ
CHK'D_
APP'D
v$//0S
T'3
J-S
VESSEL DESIGN DATA
CODE STAMP -/\l0~ Jr'. ,'• D?J, f
OTHER SPECS.:
DESIGN PRESS. 6 TEMP.
PSI
OPER. PRESS. 6 TEMP.
fj
PSI
STRESS RELIEVING —
WELD EXAMINATION —
JOINT EFFICIENCY|SHELL r_> %| HEADS
CORR. ALLOWANCE SHELL —
HEADS —
LINING
MAX.ALL.PRESS.(NEW a COLD)
PSI
WDROSTATIC TEST
PSI
HAMMER TEST
PSI
SHELL - />- ££
HEADS
SUPPORT
INTERNALS
TRAYS
FIREPROOF ING
THK.
SQ.FT.
INSULATION .. -
THK.
SQ.FT.
INS. SUPP. RINGS —•
PAINT- ' v
WT. OF.
TRAYS
WT.& NO.
OF CAPS
FURN. BY
INST'D BY
FURN. BY
INST'D BY
LBS.
REQ'D.
LBS.
NET FAB.WT.
LBS.
NDAT
DATA
EMPTY WEIGHT
,
LBS.
OPERATING WEIGHT V
>?-?LBS.
TEST WEIGHT
LBS.
WIND
FT. LBS.
EARTHQUAKE
FT. LBS.
>i«uunl c / MINSto on ,
MANHOLE ( PAVITIO )
HANDHOLE
NOTES a REF.DWGS.:
Mtt
D
fl
/SO'
MK. RTG.
f?.r
CO
4'
12"
FCG. -SIZE
//<7/.»-
Lcv-
So t:
TYPE III
VESSEL DAVIT
LADDER
CAGE
WT.
PIPE GUIDES
i/|°??rcs.
CONTRACT NO.
DWG. NO.
7-32
SINGMASTER flc BREYER
-------
d. Motor List
t?he list of motors for all required equipment are contained
in the following pages. This list was used to estimate the elec-
trical construction cost.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
7-33
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
B-2
F-1A&1E
P-1A;1/
P-1B;1E
P-1C;1C
P-1D;1E
V-1A
V-1B
V-1C
V-1D
V-2A
V-2B
V-2C
V-2D
SERVICE
Filter Displacement Blower
Fly Ash Filter-Drive
-Screw
(S) Absorber Pumps
(S)
(S)
(S)
Absorber Bypass Valve 3@
3@
3@>
3@
Absorber Pump Tank-Elec.Htr.
•
HORSE POWER
OPER.
10
2
5
125
125
125
125
3
3
3
3
30K
30K
3010
3010
SPARE
2
5
125
125
125
125
fj
V
•7
V
SYN.
R.P.M.
VOLTAGE
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
NO. OF
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0 - OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN • SYNCHRONOUS
OE - OPEN, ENCAPSULATED - WR • WOUND ROTOR
TENV - TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CP1 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC • TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP • EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP - SPLASH PROOF MW • MULTI-WINDING
SPLE - SPECIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER • SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SINGMASTER &
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
11-20-70
SH. 1 OF
FIRM
REMARKS*
,
BREYER NEW YOf'.K. N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
Absorber Area
JOB NO. PS-218 REV.
FORM E-471
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
B-1A
B-1B
B-lC
B-1D
E-1A
E-1B
F-2A&B
P-2A;2A
P-2B;2B
V-4A
V-4B
W-1A
W-1B
W-1C
W-1D
SERVICE
Combustion Air Blower
Reducer Product Cooler 2 @
2 @
Coke Filter - Drive
- Screw
S) Reducer Pumps
s)
Reducer Quench Tank-Elec.Htr.
•
Weigh Belt Feeder
HORSE POWER
OPER.
300
300
300
300
10
10
2
5
150
150
30
30
2
2
2
2
SPARE
2
5
150
150
KW
KW
SYN.
R.P.M.
'
VOLTAGE
2400
2400
2400
2400
490
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
NO. OF
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0 • OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN • SYNCHRONOUS
OE - OPEN, ENCAPSULATED • WR - WOUND ROTOR
TENV - TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CP1 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC - TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP- EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP- SPLASH PROOF MW - MULTI-WINDING
SPLE - SPF.CIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER - SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
SINGMASTER A
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
11-20-70
SH. 2 OF
FIRM
REMARKS*
,
BREYER NEW YO>K. N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
Reducer Area
JOB NO. PS-218 REV.
FORM E'471
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
E-4
TC-5
P-3;3(S
P-4;4(S
V-6
V-7
SERVICE
Regen. Bottoms Cooler 2@
Regen. Intermediate Cooler 2d>
Regenerator Btms Pump
Regenerator Intermediate Pump
Regen. Btms Pump Tank-Elec.Hti
Regen. Int. Pump Tank-Elec.Hti
•
HORSE POWER
OPEN.
5
1%
75
60
.30KV
.30KV
SPARE
75
60
j
SYN.
R. P.M.
VOLTAGE
480
480
480
480
480
480
NO. or
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0 - OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN • SYNCHRONOUS
OE • OPEN, ENCAPSULATED • WR • WOUND ROTOR
TENV - TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CP1 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC - TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP - EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP - SPLASH PROOF MW - MULTI-WINDING
SPLE - SPECIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER - SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
E5T.
X
X
X
X
X
X
SINGMASTER &
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
Ll-20-70
SH. 3 OF
FIRM
REMARKS*
,
BREYER NEW VOf-.K, N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
Regenerator Area
JOB NO. PS-218 REV-
FORM E-47*
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
C-l
C-l
G-l
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-5A
G-6
G-7
G-8
S-l
SERVICE
Crusher - Driv#> »A"
Crusher - Drive "B"
Transfer Conveyor & Feeder
Transfer Conveyor & Feeder
Bucket Elevator
Bucket Elevator
Reversing Belt Conveyor
Coke Belt Conveyor w/Tripper
Elevating Belt Conveyor
Dust Collector
Coke Silo Dust Collector
Coke Silo Dust Collector
Coke Screen
HORSE POWER
OPER.
inn
125
1
1
3
5
3
5
5
5
2
2
7%
SPARE
SVN.
R. P. M.
VOLTAGE
4an
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
NO. OF
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCt.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE 'MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0 - OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN • SYNCHRONOUS
OE- OPEN, ENCAPSULATED . WR • WOUND ROTOR
TENV • TOTALLY ENCLOSED N ON -VENTILATED CP1 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC - TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP • EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP - SPLASH PROOF MW - MULTI-WINDING
SPLE • SPF.CIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER - SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FIRM
REMARKS*
,
SINGMASTER A BREYER NEW YO>.K, N.Y.
PREPARED BY
S.F.
MOTOR LIST
DATE
11-20-70
A.I. Process
Coke Handling
SH. 4 OF JOB NO. PS-218 "EV.
KOHM K-47K
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
G-9
G-10
G-ll
W-2
W-3
W-3
V-9
T-2
T-3
T-4
P-5
SERVICE
M2CC>3 Bucket Elevator
M2COo Conveyor
M?CO., Silo Feed Conveyor
Weigh Feeder
Weigh Feeder
Weigh Feeder
M^COo Melt Tank Elect. Htr.
Silo Dust Collector
Silo Dust Collector
Silo Dust Collector
M2C07 Makeup Pump
HORSE POWER
OPER.
5
2
3
1
1
1
2-1:
2
2
2
5
SPARE '
5KW <
SYN.
R.P.M.
sach
VOLTAGE
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
NO. OP
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0 • OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN • SYNCHRONOUS
OE • OPEN, ENCAPSULATED ' WR • WOUND ROTOR
TENV • TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CPl - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC - TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP - EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP - SPLASH PROOF MW - MULTI -WINDING
SPLE • SP» CIM - SI T HF MARKS OTHF.R • Sf'FOlr Y AS INQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SINGMASTER &
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
11-20-70
SH. 5 OF
FIRM
REMARKS*
.
.
BREYER NEW YOhK, N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
M2CO3 Makeup Area
JOB NO. PS-218 REV.
t>47*
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
X-2
X-3
SERVICE
Instrument Air Compressor
Instrument Air Dryer
%
HORSE POWER
OPCR.
50
10KW
SPARE
SYN.
R. P. M.
VOLTAGE
480
480
NO. OF
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0 - OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN • SYNCHRONOUS
OE - OPEN, ENCAPSULATED • WR • WOUND ROTOR
TENV • TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CP1 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC • TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP • EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 • CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP • SPLASH PROOF MW - MULTI-WINDING
SPLE - SPECIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER - SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.U.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
X
SINGMASTER ft
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
11-20-70
SH. 6 OF
FIRM
REMARKS*
,
BREYER NEW YOhK. N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
Utility Area
JOB NO. PS-218 JREV.
I '
FORM E-4TI
-------
EQUIP.
NO.
A- 101
A- 10 2
A- 10 3
A- 104
A- 10 5
A- 10 6
B-101
B-102
D-101
D-101
D-101
F-101
SERVICE
Dissolving Sump Agitator
Fly Ash-Coke Slurry Tank Agit,
LiHCOo Reactor Agitator
LiiCO-,-Fly Ash Filter Cake
«• J
Receiver Agitator
LiHCO., Reactor Prod. Surge Rec,
Li0C00 Reactor Product Surge
Exhaust Fan
Hot Air Blower
LioCO'^ Dryer Drive
** J
LioCO0 Dryer I.D. Fan
Li0CO_, Dryer Feeder
c. J
Li0CO.,-Fly Ash Filter-Agit.
-Drive
-Vac . Pumj
-Filtrate Pum{
( P i n "> \
HORSE POWER
OPER.
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
25
ik
5
2
1
1
>50
> 2
SPARE
SYN.
R. P.M.
VOLTAGE
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
NO. OF
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
C • OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN - SYNCHRONOUS
OE • OPEN, ENCAPSULATED • . WR - WOUND ROTOR
TENV -TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CP1 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC • TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP - EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP- SPLASH PROOF MW - MULTI-WINDING
SPLE - SPECIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER - SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FIRM
' 1
SINGMASTER ft
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
11-20-70
SH. 7 OF .
REMARKS*
,
.
BREYER NEW YOI'.K. N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
Li0C00 Recovery Area
JOB NO. PS-218 REV.
FORM K-47S
-------
-o
I
EQUIP.
NO.
F-102
F-103
G-101
P-101,1
P-102
P-103,1
P-104.1
P-105
P-106
P-107
X-101
SERVICE
Fly Ash Filter - Drive
- Agitator
- Vacuum Pump
Li2C03 Filter - Agitator
- Drive
- Vacuum Pump
- Filtrate Pump
— / r> n ni ^
(c— J-U / ;
Dried Li2CO_ Conveyor
)1(S) Li»CO^-Fly Ash Fil.Feed Pun
See F-101
)3 (S) Slurry Disposal Pump
)4(S) Fly Ash Filter Feed Pump
Li0CO0 React. Prod. Pump
£. J — Jr
Li^CO Filter Feed Pump
2 3
See F-103
CCU Generator-Blower
£.
-Compressor
HORSE POWER
OPER.
1
1
50
h
h
20
ih
2
IP ih
i
i
iJ?
l
30
200
SPARE
1*
1
1
SYN.
R. P. M.
VOLTAGE
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
4RO
480
480
NO. OF
PHASES
MOTOR
ENCL.
MOTOR ENCLOSURE * MOTOR TYPE - SQ. CAGE IND. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
0- OPEN DRIP-PROOF SYN - SYNCHRONOUS
OE • OPEN, ENCAPSULATED . WR - WOUND ROTOR
TENV - TOTALLY ENCLOSED NON-VENTILATED CP1 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT HP
TEFC • TOTALLY ENCLOSED FAN COOLEO CP2 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - CONSTANT TORQUE
EP - EXPLOSION PROOF CP3 - CONSEQUENT POLE 2 SPEED - VARIABLE TORQUE
SP- SPLASH PROOF MW • MULTI -WINDING
SPLE - SPECIAL - SEE REMARKS OTHER - SPECIFY AS REQUIRED
F.L.
CURR.
DATA
EST.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SINGMASTER &
PREPARED BY
S.F.
DATE
11-20-70
SH. 8 OF
FIRM
REMARKS*
.
BREYER NEW YOI'K. N.Y.
MOTOR LIST
A.I. Process
Li^CO- Recovery Area
JOB NO. PS-218 REV.
FORM F.-478
-------
8. PIANT ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS - BASE CASE
fhe conceptual arrangement of equipment required to accom-
plish the removal of SOx from the base case power plant flue gases
and to recover Li2CC>3 from the discarded filter cakes is shown on
the attached drawings:
PS-218-0501 - Site Arrangement - Plans
PS-218-0502 - Site Arrangement - Elevation, Sections
PS-218-0503 - Filter & Recovery Process Bldg. -
Equipment Arrangement
It was assumed that makeup carbonate salts would be
shipped to the plant by truck and that coke would be delivered
by rail cars.
Changehouse facilities for plant operating personnel
were presumed to be available at the power plant.
SINGMASTER S BREYER
8-1
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
9. REFERENCES
(1) "Development of a Molten Carbonate Process for
Removal of Sulfur Dioxide from Power Plant Stack
Gases" Atomics International, North American
Rockwell.
(la) Progress Report No. 1 - June 1, 1967 to February
28, 1968 (Summary Report)
(Ib) Part I - Process Chemistry, Reduction.
(Ic) Part II - Process Chemistry, Regeneration.
(Id) Part III - Materials Studies.
(le) Part IV - Contactor Development.
(If) Part VI - Fly Ash Studies.
(Ig) Part VI - Small Pilot Plant and Component Test
Loop, Conceptual Design,
(Ih) Part VII - Plant Analysis.
(li) Progress Report No. 3 - October 28,1968 to
July 31, 1969.
(2) Fair, J,R. "Designing Gas Sparged Reactors"
Chemical Engineering 74; 67-74, July 3, 1967;
207-214, July 17, 1967.
(3) Johnstone, RoE0 and Thring, M.W, "Pilot Plants,
Models, and Scale-up Methods in Chemical Engineering"
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1957.
(4) Turnbull, A.G. "Thermal Conductivity of Molten
Salts, II - Australian Journal of Applied Science
12: 324-329, 19610
SINGMASTER S BREYER
9-1
-------
(5) Gairibill, W.R. "Fused Salt Thermal Conductivity"
Chemical Engineering 66i 129-130, August 10, 1959,
(6) Janz, G.J. and Lorenz,M.R. "Solid-Liquid Phase
Equilibrium for Mixture of Lithium, Sodium and
Potassium Carbonates" Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 6_ (3): 321-323, July, 1961.,
(7) Marshall, W.L., Loprest, F.J. and Secoy, C.H.
"The Equilibrium Li2C03 (s)+C02+H20 —*-
2 Li+2 HCC-3- at High Temperature and Pressure"
Journal of the American Chemical Society 80;
5646-5648, November 5, 1958.
(8) "Modern Refractory Practice" Harbison-Walker
Refractories Company.
(9) "Properties of Hitec" E.I. duPont, de Nemours &
Company.
(10) "Coal Gasification Using Molten Sodium Carbonate"
M.W. Kellogg & Company. Final Report Under Contract
14-01-0001-380 for U.S. Department of the Interior.
September, 1967.
(11) "Systems Study for Control of Emissions-
Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry"
Arthur G. McKee & Company. Final Report Under
Contract PH-86-65-85 for U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. June,1969.
9-2
-------
APPENDIX
Construction Cost Estimate - Base Case Plant
(Machinery & Equipment - Account 400)
SINGMASTER & BREYER
App.
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
NAPC
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION BASE CASE
LOrATION
A
•X-
MOLTEN
CARBONATE
PROCESS
37«
&00
S. IM
A/C
M \A/
COAL
4-OO
, , . , PRO" "B-,
CONT. MO.
uinr nv
APPSOvrn
PS- 21«
J.S. J,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
4<50
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY £ EQUIPMENT
ABSORBER AREA
REDUCER AREA
REGENERATOR AREA
COKE HANDLING AREA
M<> CO, MAKE- UP AREA
Li? C0a RecovERY AREA
ANCILLARISS
TOTAL A/C 400
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
19800
42400
8100
*noo
7200
15310
tzoo
103 110
SUB
CONTRACTS
f, 120000
540000
23000C
7400Q
*
1^64000
MATERIALS
330220
619160
149240
91400
89340
216540
13300
1,514220
TOTAL
1,470020
1t20t(580
3S7340
174500
96540
231 850
19500
3,581330
(E 153)
DATE
, 9- -70
. REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
NA PCA
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION •_
oo M.W.
PROJECT A.I MQLTgM CARBONATE PROCESS
3V» SUUFUR JM CdAtT
ABSORBER ARE A
A/C 4 oo
PROP. NO
CONT. no PS.'Z \B
MADE BY S.f. * J.J.
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY * EQUIPMENT
TAG N? V-IAJB, 1C * ID
ABSORBER :
28-*"DiA. x 34-0"sTR.SIPE
MATU COMST.- 347 STN.STL.
EQUIPPED WITH SPRAT NOZZLES
WT. =
DEMISTER FOR ABOVE
MATU. CONST. - 347 STM. STL.
635 S.F. - INCLUDES SUPPT, f T
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N.APCA
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M W
3% SULFUR (M COAL.
ABSORBER AREA
PROJECT A.I MOLTEN CARBDklATE PROCESS
A/e 4.00
PROP. NO
CONT. no- PS " 2. \ O
MADE BY .S.ft *' • J
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY « EQUIPMENT
TAG NSV2D
ABSORBER PUMP TANK
T-O"BIA.* I3''0"U
MATL. CONST. 347STN.STL,
LOCATE In PIT.
WT. » qooo*
IMMERSIOKI HEATER (ELEC.*)
WITH ON-OFF THER^y10STAT
30 KW - Fow 1/-2A.B,C* p
MATL. CONST. 347 STN. STL.
T/XIJK INSULATED WITH
5" THK, THSKCM^BESTOS • See
A/C 800
TAG N|2VeA,64G
ABSORBER PUMP TANK
t'-OW » 7-0'U.
MATL.. CONST, S47 STN. STL,
QUANTITY
1
4
3
UNIT
ect.
ed.
e^.
UNIT COSTS
,
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
400
800
IZ00
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
MATERIALS
18400
2800
16200
TOTAL
18800
3600
17400
DATE
' ' i ' 70
(E 153)
REVISION NO ___
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
NAPCA
CONSTRUCTION Co., ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION.
800 M.W
3'/0 SULFUR (H COAU
ABSORBER AREA
PROJECT A.T. MOLTEN CARBONATE
A/c. 400
PROP. NO
CONT. no. "5 ' C. I 5
MADE BY 9,F|
APPROVED
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER 1
LOCATION
PPOIECT A.I.MottEN
IN H r u M
CARBONATE
DESCRIPTION
PROCESS
0 U U (VI . W.
3% SULFUR !w COAL
REDUCER AREA
A/C4-00
pp()B W(V
CONT- NO. P O
c c
u»nr BV » ,r.
APPBOvrri
-218
J.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 1 EQUIPMENT
TAG N? B-lA.p.c* D
COMBUSTION AIR BLOWER
fcooo CFM FREE AIR @T »;
AP
MATL.- CONST.- CARS, 5reEL
Iwot-upci MOT«K • 300 H.P.
CrtWFLFTC-
4
QUANTITY
4
UNIT
eat
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
I5&00
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
4 800
SUB
CONTRACTS
MATERIALS
62400
TOTAL
£7200
(E 153)
DATE
-70
. REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
i nrATinw
PpniPrTAI MoiTeM CARBONATE PpocCS
3% SULFUR IN COAL
REDUCER AREA
s A/C400
PROP. NO
CONT. un-
MADE BY
APPROVED
P 3 ' L, \ O
5. P.
J J
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 4 'EQUIPMENT
TAG N? E-1A £ 1B
REDUCER PRODUCT
COOLER
AIR-COOLSD UNIT WITH
EXTERNAL AIR RECIRCULATION
( STE^M COIL.
COMPLETE WITH 2-10H.R FANS EACH
^ ALL INSTRUMEWTATIOKJ. ETC,
MATL. CONST.: 347 STN. STL,
Q eacK: f3,7«104 Btu/Hu,
A P- 40psi
I3'-0" WIDE > 30-0"Lft.
*
QUANTITY
2
UNIT
ea.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
8000
SUB
CONTRACTS
MATERIALS
1ZOOOO
TOTAL
128000
(E 153)
DATE
*•} -2. '70 REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SWGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT A I
1
IN M K 0 ,H
DESCRIPTION
ouu IYI
3% SULFUR 1
MOLTEN
CARBOKATC PROCPS
RE
,s-
DUC£R
A/e 400
w
N COAL.
AREA
opnp un
P<
CONT. MO. F «
uinr BY Si
APPBOVF1 ,
f?-P
IS
J.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY ^EQUIPMENT
TAG, N? P-2Afs) ^e6(s)
REDUCER PUMP
5 85 G. P.M. - I56psi AP
4-0" Lc1t SHAFT -4'-o"u, TAIL PIECE
VERTICAL
M ATL . CONST - 347 STN, STL.
MOTOR- ISO H.»J
TAG N2 V-3A.3B,3C^3D
REDUCER (STL.'A-Z04^.A)
M'-O" Qia. y 20-0" T*«T- F^O HEAOi
9"THt, AUUNDUM LlUi>Jf|
4'TMK., MoN'tlFRA^ LitJiNfi,
FULL MouoPjfAX' P/«KTIT/OO
A /fj • ^f*f SSf?*'
COKE BLOW CHA^ofi'R
2 REQ'D. PER REDUCER
QUANTITY
4
4
4
8
UNIT
ecf,
ect
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
(A
SUB
CONTR
iSS'jflfl
/
llowa*
MAT'L
8E25
>ce)
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
3200
1600
SUB
CONTRACTS
540,000
MATERIALS
32 900
teodo
TOTAL
36 100
7980
540,000
13600
(E 153)
DATE
-TO
. REVISION NO._
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO.
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER
N APCA
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION. 800 M. W
3% SULFUR IN COAL
LOCATION.
PROJECT A.f.MoLTEM CAPBDMflTE PROCESS
REDUCER AREA
A/e 4.00
PROP. NO
CONT. MO- PS " 2 I O
MADE BY S.F.
APPROVED
J. J,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY- £ EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 E-2A, 2(^20 * 2D
AIR-OXIDATION ZONE
EXCHANGER
HEATIMG, SURFACE 770. S.F,
MTL. TUBS £io*-34i STN. 5n.
NiUUAT 6 1> Of.' All? SIDE
Q eorch - 4.5" xlO6 Bta/H«.
A P- , OOO ^/HRj ldOtf5
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N A PGA
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION.
800 MW
3% SULFUR IN COAL
REDUCER AREA
PROJECTA.I.MoL-reM CflRBONATS
A/c. 400
PROP. NO
CONT. MO. PS
MADE BY
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 6 EQUIPMENT
TAG NS V-4A T 4B
REDUCER QUENCH TANK
^'-O'oiA. x 15-0" LoMfi
MATL, CONST. '347 STN, STL,
WT, •• 12,500*
IMMERSION HEATITR (ELEC.)
WITH ON-OFF THERMOSTAT
SOKvv-Fo* ABOVE TANK
MATL. CONST. 347 STN.STU.
TANK INSULATED WITH
5" THK. TueRNiogESTos - 5*6E
A/c 800
4
TAG N* V-8A,6Bf6C78D
COKE BIN
6'-o'x t'-o" - 60* CONE BTM.
4 TON CAPACITY
MATL. CONST.I CARB. STL.
QUANTITY
2
4
UNIT
ea.
eot.
ea.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
800
400
goo
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
MATERIALS
55200
1400
6500
TOTAL
56000
1800
7300
(E 153)
DATE ^-3-70 REVISION
NO._
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER
N.A. P.C.A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION.
8DQ M W
3% SuuFug IM
LOCATION.
PROJECT A I MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
REDUCER AREA
A/c 400
PROP. NO
CONT. MO- P S ' fc. \ S
MADE BY Si T
APPROVED
J.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY? EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 W-IA. IB,1C * ID
WEIGH BELT FEEDERS
S,000*/HR MAX, EACH
INCLUDES LOCAL * REMOTE
IKSTRUMEWTATIOKI AND 2 H-R
Mof^R GA.
«
TOTAL- REDUCER AREA
QUANTITY
4
UNIT
ect.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
2400
4E400
SUB
CONTRACTS
540000
MATERIALS
30000
619180
TOTAL
32400
f,aQ 1,580
DATE
- 70
(E 153)
REVISION NO._
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
IQ
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N.A PC A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
&00 M W
3% SULPlJR In COAL.
PROJECT A.I. MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS-
REGENERATOR AREA
A/e 4PO
PROP. NO..
CONT. NO..
MADE BY
APPROVED .
PS-218
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 4 EQUIPMENT
TAG NS E-4
REGENERATOR BOTTOMS
COOLER
AIR Cooueo UN)IT WITH
EXTERNAL AIR RECIRCULAT/^N
^ ST EAM Coiu
CoMPueT6 WITH 2-5 H.P, FAMS
EACK. 6 ALL INSTRUMENTATION,
MATL. CONST- • 347 STN, STL,
0 eac.hr |0x 10' Biu/HRk
AP - 85 psi
S'-O'W'oe / 24-0 U,
>
QUANTITY
1
UNIT
erf.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
1800
SUB
CONTRACTS
MATERIALS
35000
TOTAL
36800
(E 153)
DATE ^ ' *> • 7 0 REVISION
NO..
..REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT £L
INAKCA DESCRIPTION SUU Mi.W
37» SULFUR
I,
MOLTEN
CAR BOH
Are
p
ROCSSS
P E; .3 j£ (Nj
A/
E
c
R/
4
IN Co^L,
MOR AR
00
ppnp ^n
u»nr nv 5.1% J/J/
APPRnurn
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY a EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 -E-5
REGENETRATOR
INTERMEDIATE COOLER
AIR C^dLGD UNIT WITH
EXTERNAL AIR RECIRCUUATION
^ SJ-CAM COIL
CoMPi-r?Te WITH 2- "7 IE. H,f? FAN*
EACtV, ^ ALU iN^tRUMCK/fATlOfJ
MATL. CONST -347 5TN, 5TL,
Oeao^« I5v 10" BtuV H«,
A P £ 25-f>si '
)OvO"v^»&e y 'E.41-0'
-------
CUSTOMER
N A PCA
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION..
800 M.M/
SULFUR
COAL
LOCATION.
REGENERATOR ARE.A
PROJ ECT
H GftRSOMATl?
* 4-00
PROP. NO
CONT. no- » 5 "2 1 8
MADE BY ^'P'
APPROVED
JJ.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY * EQUIPMENT
TAG, |\|e V-5
REGENERATOR
IS'-O" pi A. x 34'6"STf?. 5 |DE
p. £ p, HEAD ^
MATL. CONST 347 STN. STL,
4 ffX.eif. VC. M&~0oo*"
RSe*?u * £7* w r 1" ^ t- 7/4/^01*
TAG N2 V-6
REGEtsJERATOR BOTTOMS
PUMP TANK
7'-0"DlA. X 1310"
MAT L. CONST* 347 STN. STL.
wei^ PT 1 c?^oo''*'
IMMERSION HEATER (EL EC,)
WITH 0NI-0FP THeF?M05TAT
30 KV/ FOP ABOVE TAMK
MATL. CON-ST,- 347 ^"TN . 5TU,
(M5ULATE TANK. WITH
O'THK. THERMO6K5T"0$. SEE
A/o 800
QUANTITY
\
1
I
UNIT
CO..
ea.,
ed.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
-
*
400
ZOO-
SUB
CONTRACTS
£30000
MATERIALS
-
18500
700
TOTAL
£30000
18,100
qoo
DATE
\~-f
~lO
(E153)
REVISION NO.
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
13
-------
CUSTOMER
N ARCA
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION.
BOO M .
SULFUR IN COAL.
LOCATION.
PROJECT A. I. MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
REGENERATOR AREA
Afc AOQ
PROP. NO
CONT. UP- rS,~~ Z. I
MADE BY ^•^'
APPROVED
J.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
JvjACHINERYi EQUIPMENT
TAG-N9 V-7
REGENERATOR
INTERMEDIATE PUMP TANK
&'-&"DIA;< I2.V'L«
MATL. CONST, ;347 STN.STL.
WEIGHT.' 6000*
IMMERSION HEATER (ELBC.)
WITH 0N-0FF THERMOSTAT
30 KW -FOR AB(5Vfc" TAM<.
MATL . COM5T. - 347 STK. STU
INSULATE TANK WITH
5"TH«. THERMOS ESTO^ -See /4/t9
TAG N^ P-3A (s)
REGENERATOR BTMSPUMh
300 Q.P.M. 147 psi AP
4'-C"Lci. SHAFT -Z-O"!.^ TAIL PIECE
VERTICAL • C4KITILEVER
MATL. CONS! 347 STN.STL.
Moto*-75H.r..
QUANTITY
1
I
30.
2
1
2
UNIT
edt
ea,
e«.
eo.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
3
8225
1065"
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
500
*
200
1600
•r
SUB
CONTRACTS
.
-
_
MATERIALS
\3bOO
700
16450
2130
TOTAL
14000
too
18050
_ . . — at
2130
(E 153)
DATE
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N A P C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION.
800 M W
PROJECT A.T. MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
3*A> SULFUR m COAL
REGENERATOR AREA
PROP. NO
CONT. ™. PS '21ft
S.t*. JJ.
400
MADE BY
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY £ EQUIPMENT
TAG Ne p-4A Cs)
REGENERATOR
INTERMEDIATE PUMP
350 G.P.M. - lOlpcl AP
4'-0"U. SHAFT. -2-0"U.TAiLP«Ece
V/ERT/CAL - CANTIUEVE*
MATL, CONST; - 347 STN. STL,
MOTOR- 60H.P,
TOTAL-REGENERATOR
/-\ r\ L. M,
QUANTITY
e
z
UNIT
ed.
«.Cu.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L.
7470
IUO
j
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
1400
»•
8100
SUB
CONTRACTS
—
230000
MATERIALS
14 W
3320
M
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N A P C A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800
3% SULFU* IN COAI-
PROJECT A.I MOLTED CARBONATE. PROCESS
COKE HANDLING Af?(=A
a/£40o
CONT. NO..
MADE BY ,
APPROVED .
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY ? EQUIPMENT
TAG. N2 C-1
COKE RECEIVING HOPPER
BELOW Qf?At>e /-OR (?,!?, UjjLdADiMft
50 TotJ CAPACITY
MATL. CONST;- GARB, STL,
TAG N* C-IA
CRUSHER -50"
2. ROW CAGE MU-L
Iwcuuoes • OwE-l25H.P. MOTOR
ONE- !OOH,fk MOTOR
QUANTITY
1
1
UNIT
ect.
~
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
^
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
400
1500
SUB
CONTRACTS
—
-.'
MATERIALS
4900
23500
•
TOTAL
5300
E5000
(E153)
DATE
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
/6
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
M A P C A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION 800 M W
3*/o SULFUff Ikl
PROJECT A.IMOLTEH CARBOHATE PROCg55
UANPUN6 AffEA
4DP
MOP. MO.
COMT. no PS ' 2 IP
MADE BY £• f-
APPROVED .
J.J
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
^/1ACHlNERY^ EOUIPMENT
TAG N^ G-l
TRANSFER CONVEYOR
i FEEDER
50 TOMS/HR,
INCLUDES 2 • 1 H.P. MOTORS
TAG NS G-2
BUCKET ELEVATOR
50 TONS/HR. - 25l-oHi,T» t
iNcuuoes • ONE 3H.P, MOTOR
QUANTITY
1
1
UNIT
ed
&
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
msTOMER IN.M.K. UA
I nrATinw
ppmerTA.7. MOLTEN CARSOWATP PR<
DESCRIPTION £5UU FVI W
3/a SlJLFt/f? IN O0AL.
COKE1 HANDUN6 AREA
3CES5 4/C 400
fltOf xn
... M*nr BY Jf'f'..
iPDnnyfn __ ..,_
?i£
J.«i
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY i EQUIPMENT
TAG N« G -3
BUCKET ELEVATOR
50 TOhJs/HR - 60-0"
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
LOCATION
PROJECT .
A
J-
MOLTEN
CARBONATE PROCESS
CO
3 'A
KE
SUUFUR IN COAL.
HANDLING
Ale 400
AREA
PROP. NO __
e
CIHfT. NO. r
"APE PY _£j
'£ • 2 / «
.IT, J.
J-
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 4 EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 G-B
C0i<£ BELT. CONVEYOR
liNcuupes DISTRI 6Uf IPN
CONVEYOR W»TH BELT
Owe- 5 u.R MOTOR.
TAG N5 G-6
DUST COLLECTOR
TA& N2 G-5A
ELEVATING BELT CONVEYOR
IS" Wipe X 170-0" incuopes
MOTOR Ak
MAT'L
ce)
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
1200
s
900
1400
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
-
MATERIALS
13000
6000
16500
TOTAL
14200
•
6900
!7
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N.A.P C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M W
3% SULFUR
COAI
pROJECTATi MOL.TEN CARBONATE PROCESS
COKE HANDLING AREA
401)
PROP. NO
CONT. no. rS * 2. * O
MADE BY 4* ft
APPROVED ______
JJ.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 4 EQUIPMENT
TAG. N2 G-7 ^ 6-8
COKE SILO DUST COLLECTOR
Mou»Jrao ON TOP OP T-l \ T-2.
INCLUDES ONE _H,P, FAM each.
v
TAG N2 S-1
COKE SCREEN
50 ToiMs/HR. V
ROTGX • 5 -O" Kll'-o*
IMCLUDB*- T/v w,p, M
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N A P. C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800
COKE
PROJECT A.I. MQL.TEM CARBON/ATS
Ac 400
PROP. NO
CONT. NO. _£_£_
MADE BY *'*•
APPROVED
J.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY ^EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 T-f i T-2
COKE STORAGE SILO
sooioN-LivE STORAGE EACH
CONCRETE. STAVG
^0-0" Dlft. X- 60'-0"H»SH
Does NOT iMCUUorJO F^U^PAT-IOW
•»
TOTAL -COKE HANDLING
ARtLA
QUANTITY
2
UNIT
edt.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
fe
Sioo
SUB
CONTRACTS
74000
74000
MATERIALS
91400
TOTAL
74000
*
174500
(E153)
DATE
. REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
21
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
MA PC A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800
3% SULFUR la COAL.
UCOg MAKE-l/P AREA
PROJECT A.T MaiTEM CARBONATE
PROP. NO --
CONT. NO. r 5 " g IO
> »* ** •
400
MADE BY
APPROVEO
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
^00
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY* EQUIPMENT
TAG N* G-
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
riJSTOMER N
LOCATION
PROJECT AT- MOLTEN
AHUM DESCRIPTION OW IYI W
CARSONATP
PROCESS
3% SUUPUJ? IN COAJ-
tVUCCU MAKE-UP ARE
A/c 400
PROD un-
u.nr BV 6. F. «l • J»
APRROvrn ,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY f EQUIPMENT
TAG NS W-2,3 T4
WEIGH FEE"DER
foo LBS/HK. CAPACITY
WITH ReMOTC 1 WSTRUMeh/TS
^ ONE H.^ Marop}.
TAG N2 V-9
M^COs MELT TANK
MATL, CcPN^'H' 347 STN.^TL,
WE IGHT. i", 5"(3c) L0 5.
IMMERSION HEATER (euec>
Vv'lTU OH -OFF TH6flM05TAT.
MAIL, CONST, 347 5TN. 5TL,
IMSULATE TANV^- U/ITH 5'TH^/
J/-i£'KM(7 6£i Jo5 - ?6G ^/o 500
QUANTITY
3
1
2
UNIT
CO.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
2300
400
500
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
MATERIALS
25000
11300
4600
TOTAL
27300
*
11700
5iOO
(E 153)
I '
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT A I M0
IN A K U H
'LTGM CARBONATE PROCB^S
DESCRIPTION OUV IYI.W,
3% SULFUR IN COAL
M«C03 MAKE-UP AREA
fa •*•
A/c 4-00
......_ PROP. HO-.
___ ^o«T »0- ,.
... M'OF PY ,
APPHm/rn
PS-218
S.F J.J.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
MAC
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
HlNERY t EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 T*3.4^ 5
Ntf,C03 SILO, K2CQ3 SILO
* L.2 C03 SlLb 3
IO'.OWDIA. x201-OuSTR.-60°CONE
MAIL. CONST.: CARB. STL.
DUST COLLECTOR FOR
ABOVE SILOS
TAG N-° P-B
M2C03 MAKE-UP PUMP
4 GPM 1Z psl
VERTICAL
3'-0" SHAFT • 2'-0" TAILP(£C&
MATL. CONST. -347 STM. STL.
MSTOR- 5H.P
TOTAL-M2C03 MAKE-UP AREA
QUANTITY
3
3
1
1
UNIT
e
-------
CUSTOMER
N A P C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M W
3%> SULFUR IN COAL.
LOCATION.
PROJECT A.I.MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
LUGO* RECOVERY AR£A
A/c 400
PROP. NO..
CONT. NO.
MADE BY
APPROVED
PS-2 18
N.P.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM X DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY \ EQUIPMENT
TAG MS B-IOI
EXHAUST FAN
3600 CFM @ 3"H20 ' 5 H.R
TAG Ne B- \OZ
HOT AIR BLOWER
ZSH.P. KOTO* P« ^S»l/J
QUANTITY
1
f
UNIT
e<*
e- 10-70
(E 153)
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
N A P CA
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M
II MOLTEN CARBONATE
PROCESS
LU
*"*
3% SULFUR IN COAL
CO, RECOVERY AREA
**
A/c 4-00
,,,„ PROP, >"> -
_ rnwT uo. "
. , M'PF HY J?l,
^ APPROVED
S -2.IB
j»t M,^
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY EQUIPMENT
TAG N? D-101
Ll^COa DRVER
570LBS/HR. DRV LLZ C03
4540 MOISTURE FEED
DIRECT F/RED 800,000 Btu/HR.
NAT. GAS
4-0" DIA. x 30'-0"L<;;. COMPLETE
WITH 7'/7.HF5DRi\/e. 5 HP, FA* 4
PAS FILTER
MATL. CONST. -CARB. STL,
FEEDER Iwcu. ZHR MOTOR
QUANTITY
1
1
UNIT
e<*
ea,
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
1500
eoo
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
MATERIALS
26700
1500
TOTAL
ZBZ06
i700
(E153)
DATE
. REVISION NO._
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N.-A.P.C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M.W
3'/* SULFUR (N COAL
PROJECTft.I.MouteN CARBONATE PROCESS
Lt»CO* RECOVERS AREA
PROP. ""••
PS -
d/g 400
MADE BY
APPROVED .
s.t.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY ^ EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 F- 101
Li2C03 FLY ASH FILTER
150 S.F. -6'-0"DiA x&-OuFfics
COMPLETE WITH ;
VACUUM PUMP -50 HP.
T (07
P-102 POMP 4 2 HP MOTOR
FiuTER DRIVES- IMP. M
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER IN A K U M
LOCATION
pRoiPrr A.I. MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
DESCRIPTION
Lu
ovu m.w,
3% SULFUR IN COAL
CO* RECOVERY ARE-fi
A/e 4-00
.. — PROP. HO-
Y . _ eouT. uft. ,
uinr av
,, APPROvrn
P5.-2/S
S'.R /«.f?
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY i EQUIPMENT
TAG N^ F-102
FLY ASH FILTER
(SAME AS r-toi)
TAG Ne F-103
Li2 C0a FILTER
COMPLETE WITH f
VACUUM PUMP - 20 H,e
P-I07 PUMP i \^tiiP> MOTOR
A^JTATo1? DRIVE = '/^ H-R MOTCJ?
t-iLTcr? DRIVH v yz. H.R Moyon
QUANTITY
1
f
UNIT
ea.
eci.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
1600
1600
SUB
CONTRACTS
MATERIALS
35000
20000
TOTAL
3 6 BOG
21600
DATE ^-10-73 REVISION WO
REVISION DATE
PAGE NO
O
(EI53)
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
NAPC A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800
3%, SULFUR w COAL
; CO, RECOVEFPV AREA
PROJECT A I MflLTEM CARBOtlATR
PROP. "»-.
CONT. MQ-
"fc »O
A/c 400
BY .^* *
APPROVED _
N.P.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
tl00
CODE
ITEM X DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 1 EQUIPMENT
TAG KJ2 G-IOI
PRIED LL2C03 CONVEYOR
PEDLEK TYP*£
- 40'-0X RUN)
INCLUDES 2 HR MOTOR
MAIL. CONST, - CAR£, 5TU-
QUANTITY
1
UNIT
eat
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
400
SUB
CONTRACTS
MATERIALS
3000
TOTAL
3400
•
(E 153)
DATE
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N A P C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION.
BOO M.W
3% SUC.RIR IN COAL
PROJECT A I MoLTEU CARBOMATE PROCESS
Lu
ARE.A
A/c 400
PROP. NO
CONT. ""-
MADE BY 5. F
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY* EQUIPMENT
TAG Nep-1Q1A^B
U2C03 FLY ASH FILTER
3 FEED PUMP
20 GPKf
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
CUSTOMER
LOCATION
PROJECT AJ
IM
MOLTEN
H K U H
CARBONATE
PROCESS
DESCRIPTION
3%
LuCO*
** *"'
<_/UU IVI, V
SUURJR IM
V
COAL
RECOVERS
A/c 400
AREA
PROP
CONT.
MADE
NO
NO.
BY
PS-
t.F.
21*
M.J».
APPROvrn
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY* EQUIPMENT
TAG MS P-104A
FLY ASH FILTER FEED
PUMP
3o GPM @ 70'-o" TDH
SPEC. GR-M - HORIZONTAL
INCLUDES 1 HP MOTOR
MATL. CONST,- CAST IRON
TAG N? P-I04-B
SPARE PUMP FOR
P-I04A £ P-I06
TAG M5 P-105
Li7C03 REACTOR PRODUCT
PLTMP
EOO GPM @ !5'-6" TDH
SPEC, GR. r l»l ^ hoRIZOUTAL
INCLUPKS J'A H.P. MOTOR
MATL. CONST,' CAST IRON
QUANTITY
1
I
I
UNIT
ea.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
ISO
180
200
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
MATERIALS
750
750
900
TOTAL
930
930
1100
(E IS3)
-'" II - *7 f\
DATE I ' ' '*J REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
3/
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER
N A P C A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M
LOCATION.
PROJECT A. i. MOLTEN CARBOHATE PROCESS
3% SULFUR IN COAL
LuCQ3 RECOVERY AREA
A/c 400
PROP. NO..
CONT. NO..
MADE BY 5. P.
APPROVED -
P5-2 (8
H.P.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY t EQUIPMENT
TAG Ne P- (06
Li2C03 FILTER FEED
PUMP
3D GPM @ 70'-0" TDH
SPEC. GR. :UI •HOR1ZONTAJL
INCLUDES 1 HP MOTOR
MATL. CONST,- CAST IRON
TAG N2 p-107
TAG N4 P- 108 4 ?lo<\
LitCOs REACTOR FEFO PUMP
2006PM
-------
CUSTOMER
N A P C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
BOO M W
3% SULFUR IN COAL
LOCATION.
PROJECT A.I. MOLTEN CARBONATE Process-
RECOVERY AREA
PROP. NO
CONT. MO- r S ' C, \ D
S.F.
A/c 4-00
MADE BY
APPROVED
N.P.
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY $ EQUIPMENT
TAG NS T-101
FLY ASH CAKE SLURRY
TANK
5'-0"DIA,x 6'-0"STB. -60° COME
BTM, - OPEW TOP
MAIL. CONST, --CARB. STL,
TAG N5 A-102
AGITATOR FOR TANK T-J01
INCLUDES 3H.P. MOTOR
TAG N? T- 102
Li2C03 FLY ASH FILTER
CAKE RECEIVER
6'-D"DiA. > 5-o"STR. - 60° CONE
BT M, - OPEN TOP
MAIL. CONST. - CAR6. STL-
TAG m A-104
AGITATOR FOR TANK T'I02
INCLUDES 5H.P, MOTOR
QUANTITY
1
I
f
1
UNIT
ea.
e.a.
ec?,
eo..
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
300
ieo
300
150
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
-
m
MATERIALS
3500
500
4Z00
600
TOTAL
3800
620
4500
750
(E 153)
DATE
-70
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
33
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
LOCATION
PROJECT 4.
1, MOLTEN
CARBC?UATE PROCESS-
3% SULFUR Id COAL.
Li, CO* RECOv/eRV AREA
A/c400
PROP. NO
CONT. MO- PS* £ 18
MADE BY ^'F-
APPROVED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY $ EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 T-103
LiHC03 REACTOR PRODUCT
SUR5E TANK
7-0 DIA. V 7-0'5TR. •
?O*CONE STM. • OPEN TOP
MATL, CONST.-- GARB. STL.
TAG N2 A- 105
AGITATOR FOR TANK T-103
[uc-Luoes B H, P. MOTOR
TAG NS T-104
LI:C03 REACTOR PRODUCT
SURGE" TANK
T-O'DIA.X 7'0"5TR,
^0" cone 3iM.- OPEN TOP
MAIL. CONST: CARB, STL,
TAG N? A- 107
AGITATOR FOR TANK T-104
iNCtuaec 5 H.P- MOTOR
QUANTITY
1
1
1
f
UNIT
e&,
ea.
ea.
ea.
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
300
150
30(3
150
SUB
CONTRACTS
—
MATERIALS
3W
550
3900
550
TOTAL
4-ZOQ
700
4aoo
700
(E 153)
DATE
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
34-
-------
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N -A P C A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800
SULFLIK IN COAL
PROJECT A,I MOLTED CARBONATE PROCESS-
RECOVB?y AREA
A/e 400
PROP. NO
CONT. MO- PS* C I "
MADE BY S'F'
APPROVES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY { EQUIPMENT
TAG N2 T- 105
WET Li2C03 SURGE DRUM
4'-0"x4'-0**x4-0" - '/4"THK,
ATMOS. PRESS,
MAIL, COMST- CARB, STL,
TAG N5 T-10^>
LU C03 STORAGE
fO'-o'DiA.y T-0"5Tfz.
60" COME BTM- FuArT-sp
MATL, CONST- CARB. STL.
QUANTITY
1
i
UNIT
e
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER.
LOCATION.
N A PC A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION 800 M.W.
3% SULFUR In COAL.
RECOVERY AREA
PROJECT A.I. MOLTEN CARBONATE
A/c 40CT
PROP. NO
CONT. MO- PS' 2 18
MADE BY £•'• "'**
APPROVES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY \ EQUIPMENT
TAG N? T-107
SOLUBLE SALT RECEIVER
TAG MS T-108
LiHCOj FILTRATE RECEIVER
TAG Ne T-IO?
Li2C03 FILTRATE RECEIVER-
QUANTITY
1
1
1
UNIT
ed,
eoL
ei,
UNIT CC3TS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
INCLUDE!
INCLUDED
INCLUDED
SUB
CONTRACTS
> IN COST
IN COST
IN COST
MATERIALS
OF M01
OF P-102
OP F-103
TOTAL
—
DATE \ ' '" '/ 0 REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
(E 153)
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER
LOCATION.
N..AP. C..A.
S1NGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION 800
SULFUR IN COAL
PROJECT A.I. MOLTEN CARBOUATE PROCESS
RECOVERY AREA
A/c 4 00
PROP. NO
CONT. HO.
MADE BY S-'»
APPROVED
•2 16
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY { EQUIPMENT
TAG N? T- HO
DISSOLVING SUMP
CONCRETE •£ COMPARTMCMTS
6'-0"x fe'"0"x 6-0' A<3ITATtOM COM P.
E-0\ fe'-O'x 6-0* PuMPifj^ CoMP,
TAG Ns A -101
AGITATOR rORSUMPT-110
lNcLuz»ir«i
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
ruvroMER IN M r ^ H DESCRIPTION OUU ]YI, W,
inrATiow
PROJECT A. 1. MOLTEN CARBONATE PROCESS
3% SULFUR IN COAL
LI, CO, RECOVERY
' **"
A/c 400
AREA
_ PROP. V°-,
CONT. NO.
MADE SY
APPROVES
.
PS-210
5.f- N.P,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY i EQUIPMENT
TAG N? V-10!
LiHC03 REACTOR
t'-CoM.yg'-O* T.L. IDDLB, DESIfjN PRESS,
MAIL- CONST, -CARS. STL.
TAG N* A- 103
AGITATOR FOR REACTOR V-101
INCLUDING 5 H-P. MOTOR
TAG MS V-102
L[2C03 REACTOR
(,'- t'jr SV TL. - 10 |.B, DESl6f4 PRPS5
MATL. CDKST, rCARB. STL.
TAG N2 A- 106
AGITATOR FOR REACTOR V-ID2
IwcLUDiKiq 5H.P. MOTOR
QUANTITY
1
1
1
1
UNIT
e
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CUSTOMER
N A PC A
SINGMASTER & BREYER
DESCRIPTION
800 M W
3 7o SULFUR IN COAL
PPOiPcr
A-LMoLTEM CARBONATE PpocESi
l^CO* RECOVERY ARE/T
PROP. NO..
A/c 400
CONT. NO
MADE BY -$ P-
APPROVES
PS - 2T8
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY ( EQUIPMENT
TAG N? X" 101
C02 GENERATOR (|2% C02)
70,000 SCFM OF GAS
6,500 SCFM OF COZ
FUEL -- NATURAL GAS • 3,000 SCFM
f, G. GEKIERATOR BLOWER
, 30 H,F? MOTOR
COMPRESSOR To SUPPLY 75psi GAS
200 «,p. MOTOR
COOLJMQ WATE^ » 75 GPM
ALL OF THE ABOVE SKIP
MOUNTED
TOTAL- Li2C03 RECOVERY
QUANTITY
t
UNIT
ea.
UN IT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
E000
15310
SUB
CONTRACTS
«•»
—
MATERIALS
47000
-f 10
El 6540
TOTAL
49000
f!6
23 1 S50
(E 153)
DATE;
1-10-70
REVISION NO..
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SINGMASTER & BREYER
LOCATION.
PROJECT A.
3% SULFUR IN Co A
I,
MOLTGM
CARBONATE
PROCESS
AMCILLARIES
400
U i PDnP, 1"n
eouT. un. PS.* 2.1 O
u»nr BV 6 P- •/-«•
APPRnv/rr, ,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
400
k
CODE
ITEM & DESCRIPTION
MACHINERY 4 EQUIPMENT
INSTRUMENT AIR
COMPRESSOR AMP
RECEIVER- 5-0 H.P, Morale,
INSTRUMENT ./\IR
DRY ER ~ i° K^-
TOTAL -ANCILLARIES
QUANTITY
1
1
UNIT
LOT
ex
UNIT COSTS
LABOR
SUB
CONTR
MAT'L
ESTIMATED COST
CENTS OMITTED
LABOR
w
300
1200
SUB
CONTRACTS
-
-
MATERIALS
12300
6000
I830Q
TOTAL
13200
6300
moo
(E 153)
cj
DATE I
. REVISION NO.
.REVISION DATE
PAGE NO..
------- |