Full-Scale Desulfurization of Stack Gas by Dry Limestone Injection: Volume III

EPA-650/2-73-019-C August 1973 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY SERIES i\|\|\|\|l^ 1^ iiliii ill iiii 11 ;iiiiiiiiiiiii ------- EPA-650/2-73-019-C FULL-SCALE DESULFURIZATION OF STACK GAS BY DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION VOLUME III - APPENDICES I THROUGH L by Tennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee Interagency Agreement TV-30541A Project Officer: Richard D. Stern Control Systems Laboratory National Environmental Research Center Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 TVA Contracting Officer: Dr. F. E. Gartrell, Director Division of Environmental Planning Tennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, TN 37401 Prepared for Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 August 1973 ------- This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use . ------- CONTENTS Volume 1 Main Text Page Abstract v List of Figures xiii List of Tables xix Acknowledgement xxi Summary and Conclusions 1 Introduction 21 Test Program 31 A. Objectives and Overall Approach 31 B. Test Facility 32 1. Unit 10 Boiler 32 2. Limestone Injection Process Equipment 32 3. Sampling Stations 40 4. Laboratory Capability 41 C. Phase I Shakedown 43 1. Objectives 43 2. Approach 43 3. Results 46 4. Conclusions 77 D. Phase II Dust Distribution Studies 79 1. Objectives 79 2. Approach 79 3. Results 79 4. Conclusions 104 E. Phase III Process Optimization Ill 1. Objectives Ill 2. Approach Ill 3. Results 119 4. Conclusions 164 F. Phase IV Long-Term Operation 171 1. Objectives 171 2. Approach 171 3. Test Results 174 4. Conclusions 198 ------- CONTENTS Volume 2 Page APPENDIX A-STATISTICS ON BOILER AND LIMESTONE SYSTEM A-l APPENDIX B-WATER-COOLED PROBE DEVELOPMENT B'1 APPENDIX C-TESTING, SAMPLING, AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES C-l APPENDIX D-COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FOR PHASE I TESTS D-4 APPENDIX E-INSTANTANEOUS DUST DISTRIBUTION STUDIES E-l APPENDIX F-LIMESTONE INJECTION EFFECTS ON SOLIDS COLLECTION SYSTEM F-l Report and Analysis of Field Tests at Shawnee Station Prepared for the EPA by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc. APPENDIX G-LIMESTONE INJECTION EFFECTS ON DISPOSAL WATER QUALITY G-l Introduction G-l Evaluation Program G-2 Summary and Conclusions G-31 Data Storage Format G-35 APPENDIX H-ADDITIONAL HEAT REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS H-l ------- CONTENTS Volume 3 Page APPENDIX I-LIMESTONE FACTORS Section A, Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides 1-3 I. Introduction and Objectives 1-3 II. Approach 1-3 III. Results and Conclusions 1-4 Limestone Type 1-4 Chemical Form of the Additive 1-4 Particle Sife 1-5 Calcination Temperature 1-5 Catalysts 1-5 IV. Abstracted Results of Individual Projects 1-6 Illinois State Geological Survey 1-6 Tennessee Valley Authority 1-6 Babcock & Wilcox 1-8 Peabody Coal Company 1-8 In-House EPA 1-9 V. Recommendation on Limestone Properties for Application to the Dry Limestone Injection Process 1-11 Section B, Limestone Availability in the United States 1-13 I. Introduction and Objectives 1-13 II. Approach 1-13 III. Results 1-13 Potential Demand - Power Plants 1-13 Carbonate Rock Reserves 1-16 Mining and Production 1-19 IV. Supply/Demand Relationship of Carbonate Rocks for Pollution Control 1-22 Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to Power Plants 1-22 Potential Demand Relative to Production 1-22 Costs 1-23 V. Conclusions 1-31 ------- Volume 3 (Continued) Page VI. Recommendation for Application to Dry Limestone Injection and other Limestone-Based Processes Section C, Definitions 1-35 Section D, References APPENDIX J-MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE LIMESTONE INJECTION PROCESS I. Introduction and Objectives J'3 II. Summary of Modeling Activities t J'5 III. Discussion J'23 IV. Conclusions J-26 V. References J-27 APPENDIX K-UTILIZATION OF LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH K-l I. Introduction and Objectives K-3 II. Approach K-3 III. Results and Conclusions K-3 A. Unmodified Fly Ash Utilization K-3 B. Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Utilization K-12 IV. Summary K-19 V. Recommendations K-19 A. Unmodified Fly Ash K-20 B. Wet-Collected Limestone-Modified Fly Ash K-21 VI. References K-22 APPENDIX L-PROCESS ECONOMICS I. Introduction L-l Design Premises \|__2 Base Case l_.j 1 Actual Investment L-13 Investment Projections L-13 Annual Operating Cost L-18 Lifetime Operating Cost L-24 ------- Volume 3 (Continued) Page II. Summary of Results and Conclusions L-27 Investment L-27 Relative Investment Cost Distribution L-27 Annual Operating Cost L-32 Relative Operating Cost Distribution L-36 Lifetime Operating Cost L-36 Results of Sensitivity Analysis L-59 III. References and Abstracts L-88 ------- CONVERSION TABLE EPA policy is to express all measurements in Agency documents in metric units. When implementing this policy results in undue cost or difficulty in clarity, the National Environmental Research Center-Research Triangle Park (NERC-RTP) provides conversion factors for the particular nonmetric units used in the document. For this report these factors are: British Metric Multiply By To Obtain feet 3.0480 x 10"1 meters feet2 9.29 x 10'2 meters2 feet/sec. 3.0480 x 10"1 feet/sec. feet3/min. 4.720 x 10"1 liters/sec. grains (troy) 6.48 x 10~2 grams grains/dry s.c.f. @ 70° F 2.464 grams/meter3 @ 0° C gallon 3.785 liters inch 2.5400 x 10'2 meters micron l.OxlO"6 meters ounce (troy) 3.1103 x 10' grams pound 4.536 x 10~J kilograms pound/in.2 7.03 x 10"2 kg/cm2 quart 9.463 x 10"1 liters tons/hr. 2.520 x 10"1 kg/sec. ------- APPENDIX I Limestone Factors Section A Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides Section B Availability in the United States Section C Definitions Section D References ------- 1-1 APPENDIX I LIMESTONE FACTORS The author discusses those factors which experimentation identified as most important to the process. These include limestone type, chemical form of the additive, particle size, calcination temperature, and the effects of catalysts. Discussed are the activities of the following organizations: Illinois State Geological Survey Tennessee Valley Authority Babcock & Wilcox Peabody Coal Company Environmental Protection Agency Included are recommendations for additive preparation for the dry limestone injection process. Regarding availability, the author discusses the potential demand for limestone, its distribution, mining, and production as well as the supply/demand relationship of carbonate rocks for pollution control. Transportation and costs for limestone use at power plants are covered. Recommendations for application to dry limestone injection and other limestone-based processes indicate the use of the available information for study by a potential user. ------- 1-3 Section A Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides I. Introduction and Objectives The activities of the Research Laboratory Branch, Control Systems Division in support of the high priority development of throw-away processes, have been directed toward specific areas relating to the limestone processes. During the last 2-1/2 years major emphasis has been on acquiring information on the dry injection process which would be required for application of the process on a wide scale. Earlier, a little was known about the mechanism and rate of reaction between limestone and sulfur oxides, and differences between limestones had not been related to their potential reactivity. This information was vital for optimization of the process. Limestone injected into a power boiler must calcine (evolve CO2 to become lime) and react with most of the sulfur oxides present—all within 2 seconds or less. If limestone is injected too close to the highest temperature combustion zone, the lime produced will be deadburned and unreactive. If the limestone is injected higher than or farther from this zone, the residence time for the lime particles in the zone of the boiler favoring reaction with sulfur oxides will be seriously reduced. The overall objective of this activity was to support the full scale process optimization at the TVA Shawnee Steam Plant by recommending limestone type, particle size, and other sorbent and process parameters. II. Approach The general approach toward meeting the first objective was to measure reaction rates and capacities of limestones and then correlate results with their mineralogical, petrographic, and chemical analyses. Bench scale calcination and sulfation tests were conducted in-house in fixed-bed and differential reactors and under contract in a standard laboratory thermogravimetric-analyzer apparatus by TVA and a dispersed phase reactor by Battelle. Under contract with Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and TVA, petrographic and electron microscopy, X-ray, and additional chemical analyses were performed on raw, calcined, and sulfated samples from the bench-scale tests. Correlations between results of these analyses and the bench-scale reactivity results were then attempted. Pilot-scale tests were conducted under contract with Babcock & Wilcox and Peabody Coal at conditions simulating, as closely as possible, actual furnace injection conditions. These tests were conducted for comparison with the bench-scale data and limestone reactivity correlations developed. The approach toward the second objective, determining the characteristics of dead burning, was to conduct full-scale tests with pure additive in an oil-fired furnace. Pure additive and the oil-fired furnace were selected in order to avoid possible chemical changes during dead burning which can occur by reaction of CaO with oxides of silicon, iron, and aluminum present as a limestone impurity and in coal fly ash. Injection with the fuel was ------- 1-4 selected to maximize residence time at high temperatures for fast calcination and sulfation. With this approach it was possible to characterize the phenomena of dead burning specifically in terms of physical changes and their relationship to reactivity with SO2 Concurrent with this activity, methods for testing the degree of dead burning (loss of CaO reactivity) were evaluated through literature searches, analysis of various chemical and physical properties of different limestones calcined at a range of temperatures, and laboratory testing. More promising tests were applied to samples from pilot scale tests by Babcock and Wilcox and from early injection tests at the TVA Shawnee Steam Plant. III. Results and Conclusions Integrated results of the projects and correlation with other investigations are presented by major item. These are followed by abstracted results of the individual projects. Limestone Type: All studies have noted marked differences in reactivity between limestone types. In-house, fixed-bed experiments showed a five-fold range in SO2 capacity: marl and chalk were the best. Differential reactor results were widely spread: marl was the •¥• best^ Pilot plant data also showed the pronounced effect of limestone type: aragonite was the best at Peabody Coal,4 and marl was the best at Babcock & Wilcox.3 Initially these results may not appear to agree; however, it is significant to note that the best performing limestone types were fine grained and generally high in calcium carbonate, as opposed to dolomitic materials. Since calcitic stones (marl and chalk) and aragonite are highly reactive, it appears that both calcium carbonate crystal structures can be used as long as the crystallites (or grains) are small. Other investigators have compared limestones (i.e., calcites) and dolomites. Goldschmidt1 ° and Brocke12 showed that calcitic additives were more effective than dolomitic additives. A good detailed examination of the effect of limestone type is given by Borgwardt and Harvey.6 Chemical Form of the Additive: Many different forms of carbonate rocks have been tried in tests ranging from laboratory to demonstration scale. Most investigators have compared hydrated lime, calcined limestone and uncalcined limestone although dolomitic lime, half calcined dolomite, hydrated dolomitic lime and others have been used on occasion. In general, the ranking of reactivity is hydrated lime > limestone (uncalcined) > lime.3'7'9 However, the optimum temperatures of injection for different forms of the additive may span 752° F and a comparison at a given temperature is misleading. Zentgraf7 reports that limestone injected at its optimum temperature (2732° F) is slightly more effective than hydrated lime at its optimum temperature (2102° F). Even in tests where the hydrate is consistently better, the difference is insufficient to warrant the extra cost of the hydrate versus the uncalcined limestone. Tests with dolomitic counterparts of the limestone (i.e. calcite) chemical forms also show the hydrate to be the most reactive but still less reactive than the hydrated lime.1 ° ^Superscripts refer to references on pages 1-35. ------- 1-5 Particle Size: Except in certain cases, all studies noted some increase in reactivity with decreasing particle size. It appears that the effect of particle size is not the same for all stones but is determined primarily by the pore size. Small pores lead to the highest sensitivity between calcine reactivity and particle size. Calcines with very large pores may show no dependence of reactivity on particle size. In differential reactor experiments not much improvement was noted below 100 u. At Babcock & Wilcox, particle size was related to specific surface area by the Lea-Nurse technique (air permeability). Depending on the grindability, minus 60 mesh (approximately 250 ju) produces 2000-6000 cm2 /gram in area. The maximum reactivity was recorded when the surface area reached 2000 cm2/gm or more. Analyses of reacted fly ash showed that particles between 2 and 6p contained 8 to 12 percent sulfur (as SO3), and particles greater than 30jn had less than 4 percent sulfur. These results are generally supported by Battelle6 and Zentgraf7 who reported that above 50 and 60jj respectively, the particle size was inversely porportional to the SO2 reactivity while below these values particle size had no effect. In addition, Ishihara8 reported that for particles below lOp the initial reaction rate increased as the particle size decreased and Tanaka9 reported that for the 3 sizes he studied (all greater than 74p) a decrease in particle size gave an increase in removal. Zentgraf7 also reported that as the particle size increases the pore size decreases. Calcination Temperature: All experiments showed that higher calcination temperatures give rise to loss of reactivity known as dead burning. Both in-house and TVA studies showed that higher temperatures lead to growth of crystallites with a corresponding loss of surface area and pore volume which accounts for the loss of reactivity. In-house, Peabody Coal, and Babcock & Wilcox data show that injection of limestone with the fuel or near the flame gives a dead burned stone with little SO2 removal efficiency. This conclusion is supported by reports of Goldschmidt1 ° and Ishihara.11 Optimum injection temperatures have been reported to be 2500-2700° F3, 2000-2450° F4 , 2732° F7, and 1652-2192° F8 depending on the system tested. The time-temperature profile is actually the controlling factor. Catalysts: In-house fixed-bed studies showed no evidence of the limestone-SO2 reaction being catalyzed by minor constituents in limestone. Both ISGS and TVA showed an improvement in reactivity with sodium content in the stone but no general conclusions could be drawn. At Babcock & Wilcox, vanadium decreased the additive effectiveness but iron oxide improved it slightly. It was concluded that the improvement was due to higher surface areas, not the iron oxide. This is not in agreement with Ishihara8 who found limestone containing over 1 percent Fe2O3 were 50 percent more effective than those with less than 0.5 percent during oil-fired pilot plant experiments. However, SO2 removals were not increased by addition of ferric oxide powder or yellow ochre to the limestone. ------- 1-6 IV. Abstracted Results of Individual Projects Illinois State Geological Survey1-Detailed petrographic, mineralogical, and chemical analysis of 26 carbonate rocks were made and compared with the capacity (3-1/2 reaction period) and differential reactivity (120 second reaction period) of calcined specimens for sorption of SO2. A wide range of petrographic and SO2 sorptive properties were revealed. Three petrographic and chemical properties appear to be useful indexes of the SO2 sorption capacity: the pore volume, the grain size, and the sodium oxide content of the rocks. The larger the pore volume, the greater was the sorption capacity of the rock. Pores with a maximum chord length between 2 and 16/j appear to have the most influence on this behavior. In general, the finer the grain size of the rock, the higher was the sorption capacity, although certain samples showed an opposite correlation owing to the effect of intercrystalline pores in the crinoidal fossil fragments abundant in some of the samples. Of the 15 chemical elements analyzed, only sodium showed a correlation trend with the SO2 test data. The sodium present in the samples increased with increasing sorption capacity. The reaction products of the samples calcined at 1796° F for 2 hours and exposed to sulfur oxides in laboratory tests are solid grains of anhydrite (CaSO4). Electron microscopy shows two types of behavior: the calcines of the Iceland spar calcite absorbed sulfur on the outer surface of its particles, whereas in calcines of a porous limestone, absorption took place throughout the particles. Sulfation occurred on the outer surfaces of particles by multiple nucleation of anhydrite crystallites, which enlarged until they abutted each other to produce a tightly interlocking texture of subrounded grains. The relatively high SO2 reactivity observed for chalks, calcareous marls, and oolitic aragonite sand samples is believed due mainly to the high pore volume and fine grain size of these carbonate rocks. Geologically, high pore volume is indicated by the relatively unconsolidated nature of these rock materials. Tennessee Valley Authority2—The reactivities of 35 stones were measured and correlated with mineralogical and crystallographic properties. Calcination of the limestone proceeds from the outside surface toward the center of each particle. The rate of calcination is affected by the reaction temperature, the particle size of the stone, the crystallite size of the carbonate mineral in the stone, the relative amounts of magnesium and calcium in the stone, and the partial pressures of CO2 and SO2 in the furnace atmosphere. The reaction of CaO with SO2 and O2 at 1682° F is first order with respect to the partial pressure of SO2 in the range 1 to 8.4 percent by volume, zero order with respect to the partial pressure of O2 in the range 1 to 10 percent by volume, and zero order with respect to the loading of product until the layer of CaSO4 completely shields the available reaction surface. Below 1182° F, the formation of sulfite predominates over that of sulfate; the oxidation of sulfite to sulfate begins at about 1332° F, a temperature range in which the sulfite also begins to decompose and disproportionate. Disproportionation of sulfite at 1612° F is prevented by the presence of oxygen or CO2, ------- 1-7 either of which promotes the formation of sulfate. The first-order specific rate constants for the decomposition of CaSO3 and CaSO4 and the loss of reactivity (dead burning) of a high calcitic (Colbert) limestone were expressed in Arrhenius form. Water vapor affects the rate of reaction of SO2 with MgO but not with CaO; the reaction with MgO is too slow to be important under injection conditions. The direct substitution of SO2 for CO2 in the limestone also is too slow to be significant under furnace injection conditions. The sulfation reaction occurs simultaneously with the calcination reaction when the rate of the calcination reaction is low; sulfation is more rapid, however, when there is a relatively large surface of unreacted CaO. The products of the sulfation reaction retard the calcination reaction when the two reactions occur simultaneously. The physical properties of a calcine and its reactivity with SO2 are influenced markedly by the texture of the parent limestone from which the calcine is formed. An Iceland spar, of mean crystallite size 7125° A., calcined slowly below 1742° F because of its high thermal stability, and yielded a calcine with small pores and small crystallites of CaO. A very pure calcitic limestone, of mean crystallite size 3875°A, yielded larger crystallites of CaO than did the Iceland spar under the same conditions, but the pore volume was larger and more favorably distributed between different sized pores for reaction with SO2 • Between 1832° F and 2012° F the calcines of both materials showed a minimum in pore volume, which was interpreted as the end of sintering and the beginning of recrystallization of the CaO. During sintering, small pores coalesce into larger pores with small changes in the crystallite size of the oxide; during recrystallization the crystallites grow into massive single crystals of CaO at rates proportional to the crystallite size of the original carbonate. The Iceland spar was less reactive with SO2 than was the calcitic limestone under all the experimental conditions tested because of its slower calcination, its unfavorable pore-size distribution and pore volume, and its more rapid recrystallization. Electron microscope photographs of cleaved sulfated particles of these stones clearly showed the reaction zone between oxide and sulfate and the growth of the crystallites of sulfate at the outer surface. The calcination, isothermal sulfation, and polythermal calcination-sulfation of 35 limestones were studied and the distinguishing characteristics of each reaction were correlated with the chemical and mineralogical properties of the stones. Six measures of the capacity and rate of reaction with S02 were correlated with the chemical and mineralogical properties of the stones, as well as the reaction parameters. Multiple correlations of the capacity and rate parameters with the properties of the stones yielded equations from which the reactivity of a stone could be predicted from its chemical and mineralogical characteristics. The equations were tested with five stones considered for use in the Shawnee full-scale tests, using the reaction rate data at five temperatures obtained by Battelle in the dispersed-phase reactor. The prediction of the polythermal capacity for absorption of SO2 from the chemical and mineralogical properties of the stones correlated well with the Battelle reaction rates at temperatures below 1724° F, but not at higher temperatures. No other predicted reactivity measure correlated significantly with the Battelle rate at any temperature. ------- 1-8 Although the data obtained at the temperatures accessible in this experimental study (maximum of 1742° F) do not extrapolate well to the higher temperatures that are encountered in actual power plant combustion chambers, the properties of stones that were shown to be desirable at low temperatures probably will be advantageous at the furnace temperatures also. Perhaps the major difference to be expected between the results obtained at low temperature and those anticipated at high temperatures is the marked increased in the rate and extent of dead burning at the high temperatures, as indicated by the results of the X-ray examinations. The data indicate no way of avoiding the detrimental effect of rapid dead burning at temperatures above about 1922° F. They indicate that stones that contain the smallest amounts of impurity minerals and whose rhombic carbonates are primarily calcitic and are present as the smallest crystallites will be most effective for injection into the combustion chamber. Increasing the sodium content of the stone increases its reactivity; however, if iron is present, it should be in the form of limonite or goethite rather than in the lattice of the stone. Babcock & Wilcox3—Using a small pulverized coal pilot plant, 415 tests were run with 129 different additives. The variables studied relative to additive reactivity included temperature at the point of injection, residence time of the additive in the reactive zone, additive surface area, chemical form of the additive (e.g., carbonate, oxide, or hydrate) and catalyst content. In general, raw limestones and dolomites were most effective when injected into the pilot plant at points corresponding to mid- and upper-furnace regions of full-scale units. This behavior appeared in part to be an effect of gas temperature, but particle residence time was probably the most important factor. Feeding the raw additives with coal or upstream of the combustion zone resulted in very poor performance, indicating that dead burning took place under these conditions. Increasing additive specific surface area to about 2000 cm2/g, or slightly higher, improved additive performance to a maximum. Larger surface area gave no further improvement, and in some cases the amount of SO2 removal was actually decreased, probably due to agglomeration of very fine particles. Hydrated stones were slightly more effective than their parent raw material, particularly at lower (approximately 1900° F) injection temperatures, but not to the extent that the cost of additive processing would be justified. Precalcining the stones in most cases decreased effectiveness of the additives. Iron oxide (as Fe2 O3 and Fe3O4) was found to improve additive effectiveness slightly while vanadium (as V2OS) actually decreased it. It was concluded that improved effectiveness resulted from higher surface areas, not the iron oxide. Marl, a kind of limestone, was the most effective type of additive tested under most conditions. Peabody Coal Company4—Tests were conducted in a pilot size chain-grate stoker with an aragonite, a calcite, two types of dolomite, and a chalk. "Red mud," the dried ------- 1-9 tailings from the manufacture of alumina from bauxite was also tested. Variables related to additive reactivity included temperature at the point of injection and particle size. Calcination and calcium oxide utilization were determined. Sulfur dioxide removal ranged from 6 to 65 percent depending upon operating conditions. A comparison of sorbents, compared on a per-unit-weight-of-raw-stone basis, shows that the calcites and aragonite remove more SO2 than do dolomites. Sorbent 1683, an aragonite, was the most effective material tested when injected into the gas stream. However, it was relatively ineffective when mixed with the coal prior to combustion. The particle size study was not as definitive as desired due to overlapping particle sizes between injected screen cuts. A step-wise regression analysis of 59 runs, with samples 1337 and 1684 (dolomite), 1683 (aragonite), and 1359 (calcite) combined, indicated that reducing the sorbent particle size leads to higher SO2 removal rates. Each sorbent, except red mud, was injected at temperatures from 1800° F to 2450° F. Computer results on all test data combined did not indicate a significant correlation between SO2 removal and injection temperature. However, graphical analysis did indicate that temperature was a significant parameter for some of the individual samples. The degree of sorbent calcination varied directly with temperature and ranged from 50 to 60 percent at 1800° F to more than 90 percent at 2450° F. Above 2000° F, particle size did not appear to significantly affect the degree of calcination. Calcium oxide utilization varied from 6.30 percent (for particle sizes greater than 100 mesh) to 59.50 percent (for 200 mesh sizes). Aragonite, Sample 1683, and dolomite Sample 1684, demonstrated the greatest utilization. Red mud, when injected into the gas stream at 1200° F to 1300° F and 2000° F was relatively ineffective in removing SO2 - In-House EPA5—Eighty-six carbonate rock samples were tested in a fixed-bed reactor to determine their capacity to react with flue gas containing SO2 . Although most of the work was performed with the carbonate and the oxide at standard test conditions, supplementary tests were made on hydrates, oxides, and carbonates over a wide range of reaction temperatures and calcination conditions. Differences between the samples were related only slightly to chemical composition; porosity, as measured by mercury pore volume best explained variations in capacities of the samples. Chalks and oolitic samples were the most efficient absorbents; magnesite and Iceland spar the least efficient of the stones tested. The SO2 reaction kinetics of calcines prepared from 11 rock types representing a broad spectrum of limestones and dolomites, which were examined by ISGS, were determined at 1800° F. Stones of various geological types yield calcines of distinctly different physical structures that show correspondingly large differences in both rate of reaction and capacity for SO2 sorption. Pore size and particle size tog-ether determine the extent to which the interior of individual particles react. Particles smaller than 0.01 cm (100 u) with pores larger than O.ljj react throughout their internal pore structure at a rate ------- 1-10 directly proportional to the B. E. T. surface. The rate decays exponentially as sulfation proceeds until the pores are filled with reaction product. The ultimate capacity of small particles is determined by the pore volume available for product accumulation, generally equivalent to about 50 percent conversion of the CaO in limestones. Variations in effectiveness of carbonate rocks for flue gas desulfurization are explained by the physical properties of their calcines, which are related to the crystal structure of the original rock. The high reaction rates achieved in the limestone injection process apparently result from the large surface area existing for short periods immediately following the shock dissociation of CaCO3. The relative ranking of calcines with respect to isothermal rate of reaction with SO2 at 1796°F is: marl > high purity limestone > Iceland spar > aragonite > marble. Magnesite reacts only slowly with SO2 at any temperature between 1004 and 1796P F. The relative ranking of limestones with respect fo fixed bed capacity at 1796° F with -18 +20 mesh particles (approximately 840-1000 u) is: marl chalk > oolite > dolomite > calcite > marble> magnesite> Iceland spar. The rate of reaction increases with decreasing pore size until a critical pore diameter of about O.lu is reached. Presumably pores smaller than O.lu are rapidly blocked by reaction products. Maximum rate results when B. E. T. surface area is in the region of 3.5 M2/g (corresponding to pore diameters of 0.2 - O.Sjj) under isothermal reaction conditions. The total SO2-sorption capacity increases with increasing pore size. Furthermore, the capacity of limestones is correlated to the area of pores greater than 0.3)u but not to B. E.T. surface area. Both rate and capacity of SO2 sorption are highly dependent upon particle size. The effect of particle size is not the same for all stones, but is determined by the size of the pores. Small pores lead to the highest sensitivity between the reactivity of calcines and particle size. Calcines with very large pores may show no dependence of reactivity upon particle size. Loss of reactivity because of high calcination temperatures (dead burning) is attributed to growth of CaO crystals and the subsequent loss of surface area and pore volume. During sintering and CO2 evolution, small pores coalesce into larger pores with small changes in crystallite size of the oxide. At excessive temperatures recrystallation occurs and the crystallites grow into massive single crystals at rates proportional to the crystallite size of the original carbonate. Since loss of surface area and loss of pore volume are similar functions of increasing calcination temperature, both reaction rate and capacity of dead-burned stones are lost proportionally. Four reactivity tests—flue gas absorption, SO2 absorption, CO2 absorption, and hydration weight gain were found to be suitable as dead-burning tests for samples of limited size diluted with fly ash. The last three are considered sufficiently uncomplicated to be used as field tests. ------- 1-11 V. Recommendations on Limestone Properties for Application to the Dry Limestone Injection Process a. A fine-grained (e.g., having small crystallites) high calcium carbonate stone should be used. While many common limestones are of this type, marl, aragonite, and chalk are almost always fine grained. Many deposits of chalk and marl are sufficiently pure for the injection process and most deposits of aragonite are very pure. b. Injection of uncalcined limestone is indicated except where only injection at low temperature (< 1800° F) is possible. In this case lime hydrate should be used. c. The additive should be finely ground. While improvement does not appear to be significant below lOOjJ, a directional improvement has been shown. A particle size of 90 percent minus 300 mesh (approximately 50jj) is preferable. d. The additive should not be injected with the fuel or near the flame. The optimum injection point is a function of the system to be controlled but should be approximately 2000-2200° F. The optimum injection temperature may be higher in boilers where the residence time in the hottest zone is very short. In any case the injection point should be located so as to insure complete calcination without dead burning. e. The hydration weight gain test for dead burning is recommended since it is independent of the degree of sulfation. ------- 1-13 Section B Limestone Availability in the United States1 I. Introduction and Objectives A great deal of emphasis is being placed on the development of processes which remove sulfur oxides from the stack gases of plants which burn coal or oil as a primary fuel. Several of these processes are based on the use of limestone or dolomite as the sorbent for the sulfur oxides. The use of these materials to control sulfur emissions is contingent upon several factors. Among these, the proximity of adequate carbonate rock deposits to potential users and the relationship of carbonate rock production to possible demand, appear to be most important in establishing the relative merits of any carbonate rock-based process. The objective here was the determination of the availability and costs of limestone and similar materials throughout the contiguous United States to provide a basis for determining the feasibility and economics of limestone-based SO2 removal processes for typical plant sites. 11. Approach Search of publications and communications with Federal and state government agencies, trade associations, and various crushed stone or limestone producers were the sources of the data presented. The data was gathered on a national, regional and state-wide basis. Since the objective is primarily concerned with limestone availability as it relates to potential consumption by fossil fueled power plants, the regions were chosen to coincide with those defined by the National Coal Association. Materials covered include limestone, dolomite, chalk, marble, marl and shell. Location of deposits, production rates, f.o.b. quarry costs, transportation methods and costs, expected cost increases, uses, chemical composition and physical properties were covered. Summary results most germane to this report follow. Additional details in these and other areas may be found in the references provided. III. Results Potential Demand - Power Plants Most of the power capacity from fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States occurs in the eastern half of the country. Figure 1 shows the location of the major (>200 MW) power plants in the United States which burn either coal or oil as the primary fuel. Included are a few plants which, although not yet constructed, are being designed exclusively for either coal or oil and are scheduled to be on stream by 1975. Of the 275 plants shown, 84 percent are coal-fired. The oil-fired plants are all located along the eastern coast, with most of these in the northeast. About 90 percent of all power plants shown are located east of the Mississippi River, with locally high concentrations in the northeastern quarter of the country, particularly in many of the major metropolitan areas. 1, Adapted from references 13 and 14. ------- FIGURE 1 MAJOR THERMAL POWER PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES BURNING COAL OR OIL AS THE PRIMARY FUEL 2 PLANTS WITHIN THE NEW YORK CITY LIMITS BURN COAL. 5 PLANTS BURN OL. NOTE: MAJOR POWER PLANTS ARE DEFINED AS THOSE HAVING INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITIES OF 200 MEGAWATTS OR MORE. SOURCES: I Principal Electric Facilities, Faderol Power Commiscion, (1970). (S«ri«i of (cyan mep<) 2. Steam-Electric Plant factors SI97O Edition. Notional Coal Association. Wathing:on. D.C.. (November I97O). ------- 1-15 Based on 1969 fuel consumption statistics, an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur oxides were emitted by power plants in the United States. Assuming 1.25 stoichiometry, more than 40 million tons of limestone would have been required to remove these oxides from the stack gases. This potential limestone demand, which assumes that all power plants use a limestone-based process for sulfur removal, has been broken down by region, with the regions being defined as follows: Region New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic East South Central West South Central Mountain Pacific States Included Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland (includ- ing Washington, DC), North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming California, Oregon, Washington Table 1 itemizes potential demand by region. The East North Central region far outranks any other region in potential limestone requirements with over one-third of the total. With the exception of New England, all regions in the eastern half of the country had potentially large demands for limestone. ------- 1-16 Table 1 Potential Limestone Demand by Power Plants in the United States Region Limestone (103 Tons) °/0 of Total New England 1,369 3-4 Middle Atlantic 6,583 16-2 East North Central 14,307 35.1 West North Central 2,738 6-7 South Atlantic 8,471 20-8 East South Central 5,645 13-9 West South Central 5 Mountain 1,351 3.3 Pacific 266 0-6 Total 40,735 100.0 Carbonate Rock Reserves Deposits of carbonate rocks, including limestone, dolomite, shell, marble, and marl, occur in some form in every state. Total reserves have never been estimated, but are known to be enormous. Figure 2 shows the distribution of surface carbonate rocks in the United States and includes limestone, dolomite, and marble. The map shows that surface deposits of carbonate rocks occur throughout the nation but are particularly in evidence in the eastern half of the country. A band of deposits beginning in Vermont extends southward along the Appalachian Mountains into central Alabama. Extensive deposits are found in the state surrounding the Great Lakes, reaching southward into northern Alabama. Large areas of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri are covered with carbonate rocks and broad outcrops occur in Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas. Particularly in the central lowlands, carbonate rock deposits frequently occur as thick, horizontal formations covering large areas. In general, the deposits found in western states are different. They commonly occur as steeply dipping or vertical beds of small areal extent. However, notable exceptions to this are found, particularly in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico where large outcrops occur. Limestone occurrences, including chalk but excluding dolomite, are shown in Figure 3. The map is similar to Figure 2 and shows that although limestone is found throughout the ------- FIGURE 2 CARBONATE ROCK DEPOSITS IN THE UMITED STATES ------- 00 ij=3 CHALK DEPOSITS •H LIMESTONE DEPOSITS FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CHALK AND LIMESTONE DEPOSITS IN THE UNITED STATES (REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES BULLETIN NO. 395) ------- 1-19 country, the more numerous and extensive deposits occur in the eastern half of the nation. In the western states, the deposits tend to be discontinuous and relatively small in areal extent. The formations shown in Figure 3 include limestones of different degrees of purity. Estimates have been made that only about 2 percent of the known reserves of commercially usable limestone is chemical grade (> 95 percent carbonate content), and that the bulk of these reserves will be exhausted in 40-50 years. Much of this high purity limestone occurs in the area extending from the Great Lakes southward to Alabama. Chalk deposits are shown in several of the central states and in a curving belt through Alabama and Mississippi. In general, they are not high purity limestones, but locally they may contain over 95 percent calcium carbonate. Figure 4 shows the location of high grade (> 25 percent magnesium carbonate) dolomite quarries. Although originally drawn in 1941, it is a useful guide to the important occurrences of dolomite. As with limestone, the largest deposits are located in the eastern half of the country. Two major areas are noted. First a belt of dolomite extends from Vermont to central Alabama along the Appalachian Mountains. This coincides quite well with a similar band of limestone previously noted. Second, large formations of dolomite occur in the states encircling the Great Lakes. These deposits coincide with or adjoin large limestone deposits in the region. The most significant deposits of marble are found along virtually the entire length of the Appalachian Mountains in the east, and as scattered occurrences in the Rocky Mountains in the west. Although eastern marbles are predominantly calcitic (high calcium), dolomitic types also occur. Both types are found in the west. Shell limestone occurs primarily in Gulf Coastal waters, but it also is found in bay waters along both the east and west coasts. It is usually a very pure type of calcium carbonate. Marl deposits exist in several areas, notably around the Great Lakes, and along the southeastern coastal plain. This soft, relatively impure form of calcium carbonate varies considerably in character, that of the Great Lakes area being precipitated calcium carbonate, while that of the coastal plain is an impure shell deposit. Limited occurrences in other regions are generally impure chalks or soft limestones. Mining and Production Carbonate stones are recovered by several methods, including underground mining and dredging but quarrying is employed most commonly. After removal of overburden and primary blasting of the stone, various crushing, grinding, sizing, and cleaning operations are performed to produce a range of marketable products. A large, modern quarry is an expensive, complex, and highly mechanized unit. Over 4,700 quarries, producing 861 million tons of crushed stone of all types, were in operation in the United States in 1969. Since production of crushed carbonate rocks totaled 652 million tons, it can be assumed that, roughly, over 3,500 of these quarries ------- oo ro 10 FIGURE 4- LOCATION OF HIGH-GRADE DOLOMITE QUARRIES IN THE UNITED STATES (REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 7192) ------- 1-21 produced limestone, dolomite, and related stones. More than one-third of all quarries had annual production rates of less than 25,000 tons. The large operations (over 900,000 tons/year) produced one-third of the total crushed stone, although they represented less than 4 percent of the total number of quarries. Crushed carbonate rock production in the United States in 1969 was distributed as follows: 106 Tons Limestone Dolomite Shell Calcareous Marl Marble Total 652 No production of any type was reported in three states, viz., Delaware, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. These states, plus Louisiana, were the only states which did not produce any limestone. Dolomite was produced in twenty-four states, chiefly in the north-eastern quarter of the country. Production of limestone and dolomite, by region, was a follows: 106 Tons New England 2.4 Middle Atlantic 90.9 East North Central 185.6 West North Central 92.5 South Atlantic 87.5 East South Central 81.3 West South Central 58.3 Mountain 10.7 Pacific 18.8 Total 628 Nationwide, Pennsylvania and Illinois were the leading producers of limestone and dolomite, respectively. Within most regions, production rates of individual states varied from near zero to tens of millions of tons. The New England and Mountain regions, however, had fairly uniform and low outputs. The East North Central region was also an exception, with all states reporting large quantities of limestone and dolomite, ranging from 16 to 55 million tons. Shell was dredged from bay waters along all three coasts. However, 83 percent came from Texas and Louisiana, with the latter being the leading producer. Small quantities of ------- 1-22 marl were produced in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Eighteen states, principally in eastern and western mountainous regions quarried marble, with Alabama recording the highest production at 632,000 tons. IV. Supply/Demand Relationship of Carbonate Rocks for Pollution Control Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to Power Plants Comparison of Figures 1-4 indicates that the major deposits of carbonate rocks largely coincide in location with the power plants. This is particularly true in the East North Central region where huge reserves of stone occur. Both high calcium limestone and high grade dolomite abound and many deposits are found near the major power generation centers throughout the region. The New England region is not as fortunate. While the power plants are located primarily in coastal areas, the rock deposits occur in the mountainous western sections. Most of the deposits are highly crystalline stone or marble and many are dolomitic. The suitability of these materials would have to be determined before including them as a possible source. Availability of stone should not be a problem for power plants in the Middle Atlantic region. All types of stone occur and nearby deposits can be found. Plants in western and eastern Pennsylvania, particularly, are fortunate in that large reserves of high grade stones are present. In the South Atlantic region, most plants are located near an adequate source of stone, particularly if the crystalline limestones and dolomites of the mountainous areas prove suitable. Several coastal plants could use shell or coral limestone, or marl. However, for some inland power plants in North Carolina, for example, no nearby deposits exist. Large quantities of high calcium limestone occur throughout the East South Central region and power plants should experience no difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies. Many plants located in Alabama and Tennessee also could obtain dolomite quite easily. The less abundant and more widely scattered carbonate resources of the western states are of minor importance, since there are few coal-fired power plants in this area. With the exception of the two power plants located in North Dakota, which are far removed from any commercially important carbonate deposits, the few plants that do exist are fairly near reserves of high calcium stone. Potential Demand Relative to Production As previously mentioned, the potential demand for limestone by coal-and oil-fired power plants in 1969 exceeded 40 million tons. This represents only 7.3 percent oFthe national limestone production of 559 million tons. Dolomite production, on the other hand, was roughly 60 percent greater than the potential demand. Shell production was only one-half of the demand. The quantities of calcareous marl and crushed marble quarried were relatively insignificant. Obviously, limestone is the only stone produced in sufficient quantities to warrant nationwide consideration as an agent for SO2 removal. Dolomite and ------- 1-23 shell, however, are quarried in large enough amounts to make them important materials in some regions. Marl and crushed marble may be useful in certain localities where the other rocks do not exist but their limited occurrence and production do not permit wide-scale use of these materials. Table 2 shows the relationship of limestone and dolomite production to potential demand, by region and state. The third column of the table is the ratio of total limestone and dolomite production to potential demand, for 1969. With the exception of New England, the eastern regions of the country all have large relative supplies of limestone and dolomite. There are some exceptions to this among the individual states. New Jersey and Delaware have a potential need which exceeds their production. Adjacent states, however, are large producers of stone and could provide the necessary tonnages. Mississippi and both of the Carolinas have low relative supplies of stone. If they could not otherwise be supplied, marl deposits which occur extensively in all three states could be used. Georgia and West Virginia, with comparatively low relative supplies, could easily obtain needed stone from surrounding states. It is interesting to note that the region with the highest limestone demand, i.e., the East North Central region, also has the highest limestone and dolomite production. The New England region faces a shortage of limestone and dolomite, with two states producing less stone than potentially required. The marble resources of the region could improve the situation somewhat, but power plants would have to rely on shipments of stone from nearby states such as New York, or, perhaps, on imports. Most states in other regions of the country have ample production. North Dakota, with no production, is an outstanding exception to this, however. A few other states have low relative supplies of stone, but either the demand is quite small, or the production could easily be expanded to meet the need. Costs F.O.B. Quarry Costs The average unit value, or net selling price at the quarry, for all crushed carbonate stones produced in the United States in 1969 was $1.49/ton and varied by type of stone as follows: Limestone $1.45/ton Dolomite $1.55/ton Shell $1.42/ton Marl $1.01/ton Marble $9.69/ton The high unit value of marble reflects its primary use as a decorative material. Unit value also varies with end use. Stone used for all construction purposes averaged $1.44/ton while stone used in applications requiring a high purity material had an ------- 1-24 Table 2 Availability of Limestone and Dolomite for Pollution Control (1969) Production Potential Demand Region and State (103 Tons) (Q3 Tons) _ New England „ ,-r Connecticut 275 47 056 Maine 800 Massachusetts 750 New Hampshire Rhode Island < 100 39 Vermont 525 _ Totals 2,400 1-369 1.75 Middle Atlantic New Jersey 800 935 °-86 New York 33,457 2,132 15.7 Pennsylvania 56,667 3,516 16.1 Totals 90,900 6,583 13.8 South Atlantic Delaware 177 0 Florida 40,729 1,009 40.4 Georgia 4,334 931 4.66 Maryland 9,804 1,010 9.71 North Carolina 4,500 2,003 2.25 South Carolina 1,900 459 4.14 Virginia 17,829 1,088 16.4 West Virginia 8,405 1.794 4.69 Totals 87,500 8,471 10.3 East South Central Alabama 17,752 1,931 9.19 Kentucky 30,158 1,785 16.9 Mississippi 300 71 4.23 Tennessee 33,109 1,858 17.8 Totals 81,300 5,645 14.4 East North Central Illinois 54,844 3,665 15.0 Indiana 25,157 2,786 9.03 Michigan 39,066 2,511 15.6 Ohio 50,595 . 4,181 12.1 Wisconsin 15,937 1,164 13.7 Totals 185,600 14,307 13.0 West North Central Iowa 26,200 453 57.8 Kansas 15,334 42 365 Minnesota 4,127 648 6.37 Missouri 41,200 1,093 37.7 Nebraska 4,663 110 42.4 North Dakota - 357 0 South Dakota 989 35 28 3 Totals 92,500 2,738 33^3 ------- 1-25 Table 2 (continued) Production Potential Demand Region and State (103 Tons) (103 Tons) Ratio West South Central Arkansas 5,676 4 1419 Louisiana - <1 0 Oklahoma 16,300 <1 Large Texas 36,300 <1 Large Totals 58,300 <7 Large Mountain Arizona 2,339 50 46.8 Colorado 1,650 358 4.61 Idaho 250 Montana 1,442 74 19.5 Nevada 1,000 78 12.8 New Mexico 956 345 2.77 Utah 2,400 67 35.8 Wyoming 649 379 1-71 Totals 10,700 1,351 7.92 Pacific California 17,400 266 65.4 Oregon 350 <1 Large Washington 1,050 < 1 Large Totals ^ 18,800 <268 >70 ------- 1-26 average value of $1.69/ton. Average prices ranged from $0.69/ton for fill to $6.00/ton for exposed aggregate (decorative stone). Stone for most applications, however, averaged under $2.00/ton. The variation in price depends not only on supply and demand but also on the chemical and/or physical properties required for the particular application. Average prices of limestone and dolomite are shown in Table 3, by region and state. Within most states, average prices were $1.00-$2.00/ton, although spot prices ranged from $0.12-$25.00/ton. Several states in the New England and Mountain Regions, in addition to New Jersey, reported average values above $2.00/ton. Rhode Island reported the highest average value: $7.57/ton for limestone. The prices reported in California and Washington were unusual in that average values for limestone were below the national average, while average values for dolomite far exceeded $2.00/ton. Production of the particular stone was limited in all cases where average unit values were high. With the exception of Virginia, which reported $3.92/ton, average prices of shell were $1.00-$2.00/ton. Unit values for marl were all below $1.15/ton and varied widely in price. Transportation Costs Trucks dominated in the transportation of carbonate rocks from quarry to consumer, accounting for almost three-fourths of all stone. Rail and waterway hauls, amounting to one-fifth of the stone shipments, were about equally divided. Trucks generally are used for shorter hauls of under 50-100 miles while rail is employed for longer distances. Where conditions permit, shipment of stone by barge or boat is preferred since this is usually the cheapest method of transportation. Typical capacities of the various vehicles used to transport stone are: Truck up to 50 tons Rail Car 60-100 tons Barge 1200-1400 tons Boat up to 29,000 tons Trucks were a popular mode of transportation in all sections of the nation, while railroads were important in eastern states, particularly in the southeast. Large amounts of stone were moved via inland waters, notably in the Great Lakes area and along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The abundance of highways, railroads, and inland waterways found in the east is not duplicated in western states, thereby limiting the selection of a transportation method in the latter area. Generally, sufficient trucks, barges, and boats are available to haul stone although in some areas in peak seasons the supply may be limited. In most sections of the country a shortage of rail cars does occur. For a power plant where the limestone demand would be known and deliveries could be scheduled well in advance, the affect of a shortage of vehicles should not be severe. ------- 1-27 Table 3 Unit Value of Crushed and Broken Limestone and Dolomite in the United States in 1969, By Region and State Average Unit Value ($/Ton) Region and State New England Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Middle Atlantic New Jersey New York Pennsylvania East North Central Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin West North Central Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota South Atlantic Delaware Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia Limestone NR1 1.32 4.14 - 7.57 1.46 2.49 1.56 1.46 1.44 1.32 1.02 1.54 1.17 1.49 1.40 1.32 1.39 1.87 - 1.22 - 1.31 1.50 1.57 1.62 1.51 1.52 1.62 Dolomite 4.20 .2 5.24 - - 1.53 - 1.97 1.73 1.45 1.28 1.45 1.48 1.21 1.72 - 1.38 1.13 . - - - - - - - 1.37 1.62 1. "NR" indicates that value was not reported 2. "-" indicates no production ------- 1-28 Table 3 (continued) Region and State East South Central Alabama Kentucky Mississippi Tennessee Average Unit Value ($/Ton) Limestone 1.17 1.46 1.00 1.33 Dolomite 1.60 West South Central Arkasas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas 1.36 1.30 1.35 NR 1.17 Mountain Arizona Colordao Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming Pacific California Oregon Washington Total United States 1.64 2.04 1.10 1.24 1.64 1.51 2.25 2.11 1.07 1.00 1.28 1.45 2.83 1.77 NR 2.66 2.91 6.00 :> 1.55 1. 'NR" indicates that value was not reported 2. "-" indicates no production ------- 1-29 So many factors influence transportation rates and costs that it becomes very difficult to establish average rates, even within a single area. Most freight rates for crushed stone in the United States fall within the following ranges, in cents per ton-mile: Truck 5.0-10.0 (@ 10 miles) 2.0 - 5.0 (@ 100 miles) Rail 4.5- 6.0 (@ 10 miles) * 0.75-1.5 (@ 250 miles) Water 0.9- 1.5 (@ 20 miles) * 0.25 - 0.50 (@ 500 miles) Delivered Costs The delivered price of limestone to a power plant is the sum of the price of the stone at the quarry plus the transportation charges. The delivered price of limestone to 37 selected power plants is estimated in Table 4, based on the assumption that a calcium limestone would be required. Most of the plants are located in the eastern half of the United States where the major coal- and oil-fired power capacity is found. Prices range from $1.95-$13.20/ton. Half of the plants could be supplied at under $4.00/ton, while all but 3 could obtain limestone at under $6.00/ton. The latter 3 plants are located in the west in areas where base prices are higher or limestone deposits are remote. For several eastern seaboard plants, particularly in New England, the availability of low-cost high calcium limestone is contingent upon the acceptability of an imported stone. Domestic sources are either inadequate or too distant to provide a low-cost material. Carbonate rocks historically have been stable, low-priced commodities. Based on average unit values for the years 1960-1969, projected average base prices for 1975 are as follows: 1969 1975 Limestone and Dolomite $1.46/ton $1.67-1.82/ton Marl $1.01/ton $1.28-1.48/ton The average value of shell has dropped considerably since 1960. It is unlikely that it will continue to decrease through 1975. More probably, it should parallel limestone and dolomite but not exceed them in value. Average unit values for crushed marble are highly variable, reflecting the sensitivity of price to market conditions. Transportation rates during the next 5 years should rise about 6 percent/year,, on the average. Estimates by type of transportation are as follows: Truck 4 - 6%/year Rail 6 - 8%/year Water 5 - 10%/year These estimates, based on predictions by various stone producers, assume a continuance of the present rate of inflation. It should be noted that the lime industry could be affected greatly from the national concern for the environment. Specifically, the power industry may require large amounts of lime by 1980, in the form of an additive to control sulfur oxides from the burning of fossil ------- 1-30 Table 4 Delivered Price of High-Calcium Limestone to Selected Power Plants Power Plant Benning Gorgas Cherokee J. McDonough Devon Fisk R.S.Wallace Will County D.H.Mitchell Wabash Riverside Lawrence Cane Run Elmer Smith Riverside Edgar L Street Delray High Bridge Hawthorn Sioux Essex Port Jefferson Waterside Allen Leland Olds Tidd Miami Fort Acme Horseshoe Lake Elrama Schuylkill Wateree Bull Run Cabin Creek Kammer Lakeside Location Washington, D.C. Gorgas, Alabama Denver, Colorado Cobb County, Georgia Millford, Connecticut Chicago, Illinois East Peoria, Illinois Lockport, Illinois Gary, Indiana Terre Haute, Indiana lowana, Iowa Lawrence, Kansas Louisville, Kentucky Owensboro, Kentucky Baltimore, Maryland N. Weymouth, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts Detroit, Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota Kansas City, Missouri West Alton, Missouri Newark, New Jersey Port Jefferson, New York New York, New York Belmont, North Carolina Stanton, North Dakota Brilliant, Ohio North Bend, Ohio Toledo, Ohio Horseshoe Lake, Oklahoma Elrama, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rockland City, South Carolina Oak Ridge, Tennessee Cabin Creek, West Virginia Captina, West Virginia St. Francis, Wisconsin Delivered Price ($/Ton) 4.50* 3.23 6.36 4.50 4.50* 2.40 3.30 3.30 2.65 2.25(75-94%CaC03) 1.95 3.66 3.00 3.72 3.85 4.50* 4.50* 2.40 3.00 4.60 3.10 4.50* 4.50* 4.50* 5.39 13.20 3.80 2.45 2.45 8.00 5.55(92%CaCO3) 4.50* 3.90(88%CaC03) 4.24 6.00 4.00(80%CaC03) 2.60 Source of stone is outside of U.S. (Bahamas) ------- 1-31 fuels. Although the amounts to be used are far from certain, it is possible that such pollution control efforts will make a significant new market for the lime industry.15 New supply and demand relationships within this market could alter F.O.B. and transportation charges and have a considerable effect on delivered cost. V. Conclusions a. Enormous deposits of carbonate rocks occur in the United States and reserves are more than adequate for the foreseeable future. A very rough approximation of surface carbonate deposits indicates a minimum of 3.6 x 1012 tons, sufficient to satisfy national requirements for more than 500 years at the present rate of consumption (and assuming a 10 percent availability of these reserves). Availability of high purity stone may become a problem several decades hence, but, with the probability that the required quality will depend on other process and economic factors, no shortage of suitable stone is foreseen. b. The major deposits of carbonate rocks occur in the eastern half of the United States where the vast majority of fossil fuel-fired power plants are located. Large reserves in these eastern areas provide a nearby source of stone for most power plants. Roughly two-thirds of all surface deposits of carbonate rock are found in the eastern half of the country. c. Relative to the potential demand for carbonate rocks by power plants, production of these materials is quite large in most states. However, current production is inadequate to supply the potential needs of power plants in several Atlantic coastal regions, notably New England. d. Limestone is the only type of carbonate rock which is produced in large enough quantities to merit consideration for wide-spread application in the removal of SO2 from stack gases. In many areas ample amounts of other carbonate rocks are produced, particularly dolomite. e. Most of the power plants in the eastern half of the United States could be supplied with high calcium limestone at less than $6.00/ton, many at less than $4.00/ton. Costs for power plants located in western states generally would be higher, owing to the lack of suitable, nearby deposits and other factors. The preceding costs are based on an unsized, nominally 2"-6" x 0 stone (this indicates stone with a maximum size of 2"-6" and no minimum size), which is typical of the product from the primary crusher at most quarries. If a sized or fine material is desired, the cost may increase. Most quarries have little or no capacity for fine grinding, particularly in the amounts possibly required by the larger power plants. f. Based on projections of material cost and transportation charges to 1975, the delivered price of limestone to most power plants is not expected to increase by more than $1.00-$2.00/ton. ------- 1-32 VI. Recommendations for Application to Dry Limestone Injection and Other Limestone-Based Processes The data and material contained herein and the referenced reports should be used to obtain a first approximation of the occurrence, characteristics, and cost of carbonate rocks in a particular case, thereby enabling a power company to assess the desirability of installing a limestone-based process for SO2 removal. If further investigation is warranted, the state geological surveys, a list of which is included in the reference 14 report, individual stone producers, and local carriers should be consulted for more detailed and specific information. ------- 1-33 Section C Definitions14 To avoid some of the confusion which frequently results from the inexact and qualitative definitions applied to limestone and related materials in the United States, and from the multitude of overlapping names used, some of the terms as used in this section are defined below. Limestone is a general term applied to sedimentary rocks composed chiefly of calcium carbonate, CaCO3, calcium-magnesium carbonate, CaMg(CO3)2, or mixtures of the two. The term is also used, in a more restricted way, to denote rocks composed mainly of calcium carbonate, in order to differentiate them from dolomites. Dolomite is a name used to describe a limestone primarily composed of the mineral dolomite, calcium-magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2. It is generally applied to carbonate rocks which contain approximately 20 percent or more magnesium carbonate, MgC03. Pure dolomite would contain 54.3 percent CaCO3 and 45.7 percent MgCO3. A point of contention, which is sometimes noted in the literature, is whether the calcium and magnesium carbonates are chemically combined, or whether they occur merely as a physical mixture. Limestone and dolomite occur with varying quantities of impurities, the most common of which are silica, alumina, iron oxides, and carbonaceous matter. Lime can be defined as the product which results from calcination of a limestone or dolomite. Calcination is a process of heating the stone to a temperature at which carbon dioxide, CO2 is released, thereby converting the carbonates to oxides. A calcium carbonate stone will produce a lime containing calcium oxide, CaO. Dolomite will produce a lime containing both calcium oxide and magnesium oxide, MgO, commonly called magnesia. In practice, commercial limes are usually derived from high purity stones containing a minimum of about 95 percent total carbonates. The following list defines the more important terms used in this report: Aragonite is a mineral composed of calcium carbonate, and having an orthorhombic crystalline structure. Argillaceous limestone contains clay as a major impurity. Bituminous (carbonaceous) limestone contains organic compounds as a major impurity. Calcareous is a term used to describe any material containing calcium carbonate. Calcite is a mineral composed of calcium carbonate, and having a rhombohedral crystalline structure. It is the predominant mineral in most limestones. Chalk is a soft, friable, fine-grained limestone consisting primarily of the remains of minute marine organisms. Coral limestone is a fossiliferous limestone consisting primarily of coral. Dolomitic limestone refers to a limestone which contains more than approximately 20 percent magnesium carbonate. The term is usually interchangeable with "dolomite." Ferruginous limestone contains iron oxides as a major impurity. ------- 1-34 Flux stone is a high-purity limestone or dolomite used as a flux in metallurgical processes. It contains 95 percent or more minimum total carbonate. Fossiliferous limestone is a stone in which the shells or shell fragments (fossils) are readily discernible. High calcium limestone refers to a limestone which contains a minimum of approximately 95 percent calcium carbonate. Magnesian limestone refers to a limestone which contains magensium carbonate within the approximate range of 5-20 percent. Marble is a metamorphic rock consisting of crystallized grains of calcite and/or dolomite. Commercially, the definition includes any calcareous rock that can be polished. Marl is an indefinite term used to describe a loose, soft, impure material which contains fine-grained fragments of shell and marine organisms intermixed with sand and clay. Oolitic limestone contains small, rounded pellets (oolites), having a center of calcium carbonate or sand grains around which are deposited concentric layers of calcite. Shell limestone is a term used to describe limestone derived from clam and oyster shells. Siliceous (cherty) limestone contains silica as a major impurity. Travertine consists of calcium carbonate that is chemically precipitated from hot springs. ------- 1-35 Section D References Reports identified by numbers prefixed "PB" are currently available prepaid from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Others will be available approximately one month after receipt by NTIS. 1. Illinois State Geological Survey, Final Report, PB 206-487, "Petrographic and Mineralogical Characteristics of Carbonate Rocks Related to Sulfur Dioxide Sorption in Flue Gases," July 1971, EPA Contract CPA 22-69-65. 2. Tennessee Valley Authority, Final Report, PB 202-407, "Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack Gas—Investigation of the Reactivities of Limestone to Remove Sulfur Dioxide from Flue Gas," 1971. 3. Babcock & Wilcox, Final Report, PB 184-059, "Additive Injection for Sulfur Dioxide Control—A Pilot Plant Study." March 1970, EPA Contract PH 86-67-127. 4. Peabody Coal Company, Final Report, PB 184-944, "Pilot Plant Moving Grate Furnace Study of Limestone-Dolomite for Control of Sulfur Oxide in Combustion Flue Gases," August 1970, EPA Contract PH 22-68-68. 5. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Technical Report, APTD 0737, "Alkaline Additives for Sulfur Dioxide Control," March 29, 1971. 6. Borgwardt, R. M., and Harvey, R. D., "Properties of Carbonate Rocks Related to S02 Reactivity," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp 350-9, (April 1972). 7. Zentgraf, Karl Martin, "A Contribution to the Determination of Sulfur Dioxide in Flue Gases and Desulfurization of Flue Gas with Earth Alkali Metal Compounds," Fortschrittsberichte VDI Zeitschrift, Germany, October 1967. 8. Ishihara, Yoshimi, "Kinetics of the Reaction of Calcined Limestone with Sulfur Dioxide in Combustion Gases," Technical Laboratory No. 1 Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan, presented at the Dry Limestone Injection Process Symposium, June 22-26, 1970. 9. Tanaka, K., et al., "Studies on Removal of Sulfur Oxides from Flue Gas by Dry Limestone Process," Japan, 1969. 10. Goldschmidt, K., "Experiments in the Use of White Lime Hydrate and Dolomite Lime Hydrate to Desulfurize Flue Gases from Oil and Pulverized Coal-Fired Furnaces," Fortschrittsberichte VDI Zeitschrift, August 1968. 11. Ishihara, Y., "Removal of SO2 from Flue Gases by Lime Injection Method," report of Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Komae, Kaitatama, Tokyo, Japan, presented at Public Health Service Limestone Conference, December 4-8, 1967. 12. Brocke, W., Report for Third Limestone Symposium, Clearwater, Florida, December 4-8, 1967. ------- 1-36 13. O'Donnell, J., and Sliger, A., "Availability of Limestones and Dolomites,"presented at the Second International Lime/Limestone Wet Scrubbing Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 8-12, 1971. 14. Kellogg, M. W., Final Report, PB 206-963, "Availability of Limestones and Dolomites," February 1972, EPA Contract CPA 70-68, Task 1. 15. Environmental Protection Agency, "The Economics of Clean Air," Annual Report to the Congress of the United States, February 1972. ------- APPENDIX J Mathematical Modeling of the Limestone Injection Process ------- J-l APPENDIX J MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE LIMESTONE INJECTION PROCESS In this appendix the author discusses the modeling activities which proceeded concurrently with the experimental work on which it is based. "The ultimate goal of this modeling was to establish a sound basis upon which the extensive data obtained at Shawnee could be used to predict performance and adapt the process to other boilers of different design." His summary includes work by: 1. Professor Jack B. Howard, Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2. EPA Isothermal Kinetic Studies 3. Dr. Yoshimi Ishihara, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan 4. Dr. Robert W. Coutant, Battelle Memorial Institute 5. Professor Robert L. Pigford, University of California 6. Professor C. Y. Wen, West Virginia University ------- J-3 I. Introduction and Objectives The unique adaptability of the dry limestone injection process to existing power plants—especially small and older units—together with its economic advantages in both capital and operating costs, made it imperative that a thorough evaluation of the process be made. At the time when this evaluation was undertaken (1967) by CSD in cooperation with TVA, there was strong evidence that good SO2 removal efficiencies and high additive utilizations could be obtained by this process. A fundamental study made for EPA at the Battelle Memorial Institute in 1966 showed that high removal efficiencies were thermodynamically possible, but kinetic data and mass transfer correlations were not available by which limits of efficiency could be predicted a priori. An experimental program, involving both boiler testing and fundamental research was necessary and many such investigations were carried out over the period 1967-70, both in the U.S. and other countries. With the publication of reliable experimental data in 1969 on the reaction kinetics of CaO with SO2 in both laboratory isothermal and dispersed-phase reactor systems, several efforts were begun to develop mathematical models which could be used to interpret the experimental data from various sources and guide optimization of performance in full scale tests. The ultimate goal of this modeling activity was to establish a sound basis upon which the extensive data obtained at Shawnee could be used to predict performance and adapt the process to other boilers of different design. Statistical correlations of data do not permit extrapolation with any degree of confidence to boilers different in design from that used to develop the correlation. A model useful for engineering design must account quantitatively for the effects of injection temperature, residence time, initial SO2 concentration, sulfation, time-temperature profile, excess oxygen and other boiler characteristics which influence the kinetics of the reaction of SO2 with the limestone particles injected into it. Clearly, the development of a satisfactory model required that the primary rate-limiting mechanism (Battelle had already shown that there was no equilibrium limitation) be established. Although this is generally the first step in development of a comprehensive model, it is also the most critical, and was found to be the most difficult. Several possible and equally plausible assumptions were made as a basis for model development, but unfortunately, a: the lirne when most of these modeling activities were begun, experimental research had not yet estaolished the facts regarding the effects of all of the primary variables (temp., time, SO2 concentration, particle size and physical properties of the calcine) upon the reaction characteristics with S02. Consequently, models based upon different assumptions were developed, and only by comparing the responses predicted by the model with those observed experimentally can a judgement be reached regarding the most valid and useful model of the limestone injection process. In the summary following, somewhat of a historical presentation is provided since the modeling activities proceeded concurrently with the experimental work on which it is based. The development of information identifying the importance of key parameters is emphasized and integrated, via discussion, into the most general basis for interpretation and definite conclusions. ------- J-5 II. Summary of Modeling Activities Professor Jack B. Howard, Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology At the request of EPA, a project was undertaken in August 1969 to identify the rate-limiting mechanism controlling the sorption of SO2 by calcined limestone. On the basis of the known physical properties of such calcines the rate of diffusion of SO2 into the pore structure of individual particles was to be estimated by means of the well-developed theory of heterogeneous catalysis. By calculation of the pure diffusional resistances and comparison with experimental data, the importance of chemical reaction, pore diffusion and other SO2 sorption resistances were inferred. The model1 describes the reaction behavior of a porous limestone particle in terms of the reaction of clusters of microscopic nonporous CaO grains that comprise the larger particle. It accounts for the effects of pore size, porosity, internal surface area and CaO content. The pore spaces between grains permit access of SO2 to the grain surfaces for reaction while larger pores between grain clusters provide the main path of diffusion into the particle. Four resistances are considered: (1) transport of SO2 from the ambient gas to the particle surface, (2) diffusion of SO2 within the pores, (3) chemical reaction at the grain surface and (4) diffusion of CaSO4 reaction product into the solid CaO grains. The resistance due to mass transfer to the particle surface was eliminated as a possible limitation by comparison of experimental data from Battelle's dispersed reactor with the calculated rate of mass transfer through the gas film. The results (Figure 1, Curves A and B) showed that the quantity of SO2 that can be transferred to 90 jj particles would permit 25% CaO conversion in 2 seconds at 1800° F. Actual data at these conditions show only 9% conversion, consequently Howard concluded that the major resistance is within the particle itself, resulting from either pore diffusion or chemical reaction. Ishihara2 reached the same conclusion on the basis of calculations of the decrease in SO2 concentration through the gas film surrounding dispersed particles. Two versions of the model were tested against experimental data on the isothermal sorption of SO2 by calcines prepared in the laboratory. One version holds the pore structure constant except for surface area, which decreases in proportion to conversion. The second version of the model allows the pore structure to change as the reaction progresses, thus accounting for the expansion of the CaO grains as they are converted to the more voluminous CaSO4. Calculations with the two versions show that the sorption characteristics are relatively insensitive to porosity in comparison with the effects of grain size or surface area. Detailed analysis of experimental data with the model indicated that the Although the Battelle data are at low particle to gas concentrations, it has been shown that the reported rates are in good agreement with Ishihara's pilot plant data for similar sized particles, which were obtained at particle-to-gas stoichiometries up to 2.5 x (3). ------- J-6 FIGURE 1 0.4 CURVE A: GAS PHASE MASS TRANSFER (S02) = 1-BS (SO?) INITIAL t = (-7.3 sec/S In (1-6S DIFFERENCE ATTRIBUTED TO INTRAPARTICLE RATE LIMITATIONS CURVE B: BATTELLE DISPERSED-PHASE REACTOR DATA CURVE C:. EPA LABORATORY CALCINES 2 3 TIME (t), SECONDS PREDICTED BEHAVIOR OF PARTICLES REACTING WITH SULFUR DIOXIDE UNDER EXTERNAL DIFFUSION CONTROLLED CONDITIONS COMPARED WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA (1,000°C; PARTICLE SIZE 96w j 3000 PPM S02; S = INITIAL MOLES SOLID/STOICHIOMETRIC MOLAR SOLID ------- J-7 overall rate is controlled jointly by the pore diffusion and chemical reaction rates, with pore diffusion being the stronger. The estimated Thiele modulus of the smallest particles was about 30 indicating r\ < 0.1, consequently the reaction profiles predicted by the mode for particle cross sections in all cases showed only the external surface zone to be participating. A unique feature of this model is its allowance for solid diffusion. Howard's analysis showed that without diffusion of the CaS04 into the CaO grains, the maximum solid conversion could not exceed 8%. It is interesting to note that the data analyzed with the model indicates that diffusion through the solid grain was rapid enough to contribute little to the overall resistance. The most significant conclusion from the MIT analysis was that the internal surface area available for reaction was the primary factor limiting SO2 sorption rate and that the reaction behavior could be approximated with knowledge only of the effective CaO grain radius. A comparison between the reaction rates obtained with the EPA laboratory calcines examined in this study and the rate obtained when limestones are injected into and dispersed in flue gas (Figure 1, curves B and C) showed a significantly higher rate in the latter case. No explanation for this difference could be offered on the basis of information available at that time. EPA Isothermal Kinetics Studies The extreme discrepancy between reaction rates measured in the laboratory and the rates observed for limestone particles of the same size injected at the same temperature in dispersed systems had been known since the publication of isothermal kinetics data in 19594,5 _ y^jj discrepancy, and the lack of an adequate explanation for it, was the primary limitation upon the development of a fundamental model which could be applied to predict performance on the basis of reaction kinetics. Research continued at EPA concentrating upon the physical properties of the calcines affecting reaction rate, i.e., pore structure of the calcine and properties of the original rock. The results of these additional experimental studies, reported at the 1970 symposium, established the relationship between reaction rate and the surface area of the calcine. Dr. Dennis Drehmel5 showed that the reactivity of calcines prepared in the laboratory were strongly correlated to the BET surface area, which varied according to calcination temperature. Borgwardt7 verified these findings by quantitative measurement of the reaction rate of calcines prepared from different types of rock (which yielded different pore structures and surface areas) and showed that the initial reaction rate was a linear function of the BET surface area of the calcine. A simple model based on chemical reaction control was shown to correlate the initial rates of SO2 sorption of calcines of different types of rock prepared at a given calcination temperature, and the rates of a given rock type calcined at different temperatures: ro = ks Sg CS02 1 (1> ------- J-8 where rQ is the rate per unit mass of CaO extrapolated to zero sulfation, and Sg is the B.E.T. surface area of the calcine. The reaction rate constant, ks = Ae ' The activation energy for different calcines averages about 17 k cal/g mole. The intrinsic reaction rate constant was accurately measured at 900°C at 0.22 cm/sec, essentially independent of stone type. The effect of sulfation was shown to result in an exponential decrease in isothermal reaction rate with conversion, X according to: r = r0 e "^ (2) The coefficient (3 is a strong function of particle size, since it includes the effectiveness factor, n- and is a weak function of stone type, probably due to the differences in solid diffusion rates within CaO grains postulated by Howard. This effect was quite small however, compared to the effect of surface area upon the overall rate of SO2 sorption. The maximum limit of CaO conversion (total SO2-sorption capacity) was defined by the available pore volume for product accumulation. This was determined by measurement of grain expansion and decrease in pore volume with conversion, which showed that calcines of maximum theoretical pore volume can achieve no more than 49% CaO conversion. At that point the entire pore volume is filled with reaction product, and greater conversions can be achieved only by solid diffusion through the exterior particle surface, which is extremely slow. Dr. Yoshimi Ishihara - Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry. Japan Establishment of the direct relationship between BET surface area and initial SO2 reaction rate provided the first insight into the mechanism of SO2 capture by the limestone injection process. At the same symposium where those data were presented, Dr. Ishihara reported2 the results of an extensive investigation of the reaction kinetics in a pilot-scale limestone injection furnace. As a part of his experimental study, measurements of the BET surface areas were obtained for calcines prepared by rapid (less than 5 seconds) calcination in the dispersed system. Ishihara's data clearly showed that the surface areas developed in these short exposure times are considerably greater than the surface areas of calcines prepared in the laboratory at the same temperature (which require longer periods of calcination to achieve complete conversion of CaCO3 to CaO). The surface areas produced by calcination in the dispersed phase were 20-30 m2/g, an order of magnitude greater than that of laboratory calcines. This difference in surface areas provided the basis for reconciling the discrepancies between reaction rates measured in isothermal laboratory experiments and the observed reaction rates in dispersed systems. Good correlation of the two independent sets of data was in fact later achieved. ~k The existence of large surface areas immediately following dissociation of CaCO3 had been previously postulated by Mayer & Stowe8 from consideration of molecular rearrangements that must occur when unit crystal cells are altered to the CaO configuration. Absolute surfaces as great as 103 m2/g were estimated. ------- J-9 Although Ishihara's objective was not specifically that of modeling the reaction, he did quantitatively evaluate the effect of each process variable—in much greater detail than was done in any other pilot plant study. He correlated his data according to the simplest possible model for chemical reaction control, r = d(CaO conversion) = k C<~r\ dt S°2 (3) where k = Ae "E/RT and T = f(t) Comparison of this model with equations (1) and (2) shows that it is the same as that used successfully to correlate the initial isothermal rate data for precalcined stones, where k = kssg. Ishihara determined the value of k as a function of each of the major process variables: temperature (time), particle size, SO2 concentration, limestone type and injection temperature. He analyzed his data on the basis of instantaneous rates measured at a given value of temperature (time) in the reactor. This approach assumes that the rate is a function only of temperature and SO2 concentration, i e., that the rate at t > 0 is independent of sulfation and surface area. It should be noted that surface and sulfation effects are, therefore, reflected in the factor A in equation (4), which will also be a function of temperature and time if these effects are significant. This simple model proved to be an extremely effective tool for the qualitative analysis of limestone injection data. Figure 2 shows a plot of the reaction rate constant as a function of the instantaneous temperature and injection temperature. Several important responses are revealed by this plot. The slope of each line reflects the activation energy of the reaction and also any effect of sulfation and/or surface area. Considering the straight line representing injection at the lowest temperature (910°C) it is clear that the rates are a linear function of temperature over the full (order of magnitude) range of reaction rates observed. One may thus conclude that sulfation alone has a minor effect on the apparent activation energy. Otherwise the slope of this line would change with 1/T (and time), reflecting the effect of accumulated sulfate. The observed independence of activation energy from sulfation effects is in accord with Howard's conclusion regarding the constancy of activation energy over a broad range of conversion for the isothermal reaction of CaO with SO2. Comparing the 910°C curve with the other curves in Figure 2, representing higher injection temperatures, it is clear that the slope increases with temperature. Since sulfation has a negligible effect on apparent activation energy (slope) it is clear that the rapid deactivation indicated by the change in slope with injection temperature is a result of factors other than sulfation. Ishihara attributed this change to the loss of surface area at high temperature and to internal diffusion resistances as sulfation progressed. In view of the above discussion regarding the effect of sulfation on activation energy, surface area is clearly ------- FIGURE 2 2200°F 2000°F 1000 J-10 INJECTION TEMPERATURE 1800°F 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 .8.5 1/T x 104 ? ct 9.0 10.0 ARRHENIUS PLOT FOR THE REACTION OF CAO WITH S02 SHOWING THE EFFECT OF GAS TEMPERATURE AT INJECTION POINT ------- J-ll the primary factor responsible for the observed change in reaction rate with temperature. As additional evidence of this fact it should be noted that the apparent activation energy in the final stage (about 25 K cal), where the effect of temperature no longer influences surface area, is the same magnitude as the activation energies measured in the laboratory for calcines of fixed pore structure. It is informative to put Ishihara's model in integrated form for comparison with the other models. Equations (3) and (4) are not directly integrable, however, as shown in Figure 2, a plot of Ishihara's data for the time-temperature profile of his reactor2 shows that 1/T can be approximated accurately over the short time periods used in his experiments by 1 'v T = Ct so that dx ^ Ae"Ect dt ~ where E is the apparent activation energy, or slope, of the lines shown in Figure 2. Integrating, X ^ - £• e -Ect + c '-c since x = 0 at t = 0, C = A/Ec and x 2 A (1_e -Ect} (5) ^-\~f As is evident from the previous discussion, A = f (Sg-cs02) A comparison of equation (5) with that derived independently by Coutant using emperical curve-fitting techniques will be made in the next section. Dr. Robert W. Coutant - Battelle Memorial Institute Fundamental experimental studies9 of reaction kinetics in a dispersed phase reactor were begun at Battelle in 1967 under CSD sponsorship and continued through 1971. The reactor used in this investigation was designed specifically to permit close control over the reaction variables and to permit independent study of each variable upon the reaction kinetics. Its unique features were (1) particles could be reacted at constant SO2 concentration and (2) particles could be injected and collected over varying residence times from 0.2 seconds to over 2 seconds thus both calcination and sulfation could be followed directly by particle analysis. Following Ishihara's report in 1970, the Battelle research was directed specifically toward verification of the effects of surface area on S02 reaction suggested by Ishihara's data. A series of experiments in which limestone particles were "flash calcined" over varying ranges of time and injection temperature (with no SO2 present in the flue gas) soon confirmed the existence of large BET surface areas immediately following calcination and ------- J-12 further showed that the surface decreased rapidly with residence time. For example, 90 y particles injected at 1950° F yielded surface areas of 60 m2/gCaO jn 0.2 second residence time, which decreased to 30 m2 /gCaO after one second. The BET surface areas and corresponding SO2 reaction rates obtained in the Battelle reactor were compared with the isothermal reaction rate-surface area data obtained from the EPA differential reactor experiments. The results of this comparison, shown in Figure 3, demonstrate excellent correlation between the two sets of data. The agreement confirmed that the high reaction rates observed in the non-isothermal dispersed system is predicable from its surface area and the intrinsic chemical reaction rate constant (0.22 cm/sec at 980°C) measured in the laboratory. The agreement also indicates that chemical reaction is the primary limitation on the initial rate of SO2 absorption by the dispersed particles, verifying the absence of gas-phase mass transfer limitations as inferred by Howard and Ishihara from independent consideration. Clearly, the maximum rate is determined by chemical reaction rate, and consequently, also by surface area. The development of mathematical models of both the sulfation and calcination reactions was an objective of the Battelle project. The approach used in modeling the sulfation step did not presuppose any specific reaction controlling mechanism. The observed responses of sulfation, S, vs. time were fitted empirically to obtain the best correlation with time and temperature. Unfortunately, only one particle size, 90jj, was modeled. Coutant expressed the results in the form1 ° : s = b(l-e'kt) (6) where k = exp (14.563 - 18734/Tm) (7) b = exp (-2.982 + 10139/Tm) (8) It should be noted that Coutant's model expresses the coefficients in terms of mean reactor temperature, Tm, rather than the instantaneous temperature at time t. Comparison of equation (6) with the integrated form of Ishihara's chemical-reaction control model Equation 5 shows that they are identical if b = A/Ec and k = EC. The injection-temperature dependence of the slope of Ishihara's curves, EC, is confirmed in Coutant's equation (7). Likewise the dependence of Ishihara's coefficient A/Ec on temperature in an inverse manner from EC is reflected by equation (8). The primary features of both sets of data are summarized by the same basic model which requires no assumption more complex than chemical-reaction control to explain all observed effects. The coefficient b was identified by Coutant as the maximum (terminal) conversion achievable under given injection conditions. The value b decreased with increased injection temperature and since A = bk, Ishihari's factor A also decreases with increasing injection temperature, thus reflecting the effect of loss of surface area on the overall reactivity. Thus, for 90jJ particles, A = f (Sg) - 2.45 e -8595/Tm ------- J-13 FIGURES 5 CT> o m o: UJ ti- ro O c/o CO 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 2 0 CALCINATION TEMPERATURE • 790°C A 890°C V 980°C • 1100°C Sg=7.3X104cm2/g Sg=5.0xl04cm2/g ^^ Sg=2.4xl04cm2/g ^ • Sg=0.95xl04cm2/g I i i I i I i I I I I I 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 TIME, SECONDS ISOTHERMAL SORPTION OF SO? BY TYPE 4 LIMESTONE AS A FUNCTION OF SURFACE AREA OF ITS CALCINE. REACTION TEMP=760°C;PARTICLE SIZE=0.0096 cm;S02=3000 ppm 300, SLOPE= 1 in o O to CD O) 'o E en 100 10 1 0.5 DISPERSED PHASE REACTOR TEMPERATURE Q1008°C «1060°C UJ o: 103 104 105 Sg,cm2/g 106 COMPARISON OF INITIAL SQ2 REACTION RATES IN DIFFERENTIAL REACTOR,ISOTHERMAL (980°C,Dp =0.0096 cm) AND DISPERSED-PHASE REACTOR S02 = 3000 ppm ------- J-14 This loss of surface area at high temperatures is brought about by the growth of the CaO sub-grains that comprise a lime particle, which has long been known to be an activated process11, i.e., the rate of grain growth increases with temperature. The resulting loss of surface areas (which is inversely proportional to grain size) of calcines prepared at different temperatures has been demonstrated by Drehmel12 and Chan etal.13 for calcines prepared in the laboratory. The Battelle model thus shows that for a given particle size, surface area decreases with time and that the rate of change increases with injection temperature. Examination of the Battelle data also shows that the rate of change is dependent upon particle size. The comparison of terminal BET surface areas of 90u particles and 48u particles calcined in the dispersed phase reactor show a marked reduction in surface of the smaller particles: Table I Effect of Particle Size on Terminal Surface Area Particle Size, Injection Temp. Microns °F 90 48 90 90 48 48 FW FW FW 1336 1336 IGS4 2224 2243 2224 2155 2140 2140 Residence Time, Sec. 1.27 0.99 2.86 1.17 2.08 2.08 Terminal BET Surface, m2/g 21.5 7.6 21.3 23.7 14.2 8.6 Run No. 925-B 106-F 675-A 317-C 226-B 32-A That the small particles would calcine more rapidly than large ones is in accord with the established unreacted-shrinking core mechanism by which calcination proceeds, i.e., calcines from the outer particle surface inward toward the particle center. Consequently, the small particles which have greater particle surface per unit mass, generate greater BET surfaces per unit time during calcination and of course, complete calcination sooner. This fact is clearly shown by the Battelle calcination rate data reproduced in Figure 4. The overall effect of this dependence of calcination rate on particle size is dramatically demonstrated by comparing the Battelle data with Isjiihara's data for the S02 reaction, which together covers a particle size range from 90ju to 3.4 u. Figure 4 demonstrates the remarkably good agreement between the two sets of data when directly compared. Remember that these data were obtained from completely different reactor designs, operating at vastly different injection stoichiometries, and that one set of data was obtained by gas analysis while the other set was obtained by particle analysis. This comparison should be particularly noted by those who have despaired over apparent lack of consistency among results of various investigators of the limestone injection process. All of the essential features of the dispersed reaction are reflected in these curves: the increase in initial rate as particle size is reduced, resulting from higher rates of surface generation, the flagging of the reaction in smaller particles when calcination is completed and everburning ------- PERCENT CALCINATION 75 90p PARTICLES 0.140 10.5p >ISHIHARA DATA 20.5p C\J o 0.070 - o o T) CJ> COMPARISON OF ISHIHARA AND COUTANT DATA FOR DISPERSED PHASE REACTION OF CAC03 WITH SOo (Jl 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 RESIDENCE TIME, SECONDS ------- J-16 occurs. The rate of flagging clearly increases as particle size is reduced, reflecting the rapid loss of surface area and reaction rate by the small particles. The overall result is a very small gain in terminal conversion despite a 30 fold decrease in particle size. The flagging of the reaction when particle size is reduced is the most critical feature of the limestone injection process, as it determines the ultimate limit of CaO conversion (and SO2 removal efficiency) that can be obtained by injection into the boiler furnace. The fact that the dispersed phase reaction ceases after a fraction of the total residence time available has been reported in the pilot injection studies of, Juntgen1 4 , Peabody Coal15, Florida Power/EPA16, Babcock & Wilcox17 as well as the data discussed here. Previous attempts to account for this flagging have generally assumed that product shell formation was responsible. This assumption is not consistent, however, with the small gain in terminal conversion. If shell diffusion were limiting SO2 sorption at the terminal point, the total conversion would increase in direct proportion to the reduction in particle size. The assumption of shell diffusion is also inconsistent with the activation energies observed by both Coutant and Ishihara, which exceed that of diffusion by an order of magnitude. The effect of S02 concentration has been shown by both Coutant and Ishihara to have only a slight effect on terminal CaO conversion in the dispersed system. Each investigator showed that CaO conversion increased approximately with the 1/2 power of initial SO2 concentration. Ishihara concluded that the instantaneous reaction rate follows a first order response to S02 concentration, in agreement with isothermal kinetic measurements4'18 'l 9. The effect of SO2 concentration cannot be evaluated independently of the other factors in the Battelle model, in which it appears as part of the factor b, which includes surface area. Ishihara, by measuring instantaneous rates at different SO2 levels, was able to separate out the surface area effect. The evidence, therefore, suggests that the reduced overall effect of SO2 results from the change in surface area with time and its cumulative effect upon the chemical reaction rate. Professor Robert L. Pigford, University of California This model20 is based upon fundamental descriptions of processes occurring within a lime particle during S02 sorption. Like the MIT model it considers the particle as an assemblage of nonporous CaO grains surrounded by interstices through which SO2 diffuses prior to reaction at the grain surface. The model assumes the overall rate to be controlled by diffusion through this pore structure coupled with diffusion through a product layer which forms on the CaO grains as the reaction proceeds. Chemical reaction at the grain/shell interface is assumed to be so rapid that it contributes no resistance to SO2 sorption. The model, like the MIT model, considers grain size and pore structure to be a function only of conversion and independent of temperature or time. The model accounts for variation in the extent of participation of the interior grains depending on pore structure and position within the particle. In the extreme cases where pore diffusion controls or grain product-layer diffusion controls, the model reduces to two basic forms that correspond to a particle surface reaction or a particle volume reaction. ------- J-17 Case 1 - Superficial surface reaction: S02 sorption rate = 13.6 (a1/2 D!/2 r^l/4 s 1/2 r 1/2 R2 CQ 3/4 / l/2tl/4) per particle or, Rate per ------- J-18 FIGURE 5 l.Or 0.1 o o CJ> o 3.4 48 90 y QjQll I I I I I J L .05 0.1 1.0 9 SECONDS TEST OF PIGFORD MEL WITH 3,4 AND 48 MICRON PARTICLES ------- J-19 Professor C. Y. Wen, West Virginia University After extensive review of isothermal reaction rate data, including experiments conducted in the Chemical Engineering Laboratory of West Virginia University. Ishida and Wen formulated a model based upon the zone reaction concept2 1 . The lime particle is again visualized as an assemblage of CaO grain to which SO2 diffuses through the pores between grains. Whereas Pigford coupled pore diffusion with diffusion through a product shell on the grain surface, Wen coupled it with chemical reaction at the interface between the product layer and the unreacted grain core. Wen's model is unique in that it has been applied to the correlation of both isothermal laboratory data, and non-isothermal data from dispersed systems, including full scale boiler injection. It has successfully correlated the observed reaction rates from all of these sources.22 The chemical reaction rate is expressed in terms of the reaction rate constant per unit surface and the surface area per unit volume of lime. The latter is determined by the radius of the unreacted core, rc, within the CaO grain at time t. Thus, when the original grain radius is FT, and the particle size is small enough for S02 concentration to equalize throughout the particle volume, rate per unit mass CaO =-^-3 ks CSO2 r^ (9) (FV) Since rc= R' at t = 0, the initial rate is inversely proportional to BET surface area. At low conversions and small particle size the model thus reduces to the same form used by EPA to correlate isothermal data. A more complex form of the model can be applied to large particles in which diffusion effects are also important. The theory of gas-solids reactions in which diffusion and reaction occur simultaneously was rigorously developed by Prof. Wen over the period 1967-71. By comparing observed reaction rates with the theoretical curve for particles of different diameter, Wen was able to estimate the diffusion modulus for the isothermal reaction of SO2 with calcined limestones. The model also enabled him to separate out the intrinsic reaction rate free from diffusional effects. The reaction rate constant was thus evaluated for data from varying sources over a wide range of temperatures as shown in Figure 6. The value of the reaction rate constant and activation energy is established by this correlation and can be directly applied to the modeling of non-isothermal systems. A complete simulation of the limestone injection in process was carried out22 on the basis of the above model, using data from the Shawnee full scale boiler tests. Simulation inputs included the time-temperature profile of the Shawnee boiler, the average particle size of the limestone, the kinetic parameters established in isothermal studies and an assumed mean CaO grain size of 0.02 p. A comparison of the results predicted by the simulation and the results obtained at Shawnee are shown in Figure 7. It is evident that the model is capable of predicting boiler test results within about 30 percent at the current level of refinement of model and assumptions. ------- J-20 0.005 0.6 0.8 1.0 1/T x 103 1.2 1.4 RATE CONSTANT FOR THE GRAIN REACTION (WEN) (KEY TO FIGURE SHOWN ON TABLE II) ------- J-21 Table II List of Types of Limestone Particles Examined and Corresponding Keys Used in Figure 6 (C: calcined stone, R: raw stone) Investigator Borgwardt4 Borgwardt7 Coutant, et al.9 TVA24 This Study Key (3 Q © © © w 3 € O (j) B A 0 O O Form C C C C C C C C C C C R R C C C Type Stone Dolomite Limestone Limestone Limestone Calcite spar Limestone Limestone Dolomite Aragonite Marl Limestone Limestone Limestone Pelletized CaO CaO (wt% in calcine) 55 54 94 81 98 95 96 58 97 88 90 90 90 100 ------- J-22 FIGURE? Q UJ Q. I/O CO LlJ Q LU ------- J-23 III. Discussion As a result of the combined efforts of the modeling activities and extensive experimental investigation, considerable progress has been made toward an understanding of the phenomena on which the limestone injection process is based. A thorough and objective evaluation of the complete data available reveals considerable consistency and agreement on the effects of each of the major process variables on the effectiveness for SO2 removal. The summary outlined here has focused upon the most critical of these variables—those which directly bear upon the ultimate potential of the process for pollution control purposes. The first fact that can be regarded as established is that mass transfer of SO2 to particle surfaces does not limit the rate of SO2 capture in dispersed systems. This has been shown by the calculations performed by Howard and Ishihara and independently confirmed by the correlation of measurements of the initial reaction rates measured under isothermal conditions in the laboratory. Further experimental proof is provided by the high sensitivity of the dispersed phase reaction to temperature as shown by the activation energies determined by Coutant and Ishihara, and the lack of any effect of stoichiometry upon CaO conversion, shown by Ishihara. It follows from this fact that the ultimate limitation to SO2 capture by injection of limestone into a boiler is associated with intraparticle effects—either diffusional or chemical. It is further established that the initial rate of SO2 sorption, i.e., the highest possible rate achievable, is determined by the intrinsic chemical reaction rate of CaO with SO2. The rate of decay of this high initial rate determining the efficiency of the process can be attributed to three possible causes: (1) formation of a product shell on the particle surface, (2) formation of product shell on individual CaO grains within the particles or (3) reduction in chemical reaction rate due to loss of surface area as a result of grain growth. The effect of the process variables on the anticipated rate are different in each case and comparison of models with the established characteristics of the reaction permits this question to be decisively answered. In the summary of Pigford's model it was shown that severe discrepancies exist between the observed effects of temperature and particle size and the responses predicted by the model. The model is likewise in conflict with the effect of SO2 concentration and the established activation energy of the isothermal reaction. Although the postulation of diffusional resistances as the rate limiting factor is intuitively appealing, particularly for the final stage of reaction, it is not consistent with the observed characteristics of the reaction. The assumption of a combination of diffusional and chemical resistances to be controlling, as exemplified by the MIT model, is also in serious conflict with experiment. The failure of the model to properly predict reaction profiles as determined by microprobe analysis, was later pointed up when Wen evaluated the diffusion modulus at 1/30 the value estimated by the MIT model. Likewise, the effective diffusivity was determined to be about 0.07 cm2/sec. rather than the 0.2 cm2/sec initially estimated by MIT. The variation of surface area with particle size was disproven by BET measurement and the predicted effect of temperature on surface area also failed: after calcination at high temperature, the surface ------- J-24 area is independent of particle size or reaction temperature. In view of the fact that Wen s model also assumes diffusion to be a major resistance under certain conditions, and is entirely consistent with experiment, one can only conclude that the MIT model contains mathematical errors, or that the equations have solutions that were not recognized. The attached table summarizes the principal experimental results with which any useful model must be in substantial agreement. Each model discussed here is qualitatively compared with these results. Also included in this comparison are the predicted responses for pure shell diffusion, since this mechanism had long been regarded as the most probable limitation of the process. It is clear from this table that shell diffusion is inconsistent with nearly every one of the observed responses,* and need not be further considered. The best general agreement with experiment is, of course, obtained with the empirical models. The Ishihara and Coutant models are combined for this comparison since it was shown that they are both representative of homogeneous chemical reaction, influenced by strong surface area effects. It is assumed in this comparison that the effects of time, temperature and particle size that have been established are taken into account when applying the model. The Wen model is again the same homogeneous representation as that of Ishihara-Coutant, except that it specifically identifies the surface area with the CaO grains within the calcine particle. It therefore lends itself to quantitative treatment of the surface area effect independent of the other parameters and will ultimately be the most generally applicable form of the model for predictive purposes. The Wen model is the only form which can be applied to the complete range of homogeneous, zone and shell reactions for both isothermal and nonisothermal reaction conditions. The primary limitation in accuracy of the Wen model is that there is no way to predict grain size a priori from given process conditions. Thus, in applying his model to simulate the Shawnee boiler, a constant grain radius is assumed, i.e., surface area does not change with time and is independent of particle size or injection temperature. The data of Ishihara and Coutant clearly show that this assumption is not correct, but it does permit one to formulate a first approximation. As shown by Figure 5, this approximation is limited in accuracy to ± 30% of the observed efficiency. The predictive accuracy of Wen's model would no doubt be greatly improved if Ishihara's data on the effects of particle size and injection temperature were incorporated to account for changes in grain radius with residence time. This modification would probably also bring the model into agreement with the first order kinetics established for the isothermal reaction (fixed grain size). The preponderence of evidence resulting from the work of Ishihara, Coutant and Wen overwhelmingly favors chemical reaction as the controlling mechanism of the process. This mechanism is the only one consistent with all of the facts, and the ultimate Microprobe analysis of the cross sections of particles reacted in the Shawnee boiler23 show homogeneous distributions of reaction product within particles smaller than about 40)J. Particles larger than 40u show distributions similar to those proposed by Wen for zone-type reactions. ------- Table III Comparison of Model Predictions With Experimental Results Experimental Results Particle size effect Temperature effect Surface area-initial rate Surface area - particle size Terminal Conversion - particle size Isothermal reaction rates SO2 concentration Act. energy-conversion Isothermal reaction profiles Nonisothermal reaction profile Overburning - SO2 reactivity CaO content of lime Sulfation effect Conversion time profile Total residence time Terminal conversion -total residence Homog. chem reaction (Ishihara- Coutant) V V V V V V (a) V V V V V X V time Chem. react. shrink, grain core (Wen) V V V X X V (a) V V V V V V 7 V Pore diffusion- surface react. solid diff. (MIT) X X V X X V V V X X X V V X Grain shell diffusion- pore diffusion (Pigford) X X V X X V X X V V V X X X Product layer diffusion (Shell) X X X X X X V X X X X X X X ro en (a) Expected to agree when model is modified to account for change in surface area with time. ------- J-26 self-limitation of SO2 capture by the lime particles after injection necessarily follows from the known changes in surface area that occur with everburning. The low final rate, like the high initial rate, can indeed be calculated from the chemical reaction rate constant and surface area. IV. Conclusions The limestone injection process is limited by the rate of chemical reaction which is, in turn, limited by the rapid loss of surface area (due to grain growth) immediately following calcination. This self-limiting aspect of the reaction necessarily defeats any attempt to improve performance by manipulation of process variables, e.g., particle size, injection temperature, particle/gas distribution. The efficiency of SO2 removed, within these limitations, can be successfully simulated by homogeneous reaction models, such as that of Wen. As a first approximation, assuming constant grain size, such a model will predict results within 30%. Improved accuracy must rely on empirical correlation of particle size and temperature effects. Data for such correlations are already available. The limit of efficiency for the process, as determined from experiment, is 20 percent per stoichiometric injection. Regardless of kinetic limitation, CaO utilization cannot exceed 50% due to physical limitations of the reaction. ------- J-27 V. References 1. Howard, J. B., Williams, G. C., and Ghazal, F.P.H.: "Mathematical Model of the Reaction Between Sulfur Dioxide and Calcine Particles," Final Report on Task No. 2 of HEW-NAPCA Services Contract NA. CPA-22-69-44, September 23, 1971, prepared at the Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2. Ishihara, Y.: "Kinetics of the Reaction of Calcined Limestone with Sulfur Dioxide in Combustion Gases," paper presented at the Dry Limestone Injection Process Symposium, Gilbertsville, Kentucky, June 22-26, 1970, sponsored by Control Systems Division, EPA. 3. Ishihara, Y.: "Removal of Sulfur Dioxide from Flue Gases by the Lime Injection Method," paper presented at CSD LimestoneSymposium.Clearwater, Florida. December 4-8, 1967, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan. 4. Borgwardt, R. H.: Environmental Science & Technology 4 (1) 59 (1970). 5. Borgwardt, R. H.: J. Eng. Power 92 (2) 121 (1970). 6. Drehmel, D. C.: "Tests for Overburning of Calcined Limestone," paper presented at the Dry Limestone Injection Process Symposium, June 22-26, 1970. 7. Borgwardt, R. H.: "Isothermal Reactivity of Selected Calcined Limestones with SO2 " paper presented at the Dry Injection Process Symposium, June 22-26, 1970. 8. Mayer, R. P., Stowe, R. A., "Physical Characterization of Limestone and Lime," Report to National Lime Assoc., Washington, D.C. (1964). 9. Coutant, R. W.: "Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for Capturing SO2 from Flue Gas," Final Report for Contract No. PH86-67-115, November 20, 1970, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 10. Coutant, R. W.: "Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for Capturing SO2 from Flue Gas," Final Report for Contract No. CPA 70-111, October 1, 1971, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 11. Fischer, H. C., "Calcination of Calcite: Size and Growth Rate of Calcium Oxide Crystallites," J. Amer. Ceramic Society 38(8) 284-88 (1955). 12. Drehmel, D. C., Ceramic Bulletin 50 (8) 666-70 (1971). 13. Chan, R. K., Murthi, K. S., Harrison, D., Canadian J. Chem. 48 2979-82 (1970). 14. Jungen, M. and Juntgen, H.: "On the Reaction of Calcined Dolomite and Other Alkaline Earth Compounds with SO2 of Combustion Gases as carried out in a Cloud of Suspended Dust." Report presented at CSD Limestone Symposium, Clearwater, Florida. December 4-8, 1967 Bergbau - Forschung GmbH, Germany. 15. Whitten, C. M. and Hagstrom, R. G., J. Engineering for Power 2 (Jan. 1970). 16. Borgwardt, R. H. and Kittleman, T. A., paper No. 69-141 presented at the Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New York. June 22-26, 1969. Control Systems Division, EPA. ------- J-28 17. Attig, R. C. and Sedor, "Additive Injection for SO2 Control," Final Report for Contract No. DH 86-67-127, March 27, 1970, Babcock & Wilcox Research Center, Alliance, Ohio. 18. Hatfield, et al., "Investigation of the Reactivities of Limestone to Remove SO2 from Flue Gas;" Final Report for Contract Nos. TV-29232F and TV-30530A (1971) prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Chemical Development, Muscle Shoals, Alabama. 19. Coutant, Contract No. PH 86-67-115, Quart. Report for Dec. 12, 1967, p. 6. 20. Pigford, R. L., "The Rate of a Diffusion-Controlled Reaction Between a Gas and a Porous, Solid Sphere - The Reaction of SO2 with CaCO3," June 1971, University of California. 21. Ishida, M., Wen, C. Y., AlChE Journal, 14 (2) 311 (1968). 22. Ishida, M., Wen, C. Y., "Analysis of SO2-Limestone Reaction-System, Part I: Reaction Rate of SO2 with Particles Containing CaO, Part II: Simulation of SO2 - Limestone Reaction System." Report prepared for Control Systems Division, 1972 at Department of Chemical Engineering, West Virginia University. 23. Shell Development Company. Personal communication to R. D. Stern, March 3 and April 16, 1971. 24. McClellan, G. H., 4th Dry Limestone Process Symposium, Gilbertsville, Kentucky, June 22-26, 1970. ------- APPENDIX K Utilization of Limestone-Modified Fly Ash ------- K-l APPENDIX K UTILIZATION OF LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH Although the utilization of limestone modified fly ash (hereafter as LMF) is not directly related to the dry limestone injection process and demonstration of optimum SO2 removal, this section provides an overview of the activities in this area of the overall EPA program. Additional information may be found in the references. ------- K-3 Utilization of Limestone-Modified Fly Ash I. Introduction and Objectives The Dry Limestone Injection Process is a "throw-away" process and does not depend on the recovery of a salable chemical byproduct. Aware of the increased solid waste generated by the process and attempting to avoid aggravating one pollution problem while solving another, EPA initiated an extensive research effort in the early planning stage of the overall program. The objective of this part of the overall program was to determine and demonstrate the utilization of pulverized coal fly ash modified by limestone. A secondary consideration was the potential for reducing costs of the process through potential re-use of sorbent or byproduct credit. II. Approach The general approach taken was to determine current and potential utilization of unmodified fly ash, assess applicability of LMF to these utilizations and, based on its properties, assess its potential for new applications. Although there are a large number and variety of industries and individuals involved in the production and use of fly ash, the program was directed toward coal-burning power utilities, since this is the major source of fly ash in the U.S. The specific approach was to: (a) perform literature searches for utilization of unmodified and LMF; (b) correlate reported uses with analyses of chemical and physical properties; (c) prepare products by simulating current production processes as closely as possible; and (d) compare product properties and characteristics with their commercially available counterparts. Based on technical potential, economic analyses and more extensive utilization research were then performed or recommended for follow-on projects. Because of the relationship between the LMF from dry processes and wet scrubbing processes regarding waste disposal and beneficiation, samples for analysis and small scale product preparation were obtained from dry limestone injection programs conducted by TVA, Babcock and Wilcox, Chevrolet, and Detroit Edison, and from wet scrubbing programs conducted at Kansas Power and Light, Union Electric and Detroit Edison. Samples of normally produced fly ash were also obtained from these sources. III. Results and Conclusions A. Unmodified Fly Ash Utilization' Although fly ash is used in various applications, current utilizations consume only a small portion of the total amount of fly ash available: of the 26.5 million tons of fly ash produced annually by coal-burning power plants, only about 1.6 to 2.0 million tons are utilized. All known specifications for fly ash used as a material for product manufacture or application, and for fly ash products were examined for the purpose of assessing the extent ------- K-4 to which they inhibit the utilization of fly ash. Except for the specifications on fly ash as an admixture in portland cement concrete, specifications do not inhibit the use of fly ash. The amount of fly ash that could be technically utilized in various applications used today, regardless of supply and economic factors, was estimated to identify those areas that would benefit most from the increased mass utilization of fly ash; this indicated where effort should be applied to improve the market. Maximum technically feasible uses of at least 1 million tons per year are listed in Table 1, column 1, based on ash composition and possible product utilization alone. The 1970 actual utilization values for each use, listed in column 2, total 1.6 million tons per year. As a result of this survey, it is estimated that if fly ash were used in the applications listed in Table 1 such that the maximum practical potential would be utilized under current technology and associated market conditions, approximately 7 million tons would be utilized, as shown in column 3. The significance of this list is that it indicates approximately 75 percent of the fly ash produced in the United States is not marketable without significant changes being made to reduce or eliminate the following limitations: (a) inadequate technology and knowledge dissemination related to known uses, (b) geographic limitations on transportation economics, (c) insufficient marketing efforts, (d) lack of control of fly ash production and supply, (e) cost effects of other materials or processes, and (f) insufficient development of new technologies. The values in column 4 are estimates of the fly ash that would be consumed if all the limitations just cited were removed, except some geographic limitations on transportation. These values are estimates but they indicate areas where it is believed fly ash can be used in large quantities if appropriate steps are taken. This approach limits the area of concern to: fly ash concrete, lightweight aggregate, road base courses, control of mine subsidence and fires and, such new uses or developments as gas concrete building construction, ceramic products, and mineral recovery. The following paragraphs discuss the uses shown in Table 1: Structural Concrete Fly ash is used in portland cement concrete for the improved properties it imparts to the concrete. Among these improvements are pumpability, compressive strength, long-term strength, workability, finishability, resistance to sulfates and alkali-aggregate reaction, and decreases in heat of hydration, drying shrinkage, particle segregation, bleeding, permeability, and leaching. These improvements are well-documented and have been demonstrated repeatedly in actual practice. The net effect is a stronger and more durable product which requires less cost to put in place and finish. For properly proportioned fly ash concrete, early strength, form removal periods, and curing requirements are not use inhibitions. Principal inhibitions to the use of fly ash in concrete are the lack of a dependable supply of usable quality ash, and nonrecognition of the technological gains and potential improvements which would allow the use of various qualities (or classes) of fly ash and greater than 28-day design strength criteria. ------- K-5 Table 1 Estimated Fly Ash Utilization Potential (Million Tons Per Year) Use 1 Maximum Utilization Technically Feasible 1970 Utilization 3 4 Estimated Utilization Potential Current Improved Conditions Utilization Fly Ash Concrete (Structural, Mass and Concrete Products) Lightweight Aggregate Raw Material for Cement Bricks Filler in Bituminous Products Base Stabilized for Roads Agriculture and Land Reclamation Control of Mine Subsidence and Fires Structural Fill for Roads, Construction Sites, Land Reclamation, etc. Others (mineral, wool, gas, concrete, misc.) Total 10-15 13 13 10 1-2 > Annual Production > Annual Production > 1 > Annual Production 0.54 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.11 3.5 6.0' 0.01 0.32 0.16 1.64 0.5 >3.0* 0.25 0.75 ** 0.3 >10.0 0.75 0.6 0.25 6.9 Values in Column 4 are scaled against the current market, but may take as much as 5 to 10 years for realization with maximum efforts. Value can be increased considerably with use of fly ash gas concrete in building construction. Has potential for accelerated future growth well beyond the proportions shown here. No appreciable increase. **SJgnjfjcant increases are possible through new developments such as ceramic products and mineral recovery. ------- K-6 The choice of concrete cure time should be based on the economics involved with construction. Since the cost impact on materials by using fly ash is often small relative to the cost of placing and finishing the concrete, the design conditions should be dependent upon the construction requirements. However, the state-of-the-art in concrete construction requires design compressive strengths of 28 days and does not include an optimal cure time in the total economics. A cure time of 28 days represents the point at which portland cement concrete attains up to 90 percent of its ultimate strength and is considered representative of the true strength of the concrete. However, in concrete containing fly ash, 28-day cure times are arbitrary and meaningless since the strength tested at that time does not represent the ultimate strength of the concrete when fully cured, which occurs after 28 days. Using a 90-day cure, for example, allows more fly ash and less cement, provides higher strength, and affords advantages in pouring, pumping, and finishing. While the concept of 28-day design strengths largely dominates the concrete construction industry, there are few examples that can be cited in which structures under construction experience their design loads in 28 days. Until the concrete construction industry becomes aware of the increased latitude in concrete mix design that is offered by a technology using fly ash in an effective, economical manner, an inhibition to the use of fly ash in concrete will persist. Significant deterrents to the massive use of fly ash in concrete, assuming an adequate supply and improved technology, are the requirements for additional storage and handling equipment at the ready-mix plants, and hauling costs. The economics of fly ash concrete related to the ready-mix operation was investigated to determine if storage, handling, and hauling costs are inhibitory factors since the literature is weak in this respect. The investigation could not include a detailed, comprehensive cost analysis within the scope of the project funds because of: (a) the numerous variables involved, plus the variation in costs from region to region; (b) the use or nonuse of beneficiation of the fly ash, brokerage fees, and financial assistance to ready-mix dealers for new equipment; and (c) sliding costs related to local competition. The analysis was therefore limited to estimates of the more significant factors, i.e., costs of fly ash F.O.B. utility, cement, truck hauling, new equipment, and chemical admixtures. Strict conclusions cannot be drawn from this analysis because of the many cost variations involved for each case; however, indications are that a dealer can increase his profit before taxes by approximately 50 cents per cubic yard if high quality fly ash concrete is delivered within 10 miles of the fly ash source, or he can break-even at about 150 miles. On the other extreme, there is the possibility of a combination of circumstances, including the use of low-grade fly ash, which indicates that the user will not be able to match portland cement air-entrained concrete on an equal production economics basis. In most cases, however, the dealer should be able to produce fly ash concrete to compete with portland cement concrete for haul distances of approximately 50 to 150 miles, depending on the many cost factors involved. Since the profit, before taxes, on portland cement concrete is in the range of $2 to $3 per cubic yard (according to various personal contacts), a potential ------- K-7 increase of 20 to 50 cents per cubic yard would be appreciable to the dealer. If circumstances, as noted above, increase the cost to the dealer, that increase is generally small enough to be absorbed by the contractor who stands to benefit from the economic and technical advantages of using fly ash concrete. Production costs of fly ash concrete can be reduced rather dramatically in consideration of the utilization of greater-than-28-day design strengths described earlier. Using this technology where applicable can reduce cost for any type of concrete, and for some, the reduction can be well in excess of one dollar per cubic yard. Barge or rail transport provides a less expensive means of hauling fly ash than truck, but is applicable to only certain geographic situations. Since the development and acceptance of a standardized fly ash concrete technology by the concrete industry would expand the market and bring a large percentage of the power companies into the supply market, any transportation inhibition would be significantly decreased in most of the eastern half of the country. In summary, current specifications on fly ash as an admixture in Portland cement concrete inhibit the use of fly ash. There are individuals and organizations who, by combining the production or procurement of quality fly ash, appropriate concrete technology, and dissemination of the knowledge, have marketed fly ash readily within the limits of existing specifications (ASTM or Federal Bureau Specifications) or have written their own (e.g., TVA). Since the general fly ash user and producers have not done this the use of fly ash concrete is not widespread. The lack of understanding of fly ash concrete by the general public and isolated cases of fly ash misuse and the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information concerning fly ash (e.g., broadcast of the term "waste product," intolerable low early strength, and bad color) have inhibited involvement by potential dealers, contractors, architects, and engineers. Power companies (with few exceptions) have not taken the initiative to improve the quality of fly ash or to maintain a consistent quality. Improvement in that area would undoubtedly relax the inhibitions to the use of fly ash by giving potential users the assurance of having a readily available supply of a quality grade of fly ash. It is believed that a considerable portion of the fly ash produced today is usable as an admixture in portland cement concrete. The continued development and acceptance of properly proportioned fly ash in concrete is likely to provide the basis for renewed interest in fly ash as a concrete ingredient. Intensive sales campaigns, although beneficial, have been effective only locally. When concrete users become fully aware of the range of advantages and properties that properly proportioned fly ash concrete offers, their reluctance to use fly ash in concrete should diminish; this should create an increase in demand. Mass Concrete and Concrete Products Fly ash is used in much of the mass concrete construction (e.g., dams and spillways) undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. ------- K-8 Specifications exist for this use and fly ash is proportioned accordingly, principally to lower the heat of hydration and also for its pumpability feature. Technically, a larger percentage of fly ash could be used in these structures; however, the present proportioning is adequate. The bulk of this work is being performed in the western United States where fly ash must be transported for long distances, thus reducing economic incentive. Fly ash may become more economically desirable with construction of new coal-burning power stations opening in the West. Usage may increase but the small number of such projects makes this potential use a small percentage of the national fly ash supply. Concrete products such as building blocks, pipe, and precast units represent a very attractive field for fly ash usage. Fly ash is used for this application and is well accepted; its principal drawbacks are the lack of guaranteed quality ash and transportation cost limits. If this industry were exploited to its fullest extent, it would consume an estimated maximum of 5 percent of fly ash production. Lightweight Aggregate The predicted high future demand for lightweight aggregate is based on dwindling supplies of natural aggregates plus the increasing recognition by architects and engineers of a future demand for large-scale usage of lightweight concrete. Present developments of fly ash lightweight aggregate production technology in the United States, Canada, and Germany were reviewed. All are still in various phases of development and are attempting to solve technical production problems. Lightweight fly ash aggregate in the U.S. is not yet considered to be economically competitive product. This is a relatively undeveloped industry, and solutions to its problems are being sought and incorporated in the process. Although a quality product can be manufactured, whether the manufacturing process and market can be sufficiently developed to economically compete with other lightweight aggregates remains to be seen. A significant increase in the utilization of fly ash for this application appears possible, but not probable in the near future. Portland Cement Manufacturing Fly ash lends itself economically to the production of portland cement only under certain special situations where the manufacturing plant is not located adjacent to the major raw material source or where possibly the required mineral deposits are located close to a utility. However, in most cases such special situations do not exist. This, coupled with the fact that there is no need for new cement plants since the present market demands considerably less than production capacity, indicates that the potential for utilizing fly ash in large quantities for the manufacture of portland cement is relatively low. Bricks Although fly ash can technically be used for making bricks, there is no shortage of clay deposits for brick making. The principal sources of fly ash in the United States are all ------- K-9 close to ample sources of natural raw materials for brick manufacturing. The coincidence of a depleting source of natural raw materials, a dependable local source of high quality fly ash, and a knowledgeable entrepreneur may determine whether fly ash will eventually find local application as a brick ingredient. Additional factors indicating that this utilization potential will not materialize appreciably include: (a) fly ash brick manufacturing requires new handling equipment and production machinery, (b) fly ash bricks are not significantly cheaper than ordinary bricks, and (c) the present United States brick production capacity exceeds demand. Bituminous Filler There are numerous uses for fly ash in bituminous products, however, its use as a mineral filler in asphalt concrete (black top) pavement is the major application for large tonnage usage. Low quality fly ash can be used and current technology is sufficient. The competition to fly ash includes an array of low cost, abundant materials, all of which are adequate as a mineral filler. Although this is a good use for fly ash, particularly considering the mileage of new asphalt roads (2 to 4 in. thick) or resurfacing of old roads (1 in. thick), the potential usage is not large, probably much less than 1 million tons per year. This limitation, caused by competition, is aggravated by the special problems of storage and handling. Road Construction Except for use as a mineral filler in asphalt or occasional use as a structural land fill, road base course applications appear to be the only practical large-scale use for fly ash in road building. Although this application has an extremely large potential—technology is developed and a technical superiority over competing materials has been demonstrated—certain inhibitions prevent its substantial growth. Fly ash is not widely used in road contracts even though its cost is less than or equal to competing materials of equal strength for urban construction. Proven applications are classified as lime-pozzolan-aggregate base courses (pozzolan base), which involve patent rights. Factual data which would substantiate the inhibition of the use of this material because of royalty payments were not found; however, such an excuse was occasionally given for nonuse. The pozzolan base course is used mostly for urban applications. Portable mixers are not widely used, and hauling costs are often limited by the use of materials available at or near the construction site. However, the amount of paving urban roadways, subdivision streets, parking lots, and airports represents an extremely large market. Present usage appears to extend as far as 40 to 50 miles from the mixing plant. Almost any fly ash produced today is adequate for this application, and it can be stored outdoors during the winter months and, with minimal processing, can be used during the construction season. Valid inhibitions to the use of pozzolan bases were not uncovered even after contacting more than two dozen state highway departments. Most states are aware of its benefits but have chosen not to use it. The reasons were almost always vague. The principal ------- K-10 inhibition may be that most potential users have not had experience with it and are reluctant to make a change. A thorough, detailed marketing analysis of road construction would be required for the various regions of the country within range of potential pozzolan base course supplies to determine the justification and advisability of action by government road contracting agencies relating to the use of fly ash for this purpose. Agriculture and Land Reclamation Although this application appears to be a method for utilizing large amounts of fly ash, it is not economically attractive when compared to the use of lime or other additives to adjust soil pH. Transportation and handling costs appear to be prohibitive for the large amounts of fly ash that would be required. Generally, the ratio of fly ash to limestone required to achieve an equivalent soil condition or crop yield is sufficiently high (as much as 30 to 1) to be beyond consideration. Moreover, the presence of certain trace elements often found in fly ash would be detrimental to the growth of many common types of vegetation. Although it may be useful in certain local areas, it is not expected to be useful on a wide scale. Remote Filling of Mine Cavities Mine subsidence damage to homes, bridges, and roads is an increasing problem. The increase, due only partially to additional mining, can also be attributed to the growing need for urban and suburban land which has resulted in building over old mines; deterioration of supporting conditions results in surface subsidence many years after mining has occurred. In addition to the subsidence, fires have also become a serious problem in abandoned coal mines. The technology has been developed for remote filling of mines and the cost is estimated at $2.00 to $4.00 per ton within 30 miles of the source if the fly ash is provided free of charge by the utility. Since many large coal-burning power plants are located near coal mining areas, the filling of abandoned mines appears to be an excellent means for utilizing/disposing of the entire amount of fly ash produced by these utilities. Many utilities are currently incurring costs of up to $2.00 per ton to dump fly ash and as much as $4.00 per ton where local regulations require the utility to landscape the land fill area. This factor plus the economic considerations of land value improvement resulting from the elimination of mine subsidence could possibly justify the economics of this form of utilization, particularly when more profitable uses cannot be employed. Land Fill Where structural land fill is required and hauling distances are short, fly ash can often be used more economically than other fill materials and can provide technical advantages. Among these advantages are ease of handling and spreading, low compaction density, and shear strength that continues to increase with time (a consequence of pozzolanic reaction with residual lime content in the ash). Fly ash covered with soil provides excellent drainage for vegetation. Also, any grade of fly ash is adequate and does not have to ------- K-ll be stored, handled, or hauled in an enclosed and dry condition. However, the use of fly ash for land fill (excluding fly ash disposal) is not widely applied in this country. It has demonstrated its usefulness in the United States in embankments and abutment backing in highway construction, but it is not widely used for these purposes because of the availability of natural fill materials. Except for such special circumstances as extremely high fill embankments for roadways built over weak subsoils or unavailability of local fill materials, little use of fly ash as a land fill is expected except for disposal purposes. Mineral Wool The use of fly ash as the raw material for mineral wool manufacture requires no deviation from the state-of-the-art commercial manufacture of mineral wool; there appear to be no technical inhibitions to the use of fly ash in this application. However, inhibitions are apparent in the comparative economics of manufacture and in the likelihood of overcapacity in competition with current mineral wool and fiberglass insulation materials. To date, there is no market for fly ash mineral wool. Gas Concrete Gas concrete is a porous concrete building material. It is approximately one-fourth to one-third the density of ordinary concrete and utilizes fly ash up to 80 percent of the solid constituent weight. Gas concrete is made in patented European processes and, although widely used in many foreign countries, is not used in the United States. European utilization of gas concrete proves to be a highly desirable form of building material from the standpoint of construction economy and structural qualities. It is used in at least 20 countries. It is used on a wide scale in Denmark. Gas concrete is used in West Germany in the construction of 80 percent of all new factory buildings. In Sweden, its use approaches 100 percent, and in the Philippine Islands, it is now being used for the construction of low-cost housing projects. In England, it is estimated in 1971, approximately 1 million tons of fly ash was consumed in gas concrete. Since fly ash improves the quality (higher strength per unit volume) of gas concrete, reduces capital and production costs, and is available in abundance in urban areas, it could conceivably find a large market throughout the United States as a constituent of gas concrete. Additionally, fly ash used for this purpose does not have to be fine quality; that it can be hauled and applied in a wet state simplifies handling. The future of gas concrete in this country is not readily assessable. As a new technology, it would have to compete with numerous well-established building techniques using conventional materials. To establish fly ash concrete as a building construction material on a wide scale would require substantial technical and economic surveys, coupled with dissemination of the technology and proven results. ------- K-12 Miscellaneous and Potential New Uses Such other uses as in foundries, grouting, pipe coating, and oil well cementing are considered to have a low potential for the consumption of large quantities of fly ash. A large potential exists for such possible new uses such as sewage filtration/soil supplement applications, ceramics and mineral recovery, none of which has been developed. B. Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Utilization Limestone injection and/or scrubbing processes for the control of sulfur oxides can increase the amount of fly ash produced by as much as 1-1/2 to 3 times. These processes, if widely used, could have an appreciable impact on the existing and potential unmodified fly ash market. Dry collected (LMF) was analyzed as collected and also after separation by mineral dressing techniques such as sizing, specific gravity, magnetic, electrostatic, and surface chemical (flotation) properties. Results of the whole sample analysis indicated that levels of silica, alumina and iron oxide, the major constituents of normal fly ash, are decreased while the lime and magnesia content is greatly increased with dolomite injection and the lime content is greatly increased with limestone injections. Based on extensive physical separations attempting to concentrate usable minerals, and utilization tests on the whole and sized fractions of modified fly ash, feasibility of utilizing modified fly ash in the manufacture of salable products was evaluated. This effort resulted in the classification of a number of possible uses for the material into the following technically potential categories.2'3 1. High Potential a. Mineral wool b. Sulfur dioxide recovery 2. Medium Potential a. Acid mine drainage neutralization b. Concrete admixture c. Cement kiln raw material d. Soil stabilizer and amendment 3. Low Potential a. Mineral recovery b. Fluxing agent c. Lightweight aggregate d. Fired structural products e. Unreacted calcium recovery Following this effort the chemical and physical properties of wet-collected LMF were analyzed in addition to more intensive analysis of dry-collected LMF. Chemical ------- K-13 analyses were performed using wet chemical, atomic absorption and atomic emission spectroscopic methods; physical analyses, employed mineral dressing, microscopic and X-ray techniques. The main constituents of modified fly ash were found to be silicon, calcium (and magnesium if dolomite is used as the modifying stone), aluminum, iron and sulfur. Wet-collected modified ashes usually had a higher sulfur content than dry-collected ashes though the amount of sulfur present in the ash is determined not only by the efficiency of the sulfur removal system but also by the amount of sulfur found in the coal burned. The physical melting properties of modified fly ashes were quite similar and all ashes tested melted within a temperature range of 2150°-2300°F. This similarity of physical characteristics was substantiated by microscopic analysis. Predominant size fractions of almost all ashes tested were 325 x 400 or -400 mesh. Sieve analysis of the three ashes most often used showed little or no beneficiation of elements upon sieving. The possibility of substituting the modified fly ash for regular fly ash in some of the more prominent current utilizations and in a limited number of new applications was evaluated by small-scale production simulating, as closely as possible, commercial production processes. A comparison of properties and characteristics yielded the following categories of technical potential.4'5 Specific results and conclusions are included for each high potential application. Additional data on these as well as details of low potential applications may be found in the references identified. 1. High Potential of Utilization a. Mineral wool A carbon-arc tilting furnace was used to melt a wide variety of modified fly ash samples and mineral wool was produced by pouring the molten material from the furnace in a thin stream and into a jet of 90 to 95 psig compressed air. The air imparted a shearing force to the molten mass, breaking the stream into small droplets which formed fibrous "tails." Any solid remnants of the original droplets are termed "shot." Characteristics of the mineral wool produced are shown in Table 2. All pouring temperatures are below those necessary for wool production from bottom ashes and current commercial raw materials. A significant difference was observed in the production yields from the individual samples. A much higher yield was obtained from sample KPL, the only wet-collected limestone modified fly ash availble, than from the dolomite fly ash. The lowest yield was obtained from sample CM, dry-collected dolomite modified fly ash, in which the coal and dolomite were premixed upon entering the combustion area. In comparing the acid/base ratios (percent silica plus percent alumina)/(percent lime plus percent magnesia) sample KPL at 1.30 falls closest to the generally accepted mineral wool production range of 0.85 to 1.25. SLD and Cl (1.87 and 1.58 respectively) had lower yields than KPL. Although samples CM and Cl were produced from the same coal and the same dolomite, a difference in their yields of mineral wool was noted, possibly due to the different methods of introducing the dolomite at the boiler. Sample CM was formed by ------- Table 2 Production Characteristics of Mineral Wool Sample KPL SLD Cl CM CU Type Wet Collected Limestone Modified Wet Collected Dolomite Modified 1.87 Dry Collected Dolomite, Injected 1.58 Dry Collected Dolomite, Mixed Unmodified Acid Base Ratio 1.30 1.87 1.58 1.52 9.79 Pouring Temp. °F 2700 2800 2700 2700 3000 Blowing Pressure psig 92 90 93 95 95 Yield High Moderate Moderate Low None Comments Light brown, short fluffy fiber, very little shot Gray, some brittle fiber, moderate shot Gray, resilient fiber, moderate shot Gray, fluffy fiber, heavy shot No fiber formed ------- K-15 premixing the dolomite and coal before pulverization and entry into the boiler while sample Cl was formed by injection of the dolomite above the flame envelope. Unmodified ash sample CU was utilized as a control. As shown in Table 2, no fiber could be produced even at temperatures as high as 3000° F. Quality tests performed in accordance with the Department of Commerce, Commodity Standards Division: Commercial Standard CS 131-146 yielded the results shown in Table 3. Loose shot was removed from the samples which included a commercial mineral wool for comparison. Although high quality mineral wool (accompanied by sulfur regeneration)—equal to or better than commercial mineral wool—was produced from both dry-collected and wet-collected limestone-modified fly ash, there is no market potential for the product since it is being replaced by glass wool. b. Calcium-silicate brick Calcium-silicate (CS) bricks of superior quality (compressive strengths in excess of 7000 psi) were produced from limestone and dolomite modified fly ashes. Experimental work proceeded in three phases with pellets (1" diameter by 3/8" thickness) being made initially to determine basic composition mixtures, forming pressures and autoclaving conditions for each individual modified fly ash examined. Dry-collected modified ash, and wet-collected ash, were selected for the second phase of research—the production of 2" x 4" x 1-3/8" bench-scale brick. This phase of the research dealt primarily with such processing variables as forming pressure, mixing, humidity curing, etc. In the final phase, full size brick was produced using common commercial equipment to determine whether the process could actually be scaled up. Data obtained from the pellet tests indicated that CS brick could be produced from modified fly ash. When using dry-collected modified fly ash, the brick mix consisted of 50 percent'(on a dry basis) modified fly ash, 50 percent silica sand and approximately 20 percent water; when wet-collected modified fly ash was used, CS brick could be produced containing 50 percent (on a dry basis) modified fly ash, 39 percent sand and 11 percent calcium oxide. Using wet-collected KPL fly ash, the process involved a dewatering of the slurry to 34 percent water before mixing. Such a composition provides sufficient water for mixing and forming of the green brick. In the final phase of the testing program, 2" x 4" x 8" full size brick samples were prepared using a hydraulic-toggle dry-press. The final products met or surpassed ASTM (73-51 and 73-67) specifications of 4500 psi compressive strengths and less than 1 percent shrinkage for grade SW, severe weathering, calcium-silicate brick. An average batch of brick made from dry-collected ash displayed characteristics of 4600 psi compressive strength, 20 percent absorption and no measurable shrinkage; wet-collected ash produced brick with an average 4500 psi compressive strength, 28 percent absorption and no measurable shrinkage. High technical potential was demonstrated for calcium-silicate brick made from modified fly ash. Although this type of brick is used in Europe it has no current market in the United States. ------- Table 3 Quality Tests on Mineral Wool Sample KPL SLD Cl CM Commercial Average Fiber Diameter 2.5u 3.0u 5.6u 5.4u 8.4u Attached Shot wt. % 14.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 N/A Moisture Adsorption St. % 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Odor Emissions No Apparent Difference No Apparent Difference No Apparent Difference No Apparent Difference No Apparent Difference Fire Resistance Incombustible Incombustible Incombustible Incombustible Incombustible Corrosion Retardance Noncorrosive, no etching Noncorrosive, no etching Noncorrosive, no etching Noncorrosive, no etching Minor Corrosic no etching ------- K-17 c. Aerated (gas) concrete Aerated or foamed cellular concrete is a lightweight structural material consisting of small noncommunicating gas cells entrained in a calcium-silicate matrix. It is produced by inducing gas bubbles within a cementitious paste normally composed of cement and/or lime and a fine grained siliceous material. The bubbles of gas are produced by one of two general methods: 1. By the formation of gas by chemical reaction within the mix during the liquid or plastic stage, for example: 2A1 +3Ca(OH)2 +6H2O »- 3CaO • A12O3 • 6H2O + 3\-\2 ^ • or 2. By introducing air from without, either by adding a preformed foam or by incorporating air by whipping. When the first method is used, the hydrogen in the cells is replaced by air in a short time and no fire hazard exists. The gas-cement mixture is allowed to set in air and is then steam cured at high pressure. Aerated concrete made in Europe using normal coal fly ash as the siliceous component is high in strength and light in weight—their best products having compressive strengths of 200-800 psi for concrete with a density range of 30-45 Ib/cu ft. Aerated concrete also exhibits advantageous thermal insulation and acoustic properties. Aerated concrete was produced from dry-collected limestone modified fly ash using the technology employed by European manufacturers with one basic exception. Utilizing the "free" lime content in dry-collected modified ash, the addition of lime is not required—a significant cost reduction. Aluminum powder is used to generate gas bubbles and portland cement is added to provide strength. Dry-collected limestone modified fly ash from the Shawnee Steam Plant at Paducah, Kentucky (TVA), was selected for the bench-scale production of aerated concrete because of its high reactive or "free" lime content and its large siliceous component. It was found that aerated concrete could be prepared from this ash without the use of any additional material except water and aluminum powder—the aerating agent. The cured concrete had a compressive strength of 400 psi at a density of approximately 50 Ibs/ft3. Portland cement was then added to the mix to increase the compressive strength of the product. The density increased to 56.3 Ibs/ft3 when using cement and the compressive strength was increased to more than 855 psi. The addition of portland cement also stabilized the aerated mix prior to autoclaving. This is a critical factor because setting must occur after aeration is completed and before the entrained bubbles collapse. Although these early results indicated high technical potential worthy of additional research—comparable compressive strengths at somewhat higher densities—there is no current market for aerated concrete in the United States. ------- K-18 d. Formed concrete block Research on calcium-silicate brick production showed that autoclaving increased calcium-silicate bond formation. As a result, the feasibility of using modified ash as the cementing agent for the production of concrete block was investigated. The composition of the cement block was the same as for calcium-silicate brick with the exception that less dewatering was required. The composition consisted, on a dry basis, of 50 percent wet-collected modified fly ash, 39 percent silica sand (30 x 100 mesh) and 11 percent lime (95 percent CaO). Also, the material was poured into molds instead of pressed. No prior grinding or crushing of the modified ash raw material was required. The resulting poured concrete, which was similar to concrete block, had a bulk density of 90 Ib/ft3 as compared to 150 Ibs/ft3 for conventional concrete block and a compressive strength of approximately 900 psi as compared to 1000 psi for conventional block. Although addition of the necessary aggregate could raise the bulk density to 100 Ib/ft3 , this would still be only 2/3 the bulk density of standard block. The blocks produced out of the autoclave were full strength, nonshrinking products which do not require the 3-4 weeks air curing time before sale as does the conventional concrete block. On this basis, storage requirements could be reduced. However, as in the case of calcium-silicate brick, implementaion would require new techniques of production such as dewatering and autoclaving. As a result, there is no current U.S. market for formed concrete material made from modified fly ash. 2. Low Potential of Utilization a. Soil amendment b. Ceramic materials c. Recovery of SO2 (thermal) d. High-pressure alumina leaching e. Flotation as a means of producing separate fractions Techniques for dewatering the wet-collected limestone-modified fly ash were evaluated in a follow-on project with the following resultant classifications of technical potential.5 1. High Potential a. Settling b. Pressure filtration c. Centrifugation 2. Medium Potential a. Flocculants Details of the results are currently unavailable, however, settling is considered the optimum technique based on both economical and technical considerations. Pressure filtration and centrifugation, while having high technical potential, are not expected to be economical because the large volumetric capacities required could result in large equipment multiples. ------- K-19 IV. Summary Limestone-modified fly ash differs considerably, both chemically and physically, from unmodified ash and does not lend itself to direct substitution for regular ash, as it is used today. In addition, the chemical and physical properties of modified ash vary to a large degree based upon the sulfur and ash content of the coal and subsequent removals during flue gas treatment. There are, however, potential uses for the modified ash: some, the same as for regular ash; others not yet developed. Such miscellaneous factors as quality variation, water content, sulfur (sulfite, sulfate, gypsum) content, pozzolanic properties, quantities available, trace element content and toxicity and unreacted lime content need to be thoroughly evaluated for specific applications before applicability can be finally assessed. Research and development programs are necessary to determine and subsequently demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of utilizations of this material. General areas of potential technical utilization include autoclave products, structural or land fill, bituminous filler, pozzolanic materials, cement manufacture, pressure-sintered products, gypsum products, and mineral recovery. Immediately promising areas are autoclave products (sulfur would not be released), gypsum products (LMF contains large amounts of gypsum), road base course material (it contains lime, has pozzolanic properties and the potential market is large), and sulfur recovery (although the economics are not promising, it could supplement a sintering process). Since the modified ash cannot currently replace regular ash in its utilization, its immediate impact on the regular ash market would be negative. It is possible, however, that processes can be developed that would make it usable by the time it is produced in appreciable quantity. V. Recommendations Although not the main thrust of the current program, recommendations are presented for unmodified, as well as for modified fly ash, because use of the former would contribute to the economic solution of the solid waste problem. Additionally, its use is expected to precede (and pave the way for) the use of modified fly ash since the former is more familiar, well characterized, and in current abundance. Recommendations are presented for wet-collected limestone-modified fly ash since dry-collected limestone-modified fly ash is not expected to be nationally abundant because of the limited application of the dry limestone injection process. However, the dry process may be utilized in a particular geographic area or localities which would make the dry-collected modified material locally available. The properties and characteristics of the dry-collected material are not expected to be sufficiently different from the dewatered wet-collected material to preclude its use for certain applications. ------- K-20 All recommendations have been submitted for review to appropriate agencies; e.g. the Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A. Unmodified Fly Ash Existing inhibitions to the utilization of regular fly ash are of such magnitude that only a small percentage of the ash produced today is utilized. These restraints will continue to prevent an appreciable growth of the fly ash market unless appropriate research, development, and survey programs are carried out. These programs may reduce inhibitions that retard fly ash sale on a profitable basis. Major areas of interest for new efforts are structural concrete, road base course materials, and such new products as gas concrete, ceramics, and mineral recovery. Sufficient effort is already being applied to the advancement of the fly ash lightweight aggregate technology. An effort should also be directed toward the extended use of fly ash as a mine void fill, particularly since it could be an interim measure until the efforts requiring more lead time are completed and put into practice. The recommendations are: 1. Expeditiously develop a new set of specifications or a handbook for the use of fly ash in portland cement concrete which would provide a standard utilization to produce predictable results. This would include the application of various grades of fly ash (pertinent parameters such as residual carbon, fineness, and pozzolanic activity) to concrete usage and encompass cure times beyond 28 days. These documents could be modeled after TVA specifications G-2 and G-30. A testing program will be required to provide statistical data to support this program. 2. Conduct a marketing survey for various regions within the fly ash supply areas to determine the economic feasibility of fly ash gas concrete in various forms of building construction in the United States. 3. Conduct a technical and marketing survey in various regions of fly ash producing areas to determine the justification for an advisability of action by government road contracting agencies regarding the use of fly ash in the base course section of Federal, state, and local paving program contracts. 4. Investigate the possibility of recovering minerals from fly ash. 5. Evaluate the net economic effects of coal-washing or gasification on the fly ash market and on the cost of ash disposal. 6. Conduct a technical and economic survey relating to land reclamation and to the remote filling of mine voids for control of mine subsidence and fires. This would include the economics of fly ash usage and land reclamation values; and the effects of fly ash on ground waters. Consider the use of empty returning coal cars or a fly ash slurry for transportation. 7. Conduct research to develop or improve such fly ash uses as ceramic products, optimized fly ash gas concrete. ------- K-21 8. Conduct fundamental research to identify the intrinsic characteristics and properties of fly ash to provide the basis for subsequent research into new uses of fly ash. Although this has been performed in part at various organizations, results of complete characterization are not published. B. Wet-Collected Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Determining the potential use of modified ash depends on research and development programs and marketing surveys to establish the potential marketability of developed products in terms of public acceptance and ability to compete with other products, including those produced from regular fly ash. The following programs are recommended: 1. The most critical research need for wet-limestone-modified ash is the fundamental characterization of its chemical and physical properties. This characterization will provide the basis for the subsequent utilization and toxicology research recommendations. 2. Conduct research and development programs on potential mass uses of modified fly ash including filler material, autocalve products, pozzolanic materials, pressure-sintered products, and gypsum products. These programs should be broad enough to allow the possible emergence of uses not yet identified. These programs should also consider the mass usage of modified ash in situ and beneficiated in processes in which sulfur is not released and recovered. 3. Investigate the recovery of mineral ore from the modified fly ash. 4. Determine the physical state of toxic elements within the modified fly ash, the source of these elements (coal ash or limestone), the role of wet collection in preventing mass contamination via particulate and gaseous effluents, and potential hazards that may exist (particularly through leaching) in the ash disposal and utilization. 5. Conduct an economics survey of the phase of electric power production involving: the effects of fuel preparation and delivery, pollutant removal, residue disposal, and product credits. Examples of trade-offs which should be made include: (a) scrubbing of fly ash and gases resulting from the combustion of untreated coal, (b) scrubbing of fly ash and gases resulting from the combustion of cleaned coal, (c) gasification of coal, and (d) liquefaction of coal. 6. Conduct surveys to determine the potential for marketing recovered sulfur and products to be developed for the use of modified fly ash. Also, consider the development of products which are already partially developed; e.g., mineral aggregate and road base course materials. ------- K-22 VI. References Reports identified by numbers prefixed "PB" are currently available prepaid from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Others will be available approximately one month after receipt by NTIS. 1. Aerospace Corporation Report No. TOR-0059(6781)-1. PB 209-480, Final Report on "Technical and Economic Factors Associated with Fly Ash Utilization," July 26, 1971, EPA Contract FO4701-70-C-0059. 2. Coal Research Bureau, West Virginia University, PB 185-802, Final Report on "Study of the Potential for Profitable Utilization of Pulverized Coal Fly Ash Modified by the Addition of Limestone - Dolomite SO2 Removal Additives," April 1969, EPA Contract PH86-67-122. 3. Ibid., PB 196-779, Final Report on "Study of the Potential for Recovering Unreacted Lime from Limestone Modified Fly Ash by Agglomerate Flotation," May 1970, EPA Contract PH22-68-18. 4. Ibid., Final Report, "Pilot Scaleup of Processes to Demonstrate Utilization of Pulverized Coal Fly Ash Modified by the Addition of Limestone-Dolomite SO2 Removal Additives," March 1972, EPA Contract CPA70-66. Submitted to NTIS December 11, 1972. 5. Ibid., Final Report Draft, "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Dewatering, Production of Structural Materials, and Recovery of Alumina from the Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Produced by a Limestone Wet Scrubbing Process," Final Report anticipated early 1973, EPA Contract EHSD71-11. ------- APPENDIX L Process Economics ------- L-l PROCESS ECONOMICS I. Introduction One of the primary goals of the EPA-TVA dry limestone injection test program is to better define the process economics for potential users. The economics given in the 1968 EPA-TVA conceptual design and cost study (12) of the process were based on limited background and performance data; therefore, refinement of the earlier cost estimates is highly desirable and is now possible using the results of the Shawnee test demonstration. Investment requirements estimated in 1968 were based mostly on discussions with solids handling equipment suppliers with some guidance from the TVA Office of Engineering Design and Construction in Knoxville, Tennessee, plus the use of indirect cost and installation factors derived from actual projects and from published estimating material. At that time, the most desirable limestone particle size and point of injection were unknown, predrying was not deemed necessary, solids disposal was assumed to be simple with water quality unaffected, and the full effect of injected calcium material on dust removal efficiency of electrostatic precipitators was speculative. All of these requirements have been given careful attention and definition by the Shawnee test program. One factor of concern in 1968, which calcium base material should be utilized, is no longer of major importance since dried limestone serves as well as calcined limestone (CaO) or hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2 ], both of which are two to three times more expensive. In the earlier cost study, only a few limestone suppliers across the United States were contacted for price data. Since then, the M. W. Kellogg Company has completed for EPA a much more comprehensive survey (8) of limestone supply and price data, and the information is utilized in this process cost evaluation. In the earlier operating cost estimates, utilities usages were calculated and capital charges were based on nonregulated economics; that is, no provisions were assumed for maintaining the utility's rate of return on investment for the additional investment. As a result, an impractical, low rate of capital charges was assessed. In addition, a chemical plant operating stream time (8,000 hrs/yr) was used instead of a power plant's historical declining load factor and effort was not made to predict the lifetime operating costs of the system. In the evaluation to follow, the actual cost of the Shawnee injection system, improved definition of raw material costs and desired particle size of injection material, actual utilities usage rates, more realistic capital charges and operating periods, recent air pollution emission requirements, refined dust removal technology, and equipment estimates by a precipitator manufacturer permit a far more accurate cost appraisal than was possible in 1968. However, it should be recognized that the accuracy of the newer estimates can be affected greatly by the difficulty of retrofit to a power unit, labor costs in the particular unit location, the closeness to a limestone source, the need and convenience of additional disposal area for the waste solids produced, local air and water pollution regulations, and the moisture content of purchased stone. ------- L-2 At this stage of development, the major factors affecting process economics include (1) power unit size, (2) sulfur content of fuel, (3) stoichiometric rate of limestone injection, (4) particle size of injected limestone, (5) particulate removal requirements, (6) solids disposal needs, (7) raw material costs, (8) annual operating time, and (9) remaining life of the power unit. Items (1) through (3) are the most significant factors in establishing costs since they determine the amount of limestone to be processed and, therefore, the required capacity of the equipment. However, item (4), particle size of injected limestone, has some effect on absorption efficiency, thereby influencing design of the grinding system and affecting both investment and operating costs. Particulate removal requirements, item (5), are, in part, fixed by the level of injection and emission laws prevailing in the plant location. However, the investment and operating costs associated with particulate collection vary depending on existing collection facilities and the type of additional facilities installed. The method and costs for disposing solids may also differ for various power plant installations. Raw material costs, annual operating time, and remaining life of the power unit do not influence investment; however, these items directly influence operating costs. II. Approach To evaluate the major factors, a variety of unit sizes, fuel sulfur levels, and limestone injection stoichiometries are chosen for case projections of fixed investment requirements, annual operating costs, and lifetime operating costs. Using selected cases, other key factors are also varied to analyze their sensitivity on process economics. The projections made are based on applicable design premises resulting from the Shawnee test program, plus the actual cost of the test facility and the actual utilities usage rates. A flow diagram of the proposed process and detailed material balances were prepared to serve as guides in determining equipment sizes and requirements for the various cases. Operating experience for TVA coal-fired power units is also utilized in the evaluation technique. For convenience, all projections are based on 1972 costs for the midwestern United States. Results of the Shawnee tests indicate that, within limits, SO2 removal efficiencies increase with the addition of greater amounts of limestone to the boiler. However, the associated costs and operating difficulties also increase. To determine the effect of limestone addition rate on process economics, a 52-case parametric study is used to cover the various unit sizes, sulfur levels, and injection stoichiometries. Cases were selected to expand the applicability of the Shawnee results over a broad range. Table 1 gives a detailed accounting of the chosen case combinations. Design Premises—For the 52 cases, applicable design premises were established for the power unit, fuel, absorbent, combustion, reactions, SO2 emission reduction, reaction products, and particulate collection and disposal method. A detailed listing of these premises follows: A. Power unit 1. Size-50, 150, 250, or 350 MW. 2. Location - midwestern region. 3. Type plant - existing, pulverized coal, frontal-fired unit. 4. Years remaining life - 15. ------- L-3 Table 1 - Dry Limestone Injection Case Combinations Existing Coal-Fired Units Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 0.8% Sin coal 3.0% S in coal 5.0% S in coal 50 MW power units 150 250 350 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 MW power units 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 MW power units 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 MW power units 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 B. Coal 1. Heat value-12,000 BTU/lb. 2. Ash content - 16.0%. 3. Sulfur content - 0.8, 3.0, and 5.0%. C. Limestone characteristics and preparation 1. Type - calcite. 2. Composition - 95.0% CaCO3 and 5.0% impurities (dry basis). 3. Purchased moisture content - 5.0% H20. 4. Purchased size - minus 1-1/2 in. 5. Moisture reduction - dried to approximately 0.5% H2 0 prior to grinding. 6. Drying source - off-gas from combustion of No. 2 fuel oil with 20% excess air. 7. Size reduction - dry ground to 80% minus 400 mesh prior to injection. ------- L-4 8. Transport ainlimestone injection ratio - 1:10. 9. Injection stoichiometry variations - 0.8% S coal, 3.0 to 7.0 moles CaO: mole S in fuel. 3.0 and 5.0% S coal, 1.0 to 4.0 moles CaO: mole S in fuel. D. Combustion 1. Coal consumption prior to dry limestone injection - 0.780 Ibs/kWh. 2. Excess air to boiler for combustion of coal - 25%. 3. Air inleak at air preheater - 13%. 4. Particulate emission - 75% of ash is emitted as particulates and is present in the off-gas. 5. Sulfur emission - 92% of sulfur is emitted as SO2; remainder is chemically bound with the ash. E. Boiler reactions, S02 emission reductions, and reaction products 1. Dried CaCO3 decomposes to CaO and CO2 within boiler. 2. Heat required for decomposition is supplied by combustion of additional coal. 3. For 0.8% S fuel, 5% of S02 in the gas combines with CaO per unit of stoichiometric limestone injected. 4. For 3.0 and 5.0% S fuel, 10% of SO2 in the gas combines with CaO per unit of stoichiometric limestone injected. 5. All CaS03 formed by reaction of CaO and SO2 is oxidized to CaSO4 within the boiler. 6. All of the solid products resulting from limestone injection are present in the boiler off-gas as particulates. F. Particulate collection One of the drawbacks of dry limestone injection is the introduction of additional solids into the boiler, which requires additional particulate collection and disposal facilities. Figure 1 shows the effect of injection stoichiometry on the inlet particulate loading to the dust collectors for the three levels of sulfur evaluated. Design of the particulate collection facilities is based on the following premises: 1. Existing particulate collection facilities - mechanical collector followed by electrostatic precipitator. 2. Overall particulate collection efficiency of existing facilities - 99%, equivalent to a particulate emission of 0.03 grains/acf. 3. Additional electrostatic precipitator capacity is installed to maintain a dust emission level after dry limestone injection equivalent to the emission level prior to injection. Reflecting the limestone injection case variations, Table 2 shows the calculated particulate rates at the entrance to the dust collectors for a 150 MW unit, and the overall collection efficiency required to maintain the base emission level defined above. These collection efficiencies are shown graphically in Figure 2. G. Particulate disposal Additional disposal facilities for handling the incremental solids are provided for each installation. Figures 3, 4, and 5 indicate the incremental disposal requirements ------- 20 15 o Cfl 10 at !H 00 f\ 60 -S a eg o en c 3 5 13 4J ------- Table 2 Dust Removal Requirements for Dry Limestone Injection Case Study - 1 50 MW Plant (To Maintain Base Emission Level) Case 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sulfur content of coal, % 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO/mole S in fuel no dry limestone injection 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Gas rate, acfm @310° F. 507,700 503,800 505,200 506,900 508,100 509,600 512,500 517,800 522,700 528,000 519,000 527,900 537,000 547,000 Inlet to Dust Fly ash 14,040 14,100 14,120 14,150 14,160 14,1.80 14,100 14,180 14,240 14,310 14,150 14,270 14,390 14,540 dust collector rate, Ibs/hr Injection products - 5,740 7,660 9,590 11,530 13,480 7,580 15,240 22,990 30,810 12,670 25,580 38,750 52,250 Dust loading, grains/acf 3.23 4.59 5.03 5.46 5.90 6.33 4.94 6.63 8.31 9.97 6.03 8.81 11.55 14.25 Allowable emission, lbs/hra 140 141 141 141 142 142 141 142 142 143 141 143 144 145 Overall dust collection efficiency required, % 99.00 99.29 99.35 99.41 99.45 99.49 99.35 99.52 99.62 99.68 99.47 99.64 99.73 99.78 Outlet dust loading grains/acf .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 a. Equivalent to 99% removal of fly ash emitted from combustion of coal containing 16% ash ------- ,100.0 •u <0 1-1 •rl I 99.8 •1-1 o >i-i M-l <4-l 0) g 99.6 •H 4J O t-l O U § 99.4 I 99.2 0 I I I I Inlet fly ash loading prior to injections* 3.23 gr/acf Outlet loading after dust collection - O.OJ gr/acf 24 68 Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal Figure Effect of Injection Stoichiometry on Overall Dust Collection Efficiency to Maintain Emission Rate Equivalent to 9956 Fly Ash Collection Prior to Dry Limestone Injection ------- 00 Figure 50 5 100 150 200 Power unit size, 250 300 350 Incremental Solids Disposal Requirements for Power Units Utilizing Dry Limestone Injection Process; 0.8$ S Coal ------- 0 50 150 200 Power unit size, MW 250 300 350 Figure Incremental Solids Disposal Requirements for Power Units Utilizing Dry Limestone Injection Process: 3»°# S Coal ------- 50 100 150 200 Power unit size, NW 250 300 350 Figure Incremental Solids Disposal Requirements for Power Units Utilizing Dry Limestone Injection Process: 5.0$ 3 Coal ------- L-ll attributable to dry limestone injection for each variation in.sulfur content as a function of power unit size and injection stoichiometry. The following method for disposal is used (11): 1. Fly ash and injection solids are disposed on-site in a common, existing settling pond. Additional pond facilities are not provided for the incremental injection solids. 2. Distribution facilities are included for supplying raw water to the solids disposal area. Pipeline distance between the disposal area and the raw water supply point is estimated as 2,500 ft. 3. Slurry concentration to the disposal pond is designed not to exceed 15% solids. 4. Fresh sluice water is used for disposing the incremental solids, with no provisions for recycling. Pipeline distance between disposal pond and the solids collection facilities is estimated as 6,000 ft. 5. A separate disposal line is included for each case, regardless of the magnitude of the incremental solids disposal burden. 6. Based on vendor recommendations, an 8 in. line is the smallest size which is practical. Disposal systems are sized with either 8, 10, or 12 in. lines, with a design fluid velocity of approximately 6 ft/sec and capability of disposing the daily load of solids over a period of 12 hrs. Based on TVA operating experience, the load factor for an existing ash sluice line is about 40% or less. 7. Spare incremental solids disposal lines are not provided. It is assumed that the existing spare sluice lines or the existing operating lines (with relatively low load factors) can be utilized as spares when required. 8. Based on TVA sluicing practices, sluice water flow through each operating line is continuous while the power unit is in operation (sluice water and electrical requirements for pumping are based on continuous flow.) Using the Shawnee design and operating experience and the design premises presented above, a projected process flow diagram including provision for dust collection and disposal was prepared. This flow diagram identifies the major equipment required for the process and is presented in Figure 6. Base Case—For convenience in preparing material and energy balances, a separate base case for each level of sulfur in coal was established. Power unit size was selected to conform to that of Shawnee Unit 10. Injection stoichiometry for each case was based on the most probable applications as determined in the Shawnee tests for the various levels of sulfur in coal. These case combinations are shown below: Dry Limestone Injection Process Base Case Combinations Injection stoichiometry, Power unit size, Sulfur in coal, moles CaO injected/ MW % mole 5 in coal 150 0.8 5.0 150 3.0 2.0 150 5.0 2.0 ------- CYCLONE EXHAUST TO MECHANICAL A NO/OR ELECTROSTATIC DUST COLLECTOR SLIDE GATE VALVE ROTARY VALVE VACUUM RELIEF VALVE Figure 6- Proposed Flow Diagram of Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- L-13 A detailed material balance for each of the base case combinations is shown in Figure 7 Actual investment—The actual fixed investment for the Shawnee test facilities was analyzed to provide an equipment, labor, and material cost breakdown for the major process functions. The results are presented in Table 3 (1). A nine-month construction period during 1969-1970 and a total investment cost of $1,477,581 were required for the test facilities. The facilities were designed with a 20 ton/hr injection capability equivalent to a 350 MW plant burning 2.0% S coal with an injection stoichiometry of 2.0. Although oversized for a 150 MW plant, a broad capacity range was necessary because of the research and development nature of the installation. The actual investment requirements discussed above include facilities for receiving, storing, drying, grinding, and injection and sampling test probes for the boiler. Both rail and truck unloading equipment are included. Boiler modifications such as wall port openings are included along with utilities distribution from the powerhouse area. Not included are capability for continuous fine grinding, additional particulate removal facilities, and solids disposal pond for the incremental dust burden. Also not included are additional soot blowers for removal of deposits which tend to form in the convection passes of the boiler. The number of required sootblowers may vary for different installations as a function of boiler tube spacing, temperature regime, and length of convection pass; however, each is estimated to cost $20-30,000. Since the Shawnee tests did not indicate the actual number of additional sootblowers required as a result of dry limestone injection, additional costs are excluded from the investment projections; however, the sensitivity of total investment as a function of sootblower requirements is discussed in Section 11. Investment projections—Based on the dry limestone injection process flow diagram, the process equipment was subdivided into several areas according to function. For most process areas, actual 1969 investment costs for the test facilities were updated to 1972 utilizing a Chemical Engineering plant cost index ratio of 138/119 (4). Instead of treating as separate areas, costs for painting, stairways, handrails, inspection, and testing were distributed to the appropriate major areas. For the limestone grinding system, updated costs were obtained from vendors to reflect the capability for continuous fine grind, not available with the Shawnee facilities. Costs for facilities at other limestone capacities were projected by scaling the updated investment according to limestone throughput using appropriate scaling exponents. Values of these exponents were factored from the literature (6, 9) and from cost quotations obtained from vendors. Table 4 shows the major equipment areas which were established, the base 1972 investment corresponding to the updated Shawnee costs, and the scaling exponent used for projecting costs as a function of capacity ratios. Costs for the incremental electrostatic precipitator and solids disposal systems were not scaled according to limestone throughput. Incremental electrostatic precipitator system ------- ISO MW UNIT, 0.8% S IN COAL, 5.0 CoO:S INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY STREAM NO. DESCRIPTION SCFM GPM PARTICULATES, LBS./HR TEMPERATURE, 'F SPECIFIC GRAVITY JNOISSOLVED SOUDS, % 1 LIMESTONE TO DRYER - AMBIENT 2.7 2 AIR TO DRYER 1,200 — AMBIENT 3 FUEL OIL TO DRYER 310 7 — AMBIENT .865 4 - CYCLUNlT" EXHAUST TO 1,530 20 250 5 DRIED LIMESTONETO SURGE TANK _ _ 230 6 CIRCULATION AIR TO CONVEYOR 8,800 2,750 200 7 CONVEYING AIR TO CYCLONE 8,800 18,350 200 a PULVERIZED LIMESTONE TO FEED TANK _ _ 200 9 AIR TO COMPRESSOR 1,500 330 _ AMBIENT 10 LIMESTONE- AIR TO DISTRIBUTOR 1, 500 330 15,600 110 II PULVERIZED COAL TO BOILER - - AMBIENT 12 COMBUSTION AIR TO AIR HEATER 322,000 _ - no 13 COMBUSTION AIR TO BOILER 292,000 _ - 610 14 FLUE GAS TO DUST COLLECTOR 34 O.OOO - 23,720 310 15 FLUE GAS TO STACK 341,530 - 141 310 16 SOLIDS TO SLUICE EQUIPMENT - - - 310 IT SLUICE WATER 267 AMBIENT 18 SLURRY TO DISPOSAL POND 286 AMBIENT 1.10 IS COAL ANALYSIS, % BY WT (AS FIRED BASIS) H 4.17 ASH 16.00 N 1.23 H20 9.70 C 66.39 0 1.71 S 0.80 COAL CONSUMPTION, .786 LBS./KWH WITH INJECTION 25 % OVERALL SOj REMOVAL FROM GAS (5% /UNIT STOICHIOMETRY) PARTICULATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 99.41% ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF SAS TO STACK EXCLUDING NO,, % BY VOLUME COg 12.36 SOj .04 Oz 5.43 HjO 7.62 150 MW UNIT, 3.0% S IN COAL, 2.0 CaO: S INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY STREAM NO. DESCRIPTION RATE, LBS. /HR. SCFM GPM PARTICULATES, LBS /HR TEMPERATURE, F SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNWSSOLVED SOUDS, % 1 LIMESTONE TO DRYER 24,600 — - - AMBIENT 2.7 2 AIR TO DRYER 8,260 1,800 - - AMBIENT 3 FUEL OIL TO DRYER 470 - I.I - AMBIENT .863 4 CYCLONE EXHAUST TO COLLECTOR 9,850 2,300 - 30 250 5 DRIED LIMESTONETO SURGE TANK 23,450 - - - 250 « CIRCULATION AIR TO CONVEYOR 60,600 1 3, 200 - 4,140 ZOO 7 CONVEYING AIR TO CYCLONE 60,600 1 3,200 - 27,590 200 8 PULVERIZED LIMESTONETO FEED TANK 23,450 - - - ZOO 9 AIR TO COMPRESSOR 2,300 500 - - AMBIENT 10 LIMESTONE- DISTRIBUTOR 2,300 500 - 23,450 110 II PULVERIZED COAL TO BOILER 118,130 - - - AMBIENT 12 COMBUSTION AIR TO AIR HEATER 1,509,640 329,000 - - no 13 COMBUSTION AIR TO BOILER 1,367,400 298,000 - - 610 14 FLUE QAS TO OUST COLLECTOR 1,619,400 347,000 - 29,390 310 15 FLUE GAS TO STACK 1,629,250 349,300 - 142 310 16 SOLIDS TO SLUICE EQUIPMENT 29,278 - - - 310 17 SLUICE WATER 165,922 - 332 - AMBIENT IB SLURRY TO DISPOSAL POND 195,200 - 355 - AMBIENT 1.10 15 COAL ANALYSIS, H ........ 4.17 N ........ 1.23 C ...... 66.39 S ....... 3.00 BY WT. (AS FIRED BASIS) ASH ____ 16.00 H20 ____ 9.21 0 ....... — COAL CONSUMPTION, .788 LBS./KWH WITH INJECTION 20% OVERALL SOj REMOVAL FROM GAS HOT./UNIT STOICHIOMETRY) PARTICULATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 99.52% ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF GAS TO STACK EXCLUDING NO,, % BY VOLUME COj 12.28 SOg .15 HjO 7.71 TOTAL 100.00 150 MW UNIT, 5.0% S IN COAL, 2.0 CaO: S INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY STREAM NO. DESCRIPTION RATE, LBS./HR. SCFM GPM PARTICULATES, LBS./HR. TEMPERATURE, • F SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNDISSOLVED SOLIDS, % 1 LIMESTONE TO DRYER 41,290 - - - AMBIENT 2.T 2 AIR TO DRYER 13,860 3,020 - - AMBIENT 3 FUEL OIL TO DRYER 790 - 1.8 - AMBIENT .865 4 EXHAUST TO COLLECTOR 16,520 3,860 - 50 250 5 DRIED LIMESTONETO SURGE TANK 39,370 - - - 250 6 CIRCULATION AIR TO CONVEYOR 101,500 22,100 - 6,950 ZOO 7 CONVEYING AIR TO CYCLONE 101,500 22,100 - 46,320 2CO 8 PULVERIZED LIMESTONE TO FEEDTANK 39,370 - - - 2OO 9 AIR TO COMPRESSOR 3,900 850 - - AMBIENT 10 LIMESTONE- AIR TO DISTRIBUTOR 3,900 850 - 39, 370 no II PULVERIZED COAL TO BOILER 1 1 8.90O - - - AMBIENT 12 COMBUSTION AIR TO AIR HEATER 1.531,590 334,000 - - no 13 COMBUSTION AIR TO BOILER 1,387,300 302.500 - - 610 14 FLUE GAS TO DUST COLLECTOR 1, 649,200 352,000 - 39,800 310 15 FLUE SAS TO STACK 1,665,720 355,800 - 143 310 16 SOLIDS TO SLUICE EQUIPMENT 39,707 - _ - 310 17 SLUICE WATER 224.993 _ 450 - AMBIENT IB SLURRY TO DISPOSAL POND 264,700 _ 481 AMBIENT 1.10 15 WT. (AS FIRED BASIS) ASH 16.00 H20 7.21 0 - COAL ANALYSIS, % H 4.17 N...' 1.23 C 66.39 S-- 5.0O & BASIS HEAT VALUE OF COAL, I2.00O BTU/LB. (AS FIRED BASIS) 75% OF ASH IN COAL EVOLVES AS FLY ASH LIMESTONE TO SYSTEM CONTAINS 95.0% CoCO3(DRY BASIS) AND 5% HjO LIMESTONE DRIED TO 0.5% H20 PRIOR TO GRINDING PARTICULATE RATES IN LBS./HR. SHOULD BE ADDED TO GAS RATES TO OBTAIN THE TOTAL STREAM RATE HEAT FOR DRYING SUPPLIED BY COMBUSTION OF NO. 2 FUEL OIL WITH 20% EXCESS AIR MATERIAL LOSSES ARE EXCLUDED FROM MATERIAL BALANCE COAL CONSUMPTION, .793 LBS./KWH WITH INJECTION 20% OVERALL SOZ REMOVAL FROM GAS (10%/UNIT STOICHIOMETRY) PARTICULATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 99.64% ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF GAS TO STACK EXCLUDING NO. % BY VOLUME COa 12.43 SO; .24 Oz_ 5.39 Nz 74.42 H20 FIGURE 7 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION PROCESS MATERIAL BALANCES9' ------- L-15 Tables Actual Fixed Investment for 20 Ton/Hour Dry Limestone Injection Facilities on Shawnee Power Plant Unit No. 10 1969-70 Construction Direct Cost General Yard Work Landscaping Guard Rails Relocate access road Yard lighting Storage area Raw water piping Drains Subtotal Limestone Storage and Feed Systems Truck hopper Railroad car unloader Truck hopper unloader Limestone receiving hopper Truck unloading conveyor Limestone storage conveyor Limestone feed to dryer conveyor Subtotal Limestone Drying System Limestone dryer, drive and combustion chamber with combustion equipment Cyclone dust collector-6500 cfm Trickle valve Chutes & duct Dust collecting fan Dust duct to precipitator Bucket elevator and drive Dryer shed Subtotal Limestone Grinding System Surge bin - 1000 cu.ft. Structural supports Rotary valve with drive Volumetric feeder Ball mill, drive and oiling system Recirculation fan & drive - 23,000 cfm Ducts and chutes Classifier and drive Structural supports Storage silo - 6600 cu.ft. Structural supports Cyclone - 25,000 cfm Trickle valve Bag filter - 595 sq.ft. filter area Exhaust fan with drive Rotary valve with drive Subtotal Equipment Labor Materials $ $ $ 905 5,180 5,180 No cost , 12,000 17,212 1,591 $ 42,068 $ 46, 522 1 1,876 85 700, 4,300 4,010 $ 57,693 $ 1,748 5,360 1,304 1,705 91,326 3,836 3,410 4,600 1 $ 82 121 9,128 1,468 362 401 $ 11,562 ) $ ( 12,305 ( ) > 12,112 $ 24,417 ) (. $ 6,989 ( ) 677 10,910 1,550 9,464 $ 29,590 ) ! $ 8,807 f ) 16,656 } > 2,872 $ 1,600 218 230 2,515 3,023 25 166 $ 7,777 4,463 6,029 $ 10,492 $ 3,193 258 2,348 450 3,843 $ 10,092 $ 3,436 4,730 1,196 5,360j 7,360 11,731 3,836 85 5,968 1,130 1,304 27,120 12,829 Direct Subtotal $ 1,600 300 351 11,643 4,491 387 567 $ 19,339 28,033 48,944 $ 76,977 $ 59,365 5,435 13,258 6,010 13,307 $ 97,375 $ 22,360 119,958 14,028 71,363 $150,063 $ 55,455 $ 22,191 $ 227,709 ------- L-16 Table 3 (continued) Limestone Injection System Rotary valve with drive Transport pump with drive Transport air compressor Cyclone - 630 cfm Feed tank - 300 cu.ft. Bag filter - 530 cfm Rotary valve with drive Screw conveyors with drive (2) Air locks with drives (2) Air receiving tank Injection air compressor with drive Transport air compressor with drive Limestone distributors Subtotal Equipment Foundations Instrumentation Control panel and shed Subtotal Piping Drying system Grinding system Injection system Equipment Labor Direct Materials Subtotal Subtotal Electrical Power Supply 4160 volt board 480 volt board Limestone injection board Power and control wiring Conduit Cable trays Grounding 1 elephone Subtotal Revision & Addition to Power House & Boiler Structural steel Floor grating Miscellaneous metal work Conduit, wiring and fixtures Cooling water supply Steam lines Insulation Ash disposal piping Boiler additions (injection ports) Subtotal Painting Misc. Stairs, Grating and Handrails Test Probes - Installation Inspection and Testing Direct Total All Catagories 1,304-v 4,936 > 5,968) 5m 1,748 I 1,611 ( 1.304/ 1,705^ 2,608) 4,186} 7,5Q2l 7,502( 256/ $ 41,142 $ 6,373 $ 6,373 6,089 24,877 $ 30,966 9,490 $ 9,490 $ $337,795 1,658 14,179 5,414 6,737 $ 27,988 $ 37,951 23,820 1,369 $ 25,189 2,953 12,852 52,245 $ 68,050 1,714 70 190 27,206 28,301 4,205 2,172 870 $ 64,728 $ 1,327 416 6,679 1,236 30,765 5,967 (Contract) 6,216 39,379 $ 91,985 $ 28,008 $ 20,244 $ 46,262 29,054 $560,483 320 3,358 184 771 $ 4,633 $ 27,096 10,172 356 $ 10,528 1,606 2,626 5,336 $ 9,568 9,042 77 325 11,775 3,398 648 245 395 $ 25,905 $ 1,540 1,348 864 644 5,709 223 13,408 4,552 $ 28,288 $ 1,885 $ 7,225 $ 5,678 2,835 $174,193 14,186 22,712 9,911 26,954 $ 73,763 $ 65,047 40,365 1,725 $ 42,090 4,559 21,567 82,458 $ 108,584 10,756 147 515 38,981 31,699 4,853 2,417 1,265 $ 90,633 $ 2,867 1,764 7,543 1,880 36,474 6,190 9,490 19,624 43,931 $ 129,763 $ 29,893 $ 27,469 $ 51,940 31,889 $1,072,471 ------- L-17 Table 3 (continued) Equipment Labor Materials Indirect Cost Construction General Expense Contractor's Engineering and Fee TVA Engineering and Overhead Indirect Total TOTAL PROJECT FIXED INVESTMENT Direct Subtotal $ 106,365 169,687 129,058 405,110 $1,477,581 Table 4 Major Area Investment Requirements and Exponential Scale Factors for Dry Limestone Injection Facilities3 Major process equipment area General yard work Limestone storage and feed system Limestone drying system Limestone grinding system Limestone injection system Equipment foundations Instrumentation Piping Electrical power supply Revisions & additions to powerhouse and boiler Incremental electrostatic precipitator system Incremental solids disposal system for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond a. Capacity = 20 tons limestone/hr. b. Based on updated vendor proposals c. Not scaled according to limestone throughput Base 1972 investment, $ 22,400 111,100 137,600 309,500b 160,100 75,500 51,400 126,000 105,100 150,500 Exponential scaling factor based on limestone throughput .50 .80 .50 b .40 .60 .25 .50 .45 .50 ------- L-18 costs for a 150 MW plant were estimated by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Incorporated (3) for each combination of sulfur content and injection stoichiometry, based on the change in properties of the particulates and the additional amount to be removed as a result of dry limestone injection. Costs were then scaled according to power unit size using an exponent of 0.85. The design for incremental solids disposal systems was based on minimum requirements as indicated by vendors. These investment costs were projected for each individual installation taking into consideration the quantity of injection solids to be disposed and the minimum recommended pipeline size. The sum of the investment requirements for each major process area is called direct investment. The indirect costs for the project, including engineering design and project supervision, construction expense, contractor fees, and contingency are added to the direct investment to obtain the total fixed capital investment. Indirect investment is estimated as a percentage of direct investment (10) and is based on power unit size as follo.Ws: Indirect investment costs, percentage of direct investment existing power units 50 MW 1& Engineering design and supervision Construction expense Contractors' fees Contingency Total indirects 45 42 41 39 Annual operating cost—On-stream time and power plant load are key factors in establishing annual operating costs for any process. For power systems, these factors may vary for different plants within the overall system due to electricity demand and maintenance. For purposes of projection, annual operating costs are estimated on the basis of 5,000 hrs operation/yr at full load. The following is a listing of the breakdown established for projecting annual operating costs: A. Direct costs 1. Delivered raw material a. Limestone 2. Conversion costs a. Operating labor and supervision including payroll overhead b. Utilities (1) Fuel oil (drying) (2) Sluice water (3) Electricity 50 MW 9 14 9 13 150 MW 8 13 8 13 250 MW 8 12 8 13 350 MW 8 12 7 13 ------- L-19 c. Maintenance (1) Labor and material d. Analyses B. Indirect costs 1. Capital charges 2. Overhead a. Plant b. Administrative C. Annual operating cost (A and B) D. Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant E. Total annual cost (C and D) Each of the above cost components accounts for a portion of the total annual operating cost, and is discussed below in order of relative importance. 1. Raw material - Limestone is the only raw material required for dry limestone injection. As indicated in a recent report prepared for EPA by the M. W. Kellogg Company (8), there are enormous deposits of carbonate rocks in the United States, and reserves are more than adequate for the foreseeable future. The major deposits, including two-thirds of all sulfur deposits, are located in the eastern half of the country where the vast majority of fossil fuel-fired power plants are located. Numerous reserves in these areas provide a nearby source of stone for most power plants. Relative to the potential demand for limestone by power plants, production of these materials is quite large in most states; however, current production is inadequate to supply the potential needs of power plants in several Atlantic coastal regions, notably New England. For a large majority of the power plants in the eastern half of the United States, high calcium limestone could be delivered for less than $6.00/ton. About half could obtain stone at less than $4.00/ton. Costs for power plants located in western states generally would be higher, because of the lack of suitable nearby deposits. During the injection tests, the delivered cost of limestone at the Shawnee steam plant averaged $4.05/ton which is compatible with costs reported by Kellogg; therefore, a delivered cost of $4.05/ton of limestone is utilized for the case projections. For additional coverage, however, the sensitivity of other limestone prices on process operating costs will be shown in Section II. 2. Capital charges - The method for financing sulfur dioxide control processes is likely to depend upon the type of industry providing the investment capital and the nature of the control process, nonrecovery or product recovery type. In the past, it has been assumed that nonrecovery pollution control processes installed on power plants are financed on a regulated utility basis similar to the financing method for the initial power plant. This method of financing is also assumed for the nonrecovery dry limestone injection process in the projection of operating costs. ------- L-20 For the power industry (regulated utility economics), the usual practice of including in the capital charges a regulated return on investment and the state and Federal income taxes was followed (5). A breakdown of the capital charges is given in Table 5. The depreciation rate is straight line, based on the remaining life of the power plant after the pollution control process is installed, and is a percentage of initial fixed investment. Property insurance is also based on original fixed investment. However, because most regulatory commissions base the annual permissible return on investment on the remaining depreciation base (that portion of the original investment yet to be recovered or "written off"), the portion of annual capital charge to be applied to the operating cost declines uniformly over the life of the investment. Tables Annual Capital Charges for Power Industry Financing (Existing Power Unit with 15-Yr. Remaining Life) As percentage of original investment Depreciation (based on 15-yr. remaining life for an existing power unit) 6.7 Insurance 0.5 Total rate applied to original investment 7.2 As percentage of outstanding depreciation base3 Cost of capital (capital structure assumed to be 50% debt and 50% equity) Bonds at 8% interest 40 Equity at 12% return to stockholder 6.0 Taxes Federal (50% of gross return or same as return on equity) § Q State (national average for states in relation to Federal rates) 4 g Total rate applied to depreciation base a. Original investment yet to be recovered or "written off base 20.8 ------- L-21 Annual return on equity, interest on outstanding debt, and income taxes are established in the same manner. The cost of money to the power industry is assumed to be 8% interest on borrowed funds and 12% return on equity money to attract investors. Assuming a capital structure of 50% debt and 50% equity, the overall cost of money under regulated economics comes to 10%. Federal income taxes are assumed to be 50% of gross income and state tax is assumed to be 80% of the national tax; the resulting state tax is higher than for nonregulated industry, but it is about the nationwide average for power companies. The fairly well defined return on investment for the power company makes a low rate of depreciation acceptable, and return on investment can be logically included in production cost because it is a fixed charge usually passed on to the power customer. For convenience in presenting annual operating cost results, average capital charges based on initial fixed investment are utilized since it is not practical to present the variable declining balance portion of the charge. For presentation in this manner, capital charges which normally account for depreciation and insurance are unchanged at 7.2% of original investment. Charges associated with the cost of capital and taxes are applied as an average charge equivalent to 10.4% of initial investment. (10.4% x original investment = 20.8% x average undepreciated investment). When assessed in this manner, the overall rate is equivalent to 17.6% of the original investment. The average capital charge multiplied by the number of years of operation gives the same actual outlay of dollars as the declining balance calculation; however, the present worth of the two methods is different (discounted to 1972 dollars). There is, of course, another method (sinking fund depreciation plus interest, or capital recovery factor) of presenting a single annual percentage of initial investment which gives the same present worth of the lifetime capital charges as the declining balance calculation approach, but the actual dollar outlay is different. Of the two procedures, the average capital charge method has been chosen for annual operating cost tables because it can incorporate straight line depreciation, thus permitting simpler adjustment of the percentage of initial investment for power units with various remaining lives. 3. Utilities - During the dry limestone injection test program, utility usages were measured for the following three processing functions: a. Limestone receiving, drying and conveying b. Limestone grinding, classifying, and transport to feed tank c. Limestone injection into boiler In addition, utility requirements peripheral to the process such as additional water and electricity for solids disposal were estimated. The following utility usage rates are projected: ------- L-22 Utility projections Process area a. Limestone receiving, drying and conveying b. Limestone grinding, classifying, and transport to feed tank c. Limestone injection into boiler Peripheral area d. Participate collection e. Additional solids disposal Fuel oil Sluice water 5.3 gal/ ton limestone Electricity 6.0 kWh/ton limestone 53.4 kWh/ton limestone 9.6 kWh/ton limestone Credit3 1.925 kWh/thousand gal of sluice water Electricity usage rates for particulate collection varies for each case as indicated by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc. However, CES indicates that the total amount of electricity required for dust collection is less due to dry limestone injection than is normally required for collecting fly ash alone; therefore, an operating cost credit is claimed equivalent to the electricity saved. Unit costs which areincorporated in the case projections for utilities are shown below: Utility No. 2 fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Unit cost $0.11/gal. .03/Mgal. .007/kWh Fuel oil cost is based on an acutal 1972 published price for Chicago, Illinois (7). Costs for sluice water and electricity are also 1972 prices; however, they are somewhat higher than typical power plant costs to compensate for the additional generation demand placed on the power unit and to account for the more rapid capital recovery for the additional facilities than required for new plants. 4. Operating labor and supervision - Operating labor requirements for the dry limestone injection tests at Shawnee were somewhat high due to the extensive amount of monitoring required for the numerous sampling probes which were utilized. Consequently, a. Electricity requirements are reduced as a result of different resistivities of the solids. Amount of reduction depends upon sulfur content and injection stoichiometry. b. Sluice water is dependent upon disposal system design rather than total solids disposal. ------- L-23 projections of operating labor are somewhat lower than incurred during the tests. Since labor requirements are primarily a function of limestone throughput and on-stream time, annual labor requirements at 8,760 hours/year (365 days) were estimated for four levels of injection at full load. These base labor requirements were then adjusted according to on-stream ratio using a 0.5 scaling exponent. The estimated labor breakdown at 8,760 hours/year and the adjusted total labor requirement for operation at 5,000 hours/year are shown in table 6. Tables Estimated Labor Requirements for Dry Limestone Injection Process Estimated annual operating labor requirement, man-hrs. at 8,760 hours operation/year Limestone throughput, tons(dry)/hour 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 Heavy equipment operator (unloading) 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 Conveying, feeding and disposal 2,080 4,160 6,240 8,760 Plant operation 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 Super- vision 400 500 600 700 Adjusted total operating labor required man hours at 5,000 hours Total operation/year 13,320 15,500 17,680 20,300 10,070 11,720 13,370 15,350 Based on 1972 TVA labor rates (13), a composite operating rate of $6.00/hr including overhead and supervisory expense is utilized for the evaluation. For the 52-case study, labor costs are not escalated over the life of the project. However, the effect of escalation at rates up to 10%/year is presented in Section II. 5. Maintenance - Solids drying and grinding usually are maintenance prone operations. Although actual operating data over an extended period of time is the best source of information for defining maintenance requirements, insufficient data was generated during the Shawnee program to accurately define these costs. Maintenance costs chargeable to the process are, therefore, estimates based on actual recorded data. For purposes of this study, precipitator maintenance is estimated as two percent of the precipitator fixed capital investment for 5,000 hours annual operation. A slightly higher maintenance charge ranging from 3.1 - 3.5% is projected for the combined drying grinding, injection, and solids disposal facilities. Specific areas which were maintenance prone, such as the hydroveyors in the sluice system, were recognized in arriving at these figures. Maintenance costs usually increase over the life of a project; however, in the case of a power plant related system where on-stream time declines over the remaining life, estimating maintenance as a percentage of investment for a given on-stream time will probably suffice. Estimates for other on-stream times are scaled exponentially according to on-stream ratio using a 0.6 scaling exponent. Using this method, the maintenance per unit time increases over the project life as on-stream time decreases. 6. Overhead - Overheads are usually a complex function of plant and company size, and product research and marketing staff, and are likely to vary slightly from installation to installation. However, for consistency in the cost projections, a common method for ------- L-24 estimating overheads was established. In all of the cost projections plant overhead is estimated as 20% of conversion costs, and administrative overhead is estimated as 10% of operating labor. Although-costs may vary widely for an actual installation, these projections are representative of the expected values. 7. Thermal effect of dry limestone injection - When limestone is injected into a boiler, the required coal-firing rate for the power unit is adversely affected by the level of injection stoichiometry for each sulfur content and must be adjusted to maintain the same power generating capacity prior to dry limestone injection. Based on operating data for Shawnee unit 10, a coal-firing rate of 0.780 Ibs/kWh prior to injection is assumed for each power plant size considered. This firing rate is adjusted upward to compensate for the thermal effect of dry limestone injection as discussed in Appendix H, Additional Heat Requirement Calculations. Costs for the additional coal are estimated and displayed on the annual operating cost projections as the thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant. This charge is equivalent to a coal cost of $6.00/ton and a processing cost of $0.30/ton, including incremental costs for grinding and conveying. 8. Analyses - Purchased limestone and waste solids are the only materials which require analyses in the dry limestone injection process. Since both of these materials are proportional, projections of analyses requirements are estimated on the basis of limestone throughput. Based on Shawnee experience, approximately 1 hour/day or 208 hours/year at an annual on-stream time of 5,000 hours is required for analyses at a limestone throughput of 20 tons/hour. Requirements for other limestone rates are proportional to the relative limestone usage. A rate of $10.00/hour including overhead, supplies, and supervisory expense is projected for laboratory work. 9. Working capital - For projection purposes, working capital for the dry limestone injection process may be estimated as the equivalent cost of a four weeks supply of raw material (limestone). Although the magnitude of the estimated working capital required for 5,000 hours annual operation varies from $2,600 for a 50 MW, 0.8% S coal, 3.0 injection stoichiometry installation to $153,000 for a 350 MW, 5.0% S coal, 4.0 injection stoichiometry installation, the effect on annual and lifetime operating costs at a cost of money of 10% is relatively small. Lifetime Operating Costs—Under regulated economics, annual operating costs vary each year as the rate base declines due to depreciation "write-off" (the cost of money and income taxes are applied to undepreciated portion of investment); in addition, any changes in on-stream time of the power unit must be recognized. For any given case it is desirable, therefore, to have a year-to-year tabulation of operating costs. Furthermore, recognizing the time value of money, these annual operating costs should be discounted at the cost of money (10% for this study) to the initial year of operation for ready comparison of present worth to other pollution control means such as the annual costs required for low sulfur fuels. The total life of a coal-fired power unit is about 30 years (5). For the 52 case parametric study, lifetime operating costs are based on 15 years remaining life of the power plant after installation of the dry limestone injection process; however, the effect of various ------- L-25 other remaining lives is also studied. Historically, the operating usage of most power plants declines toward the end of their life. To reflect this experience, the following declining load operating profile is assumed during the remaining years of operation.: Annual operation, (on-stream time) Plant age, Plant remaining hours at full years life, years generating capacity 16-20 15-11 5,000 21-25 10-6 3,500 26-30 5-1 1,500 Lifetime operating cost analyses are extremely valuable in evaluation of regulated investments. They are an accumulation of each year's cost and, therefore, are more representative of actual outlays for process operation. Since rate of investment profitability is prescribed under regulated economics, the data generated by the tabulation of lifetime operating costs indicates the total effect of pollution abatement on the cost of power to the consumer. Actual and present worth lifetime costs are, therefore, projected for each of the cases as overall measures of process economics. In addition, equivalent lifetime unit operating costs expressed as $/ton coal burned, mills/kWh, and $/ton sulfur removed are presented. ------- L-27 II. Summary of Results and Conclusions Results of the 52 Case Parametric Study Investment—The estimated total fixed investment requirements for the dry limestone injection process are summarized in table 7 for each of the 52 cases established. Abbreviated investment estimates which show the major area investment costs are given in tables A-l to A-52 of Appendix A in Process Economics Section. It should be mentioned that the system used in these projections is one of minimum cost, and may not be compatible to all potential users of the process. The estimated investment requirements would be higher for power plants which require additional pond facilities for disposal of solids, or for systems with other combinations of existing dust collection facilities. The effect of these additional requirements is discussed later. Table 7 Total Fixed Investment Requirements for Dry Limestone Injection Process Applied to Existing Power Units Equipped with Mechanical and Electrostatic Dust Collectors in Series Sulfur in coal % 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Total fixed 50 MW $ 751,500 834,500 908,300 975,000 1,036,300 817,100 1,070,500 1,271,500 1,442,000 995,300 1,332,900 1,602,600 1,838,700 units $/kW 15.0 16.7 18.2 19.5 20.7 16.3 21.4 25.4 28.8 19.9 26.7 32.1 36.8 150 MW $ 1,280,100 1,431,500 1,568,800 1,694,400 1,808,000 1,404,600 1,874,200 2,251,400 2,574,200 1,736,200 2,369,500 2,926,600 3,376,200 units $/kW 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.3 12.1 9.4 12.5 15.0 17.2 11.6 15.8 19.5 22.5 investment 250 MW $ 1,695,100 1,868,100 2,086,100 2,253,600 2,407,700 1,865,600 2,498,900 3,011,400 3,498,000 2,314,500 3,221,100 3,968,400 4,582,000 units $/kW 6.8 7.5 8.3 9.0 9.6 7.5 10.0 12.0 14.0 9.3 12.9 15.9 18.3 350 MW $ 2,032,300 2,278,800 2,503,200 2,707,700 2,893,300 2,238,600 3,005,900 3,676,800 4,262,100 2,782,700 3,927,000 4,766,400 5,645,500 units $/kW 5.8 6.5 7.2 7.7 8.3 6.4 8.6 10.5 12.2 8.0 11.2 13.6 16.1 a. Fixed investment includes cost of additional electrostatic precipitator for reducing dust emission to same level obtained prior to installation of dry limestone injection process. Additional pond disposal area not included. The total fixed investment for the dry limestone injection process ranges from $751,500 ($15.0/kW) for a 50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 3.0 to $5,645,500 ($16.1/kW) for a 350 MW - 5.0% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 4.0; however, unit investment costs vary from $5.8 to $36.8/kW depending upon power unit size, sulfur in coal, and injection stoichiometry. The effect of power unit size and injection stoichiometry on total dry limestone process investment is shown in figures 8, 9, and 10 for the three variations in sulfur content of coal. The relationship between sulfur content of coal and injection stoichiometry on total fixed investment for a 150 MW power unit is presented in figure 11. Relative investment cost distribution—The relative distribution of direct investment costs for the three base cases is shown in table 8. As indicated, the limestone grinding system and the incremental electrostatic precipitator system are the major investment items for the process. Although the distribution of estimated costs varies somewhat for each of ------- 00 0 0 Power unit size, MW Figure 8 . Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Total Dry Limestone Process Investment: 0.8% S Coal ------- 2 . •d C -3 O J (0 X 1-1 ------- oo o 0 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW 350 Figure 10 Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stolen!ometry on Total Dry Limestone Process Investment: $.0% 3 Coal ------- I Existing units (9 c O 43 G V 5 0) I •o. 0> X i—• i OS 1 -P 0 I 26.67 20.00 g to I 13.33 •8 X •H	------- L-32 Table 8 Relative Distribution of Projected Direct Investment Costs for Dry Limestone Injection Process Relative investment distribution, % of subtotal direct investment Process area General yard work Limestone storage and feed system Limestone drying system Limestone grinding system Limestone injection system Equipment foundations Instrumentation Piping Electrical power supply Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler Incremental electrostatic precipitator system Incremental solids disposal system Total direct investment 150MW-0.8%S 5.0 stoich. 1.3 4.7 7.7 15.1 9.9 3.9 3.7 7.1 6.2 8.5 22.8 9.1 150 MW-3.0%S 2.0 stoich. 1.3 5.5 8.0 16.5 9.8 4.1 3.4 7.3 6.2 8.7 21.6 7.6 150 MW - 5.0% S 2.0 stoich. 1.3 6.5 8.2 18.3 9.5 4.5 3.1 7.5 6.2 8.9 20.0 6.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 the 52 cases, these distributions indicate the relative contribution of each processing area to the subtotal direct costs. Annual operating cost—Based on an annual operation of 5,000 hours/year, projected operating cost results of the 52-case parametric study are summarized in tables 9, 10, and 11 for each of the three levels of sulfur in coal. Detailed breakdowns of these projected annual costs are presented in tables A-53 through A-104 of Appendix A. Average annual operating costs range from $298,400 ($3.05/ton coal burned) for a 50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 3.0 to $4,122,700 ($5.85/ton coal burned) for a 350 MW 5.0% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 4.0. Unit operating costs vary from $1.23 to $8.72/ton coal burned, or from 0.48 to 3.51 mills/kWh. Operating costs per ton of sulfur removed decrease with increasing power unit size and injection stoichiometry. These unit costs range from $316/ton sulfur removed for a 350 MW - 5.0% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 4.0 to $2,664/ton sulfur removed for a 50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 3.0. Based on the results given in the tables, the effects of several variables on operating costs are presented graphically. ------- L-33 Table 9 Average Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics 0.8% Sulfur Coal3 Power unit size, MW 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350 350 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Average annual cost, $ 298,400 331,300 362,800 392,300 420,800 501,600 580,900 656,600 730,100 801,500 681,300 796,000 920,300 1,034,100 1,145,200 843,800 1,006,000 1,162,400 1,315,100 1,477,100 Unit $/ton coal 3.05 3.38 3.69 3.99 4.27 1.71 1.97 2.23 2.47 2.71 1.39 1.62 1.87 2.10 2.32 1.23 1.47 1.69 1.91 2.14 operating mills /kWh 1.19 1.33 1.45 1.57 1.68 0.67 0.78 0.88 0.97 1.07 0.55 0.64 0.74 0.83 0.92 0.48 0.58 0.66 0.75 0.84 cost $/ton S removal 2664 2301 1972 1816 1644 1529 1345 1207 1127 1054 1217 1106 998 958 895 1076 998 902 870 824 a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life 5000 hrs. operation/yr ------- L-34 Table 10 Average Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics 3.0% Sulfur Coal3 Power unit size, MW 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Average annual cost, $ 323,100 435,100 536,400 631,700 561,800 835,200 1,091,400 1,337,300 773,100 1,197,800 1,612,100 2,018,100 965,900 1,547,400 2,120,500 2,667,100 Unit $/ton coal 3.30 4.42 5.42 6.36 1.91 2.83 3.68 4.48 1.58 2.43 3.26 4.06 1.41 2.25 3.06 3.83 operating mills /kWh 1.29 1.74 2.15 2.53 0.75 1.11 1.46 1.78 0.62 0.96 1.29 1.61 0.55 0.88 1.21 1.52 cost $/ton S removal 1188 800 651 576 695 512 443 406 568 440 391 368 507 406 368 348 a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life 5000 hrs. operation/yr ------- L-35 Table 11 Average Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics 5.0% Sulfur Coal3 Power unit size, MW 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Average annual cost, $ 399,300 569,300 726,400 878,000 748,000 1,174,500 1,611,000 2,012,800 1,061,200 1,762,000 2,426,800 3,081,500 1,351,200 2,307,000 3,198,800 4,122,700 Unit $/ton coal 4.06 5.74 7.27 8.72 2.54 3.95 5.38 6.66 2.16 3.56 4.86 6.12 1.96 3.33 4.57 5.85 operating mills /kWh 1.60 2.28 2.91 3.51 1.00 1.57 2.15 2.68 0.85 1.41 1.94 2.47 0.77 1.32 1.83 2.36 cost $/ton S removal 876 624 525 471 550 429 389 360 465 386 351 331 412 361 330 316 a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life 5000 hrs. operation/yr ------- L-36 The effects of sulfur content of coal and injection stoichiometry on annual and unit operating costs for a 150 MW installation are shown in figure 12. Figures 13, 14, and 15 indicate the relationship between power unit size, injection stoichiometry, and annual operating costs for each of the three levels of sulfur. The effects of injection stoichiometry and power unit size on unit operating cost expressed as both $/ton coal burned and mills/kWh are indicated in figures 16 and 17 for 0.8 and 3.0% S coals. Although somewhat higher costs are obtained, the relationship for 5.0% sulfur coal is similar. Unit operating costs per ton of sulfur removed are shown in figures 18, 19, and 20 for each of the three levels of sulfur in coal. Relative operating cost distribution—The relative distribution of projected annual operating costs for the three base cases at an annual on-stream time of 5,000 hours is shown in table 12. As shown in the table, limestone cost and capital charges are the two most prominent cost items. Although the relative cost distribution of each item changes somewhat with variations in power unit size, sulfur content of fuel, and injection stoichiometry, the other cost components are of minor importance in relation to the annual costs for limestone and capital charges. Lifetime operating cost—Based on the operating profile established for the 52 case parametric study, lifetime operating costs were projected. Results of these projections are summarized in tables 13, 14, and 15 for the three levels of sulfur in coal. Computer print-outs which show the year-to-year operating costs corresponding to these lifetime projections are presented in tables A-105 to A-156 of Appendix A. In addition to the actual outlay annual values shown in these printouts, both actual and discounted overall total costs and unit costs either per ton of coal burned or mills per kilowatt hour are presented. Lifetime operating costs range from $3,909,400 (present worth = $2,223,900) fora 50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 3:0 to $47,281,000 (present worth = $27,443,100) for a 350 MW - 5.0% S coal-fired unit with arrinjection stoichiometry of 4.0. Lifetime unit operating costs are somewhat higher than average annual operating costs due to the pronounced effect of the declining operating profile assumed for the power plant. The effect of power unit size and injection stoichiometry on (1) lifetime total operating cost, (2) lifetime unit operating cost, $/ton coal burned and (3) lifetime unit operating cost, $/ton sulfur removed, is shown in figures 21, 22, and 23, respectively, for a 0.8% S coal-fired installation. Both present worth and actual costs are indicated over the complete range of injection stoichiometries utilized for the parametric study. Figures 24, 25, and 26 show similar relationships for a 3.0% S coal-fired installation with an injection stoichiometry of 2.0. Relationships for a 5.0% S coal-fired installation with an injection stoichiometry of 2.0 are shown in figures 27, 28, and 29. ------- o> O •a Ui C O -p (0 o o a •H -P 0) Existing units 5QOO hrs annual operation Regulated economics 2.0 1-5 1.0 0.5 0 o 6.76 1 5.07 3.38 1.69 -P CO O o I -p •H a Figure 12 23 ^5 Sulfur in coal, % Effect of Sulfur Content of Coal and Injection Stoichiometry on Annual and Unit Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process: 150 MW Units 2.67 2.00 1.33 0.67 (0 rH .p s o &0 g o •p T-l a 00 •vj ------- Existing units 5000 hr. annual operation Regulated economics 0 0 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW r CAJ 00 Figure Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Annual Operating Coat of Dry Limestone Process: 0.8# S Coal ------- w r-t O TJ ------- 10 fH 43 I •H tn o 2 o H I I I Existing units 5000 hr. annual operation Regulated economics 0 Figure _1* 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Annual Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process: 5.0% S Coal ------- I I Existing units 5000 hr annual operation Regulated economics \ n) o u 4J o o 0) 0. o I 350 tf* units I 5.16 2.36 1.58 m m O V •H 0) V O -u 0.79 34 5678 Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal Figure l£ . Effect of Injection Stoichiometry and Power Unit Size on Unit Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process: 0.8$ S Coal ------- T Existing units 5000 hr annual operation Regulated economics -a 8 O O § 4J •OT- 4J CO O U v-4 J-l n) M 1 I 3.16 2.36 1.58 I w •u oj O o (90 c co o -P 0.79 Figure 12345 Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal 17 . Effect of Injection Stoichiometry and power Unit Size on Unit Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process: 3.0$ S Coal ------- § 2500 •3 to 2000 -P CO o o 1 -p S I 1500 1000 500 0 Figure I I Existing units 5000 hrs annual operation Regulated economics u> 50 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW 250 300 350 Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed: 0.8$ S Coal ------- §2000 CO §1500 -^ •% •p 8 o glooo •H -p g •p B 500 Existing units 5000 hrs annual operation Regulated economics 1.0 Injection stoichiometry 0 50 100 150 200 Pover unit size, MW 250 300 350 Figure 19 Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed: 3.0$ S Coal ------- I 1 800 DO g 8 o bO C 2 (U & 14-00 200 Existing units 5000 hrs annual operation Regulated economies en 0 Figure 20 100 150 200 250 Power Unit size, MW 300 350 Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed: 5.0$ S Coal ------- L-46 Table 12 Relative Distribution of Projected Operating Costs for Dry Limestone Injection Process 150 MW-0.8%S 150 MW - 3.0% S 150 MW - 5.0% 5-Ostoich. 2.0stoich. 2.0stoich. DIRECT COSTS Delivered raw material Limestone 25.2 29.8 35.6 Conversion costs Operating labor and supervision 9.2 7.2 5.2 Utilities Fuel oil Sluice water Electricity Maintenance Drying, grinding, injection & solids disposal area Dust collection Analyses INDIRECT COSTS Average capital charges Overhead Plant Administrative Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total operating cost 3.6 1.2 3.4 6.1 1.1 0.2 42.1 4.9 0.9 2.1 100.0 4.3 1.0 3.8 5.8 1.0 0.2 39.5 4.6 0.7 2.1 100.0 5.1 0.7 4.5 5.2 0.8 0.1 35.5 4.3 0.5 2.5 100.0 ------- Table 13 Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics 0.8% Sulfur Coal3 Lifetime operating cost Cumulative present worth of net increase in cost of power. Power unit size, MW 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350 350 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 (net increase $ 3,909,400 4,326,400 4,715,000 5,081,600 5,428,600 6,489,000 7,438,200 8,337,700 9,200,500 10,030,300 8,715,800 10,038,500 11,505,000 12,818,800 14,087,600 10,696,900 12,562,700 14,358,000 16,096,400 17,930,200 $/ton coal 3.99 4.41 4.80 5.16 5.51 2.21 2.53 2.83 3.12 3.39 1.78 2.05 2.34 2.61 2.86 1.56 1.83 2.09 2.34 2.60 in cost of Power) mills/kWh 1.56 1.73 1.89 2.03 2.17 0.87 0.99 1.11 1.23 1.34 0.70 0,80 0.92 1.03 1.13 0.61 0.72 0.82 0.92 1.02 $/ton S removed 3491 3004 2563 2353 2121 1978 1722 1533 1420 1320 1556 1394 1251 1187 1101 1364 1246 1115 1065 1001 discounted at 10%/yr $ 2,223,900 2,464,300 2,689,400 2,901,100 3,102,100 3,712,400 4,262,400 4,784,000 5,284,900 5,766,600 4,999,800 5,768,300 6,619,100 7,382,400 8,120,000 6,146,600 7,230,600 8,274,100 9,285,400 10,347,900 $/ton coal 2.27 2.51 2.74 2.95 3.15 1.26 1.45 1.62 1.79 1.95 1.02 1.18 1.35 1.50 1.65 0.90 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.50 mills/kWh 0.89 0.99 1.08 1.16 1.24 0.49 0.57 0.64 0.70 0.77 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.59 0.65 0.35 0.41 0.47 0.53 0.59 $/ton S removed 1986 1711 1462 1343 1212 1132 987 879 816 759 893 801 719 684 634 784 717 642 614 577 a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile: 5 yr @ 5000 hr/yr 5 yr @ 3500 hr/yr 5yr @ 1500 hr/yr ------- Table 14 Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics 3.0% Sulfur Coal3 Lifetime operating cost Cumulative present worth of net increase in cost of power, Power unit size, MW 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 (net $ 4,227,100 5,607,200 6,826,500 7,955,200 7,220,700 10,438,200 13,388,600 16,181,700 9,808,700 14,708,000 19,404,000 23,965,700 12,121,000 18,751,600 25,199,100 31,268,000 increase $/ton coal 4.31 5.70 6.90 8.00 2.46 3.53 4.51 5.43 2.00 2.99 3.92 4.82 1.77 2.72 3.64 4.49 in cost of Power) mills/kWh 1.69 2.24 2.73 3.18 0.96 1.39 1.79 2.16 0.78 1.18 1.55 1.92 0.69 1.07 1.44 1.79 $/ton S removed 1554 1031 828 726 894 640 543 491 721 541 471 437 637 492 437 408 discounted at 10%/yr $ 2,406,900 3,205,200 3,911,300 4,565,900 4,135,700 6,002,800 7,717,400 9,342,200 5,633,500 8,480,000 11,207,900 13,863,600 6,973,000 10,824,500 14,573,700 18,110,200 $/ton coal 2.46 3.26 3.95 4.59 1.41 2.03 2.60 3.13 1.15 1.72 2.27 2.79 1.02 1.57 2.10 2.60 mills/kWh 0.96 1.28 1.56 1.83 0.55 0.80 1.03 1.25 0.45 0.68 0.90 1.11 0.40 0.62 0.83 1.03 $/ton S removed 885 589 475 417 512 368 313 283 414 312 272 253 366 284 253 236 a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile: 5 yr @ 5000 hr/yr 5 yr @ 3500 hr/yr 5 yr @ 1500 hr/yr ------- Table 15 Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics 5.0% Sulfur Coal3 Lifetime operating cost Cumulative present worth of net increase in cost of power, Power unit size, MW 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350 Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 (net $ 5,172,200 7,219,100 9,067,100 10,830,500 9,423,500 14,341,700 19,304,000 23,788,000 13,152,300 21,118,800 28,537,000 35,742,200 16,533,600 27,296,600 37,086,500 47,281,000 increase $/ton coal 5.26 7.28 9.08 10.76 3.20 4.82 6.44 7.87 2.68 4.26 5.71 7.10 2.40 3.94 5.30 6.71 in cost of Power) mills/kWh 2.07 2.89 3.63 4.33 1.26 1.91 2.57 3.17 1.05 1.69 2.28 2.86 0.94 1.56 2.12 2.70 $/ton S removed 1134 792 655 581 693 524 466 425 577 463 412 384 518 428 383 362 discounted at 10%/yr $ 2,953,500 4,139,200 5,211,300 6,235,100 5,413,800 8,271,800 11,153,800 13,765,400 7,575,100 12,204,500 16,526,400 20,723,500 9,538,500 15,799,300 21,504,200 27,443,100 $/ton coal 3.00 4.18 5.22 6.19 1.84 2.78 3.72 4.56 1.54 2.46 3.31 4.12 1.39 2.28 3.08 3.89 mills/kWh 1.18 1.66 2.08 2.49 0.72 1.10 1.49 1.84 0.61 0.98 1.32 1.66 0.55 0.90 1.23 1.57 $/ton S removed 648 454 377 335 398 302 269 246 332 268 239 222 305 247 222 210 (£> a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile: 5 yr @ 5000 hr/yr 5 yr @ 3500 hr/yr 5yr @ 1500 hr/yr ------- CO h at O •O to a o 20 15 3 10 Pi o 0 -P 5 — Actual dollars -— Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics tn o Power unit size, MW Figure 21 . Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Lifetime Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection: 0.8$ S Coal ------- c I r-l 8 O C o •p 00 o o 8 Actual dollars -— Present worth if discounted at 10^6 to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics o -p •U V Injection Stoichiometry 01 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW 250 300 350 Figure 22 Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of Plant: 0.8^ S Coal ------- •o 0) 4> h 4000 eg C O (0 O u CD M & O 5000 2000 1000 •P Vi •H H3 Actual dollars — Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 3 Injection Stoichiometry 100 150 200 250 300 350 Power unit size, MW Figure Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed Over Life of Plant: 0.8# S Coal ------- CO 20 HI I I Actual dollars --- Present worth if discounted at 10% to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiometry e o •H +3 (0 «J 0) •H 4-> V Vi 10 CJI CO 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW 250 300 350 Figure Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Lifetime Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection: J.0# S Coal ------- Actual dollars 8 a o v c o •P W O o 01 IH •» P. O § 0> V •rl 1-3 — Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiotnetry en 100 150 200 250 500 550 Power unit size, MW Figure 25 • Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiooetry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of Plant- 5.0# s Coal ------- T T ? 1 CO c O -P -P 0> O O 8P •H -p 2 O J-> •H C ------- CO to A <-4 O •o c O -p ea O v -U «5 V. & O V 4-4 I I I I Actual dollars --- Present worth if discounted at lO^t to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiometry 20 cr> MW Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Lifetime Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection: 5.0$ S Coal ------- 4) -4J V Actual dollars Present worth if discounted at 10# to initial yr Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiometry Figure 150 200 Power unit size, MW Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of Plant: 5.0$ S Coal ------- o e ------- L-59 Results of Sensitivity Analyses Sensitivities of the dry limestone injection process investment and operating costs to variations in several of the major factors are discussed below. 1. Sootblowers—The effect of additional sootblower requirements on total fixed capital investment for the three base case installations is shown in table 16. For these projections, a total installed cost of $40,000 each including indirect costs was utilized. These results indicate that total investment requirements are increased less than 10% with installation of up to four additional sooblowers. Although total operating costs were not established, capital charges account for an increase in annual operating costs of approximately $7,000 for each. 2. Particle size of injected limestone—The dry grinding and classifying equipment at Shawnee were designed and operated at various limestone size reduction capabilities so the effect of particle size on SO2 removal could be determined. Two levels of grind, 80% - 400 mesh and 50% - 400 mesh, were given greatest attention. Although the Shawnee data was limited and is not totally conclusive, directional results of these and other investigations indicate that increased SO2 removal efficiencies are obtained with injection of finer ground limestone. To determine the sensitivity of limestone particle size on process economics, investment and operating cost data for three levels of grind at various throughput capacities were established (2). Results shown in figure 30 indicate that the investment required for grinding to 80% - 400 mesh is about 35-40% greater than that required for grinding to 80% - 200 mesh; however, the higher grinding capability increases total process investment approximately 7-10%. Operating cost results shown in figures 31 and 32 indicate that overall grinding costs are approximately 25-30% higher for the fine grind facilities. The effect of higher levels of grind on overall process costs is realtively small because grinding costs are^only 5-6% of the total operating cost. It should be noted that, based on the limited Shawnee data using stones of varying hardness, grindability is not a significant cost factor. 3. Particulate removal alternatives—The particulate collection facilities on Shawnee unit 10 consist of a 65% effective mechanical collector followed by a 90% effective electrostatic precipitator. This system which has an overall fly ash collection efficiency of 97% was designed, installed, and placed into operation prior to installation of the dry limestone injection process. Additional solids collection capacity was not installed for the injection tests; however, performance data with and without dry limestone injection were derived for estimating incremental requirements and costs. Although EPA has not promulgated particulate emission standards for existing power units, many states and local governing bodies have. In many cases, particulate removal efficiencies greater than 97% are required. For the lack of a better basis, it is assumed that these regulations will require plants utilizing dry limestone injection to maintain particulate emissions at a level equivalent to that obtained prior to installation of ------- Table 16 Effect of Additional Sootblower Requirements on Total Fixed Capital Investment: 150 MW Power Units Power unit installation No. of additional sootblowers required 0 1 2 3 4 0.8 %S Total process investment 1,568,800 1,608,800 1,648,800 1,688,800 1,728,800 - 5.0 stoichiometry Sootblower cost sensitivity, % of total investment 0.0 2.5 4.9 7.1 9.3 3.0% S Total process investment 1,874,200 1,914,200 1,954,200 1,994,200 2,034,200 - 2.0 stoichiometry Sootblower cost sensitivity, % of total investment 0.0 2.1 4.1 6.0 7.9 5.0% S Total process investment 2,369,500 2,409,500 2,449,500 2,489,500 2,529,500 - 2.0 stoichiometry Sootblower cost sensitivity, % of total investment 0.0 1.7 3.3 4.8 6.3 ------- to 4 0) o •o 05 CO o JS 4i c s •H 00 O EH I Existing units 800 600 400 200 10 Figure 15 20 25 30 Grinding capacity, tons/hour Effect of Limestone Grinding Capacity and Fineness of Grind on Total Grinding System Investment: Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- Existing units. • 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 5000 hrs/yr operation £ 250 o CD as to -P CO O O 200 150 I 05 100 10 15 20 25 Grinding capacity, tons/hour 30 Figure Effect of Limestone Grinding Capacity and Fineness of Grind on Annual Operating Cost for Grinding: Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 5000 hrs/yr operation 0) c o 4J «0 c o 3 -u to o o •H •H to •P a> oo 10 Figure 15 20 25 JO Grinding capacity, tons/hour Effect of Limestone Grinding Capacity and Fineness of Grind on Unit Grinding Cost: Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- L-64 the process. For consistency in the evaluation, a dust removal efficiency of 99% prior to injection or an outlet grain emission of 0.03 gr/acf is assumed. From their study of electrostatic precipitator performance during the Shawnee Dry Limestone Injection test program, Cottrelt Environmental Systems, Inc.1 reported five separate alternatives which may be considered for design of additional dust collection facilities, including: 1. Size modification of the presently installed dust collecting system. 2. Installation of a "hot" precipitator. 3. Gas cooling ahead of the dust collecting system (in conjunction with size modification). 4. Gas conditioning ahead of the dust collecting system (in conjunction with size modification). 5. Electrical energization of the precipitator. Based on their study, CES indicates that with gas cooling ahead of the dust collecting system (alternative 3), the least additional precipitator plate area might be required. Their results, however, do not include costs for gas cooling facilities, nor do they represent carefully researched data needed for design modifications of such a system. Since design requirements for the other alternatives are also speculative at this time, size modifications of the presently installed dust collecting system (alternative 1) is considered the most practical method for meeting additional dust removal requirements for existing power plants. The Shawnee test data were used by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc., to estimate incremental precipitator investment requirements based on increasing the precipitator plate area for a 150 MW unit with any one of the following four combinations of dust collectors prior to limestone injection: Overall fly ash collection efficiency Dust collector type prior to injection, % 1. No collection devices 0 2. Mechanical collector 65 3. Electrostatic collector 99 4. Mechanical and electrostatic collectors in series 99 1. Brown, R. F. "Report and Analysis of Field Tests at Shawnee Station of TV A, Including a Techno-Economic Evaluation of Options for Maintaining the Stack Emission Rate with Limestone Injection Equivalent to a Baseline of No Limestone Injection." Final draft prepared by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. CPA 22-69-139, Particulates Collection Study, TVA Dry Limestone Tests. October 31, 1972. ------- L-65 Assuming a final outlet grain loading of 0.03 gr/acf after injection for each sulfur content and stoichiometry, the estimated fixed investment requirements are tabulated in table 17 and are shown graphically in figures 33 through 36 for the various combinations of existing collection facilities. Depending on the dust removal capability existing prior to injection, incremental dust collection investment could cover a wide range, as much as 2.4 times that projected in the case study (mechanical and electrostatic in series). Assuming no collection devices existing prior to injection, total process investment could be approximately 28% higher than estimated in the parametric evaluation. 4. Disposal costs—In the 52-case parametric study, additional pond facilities were not provided since the availability and cost of additional space depends upon the actual plant location. In many cases, some additional disposal area will be necessary, and these additional investment costs should be added to the dry limestone injection process investment. Figure 37 shows the relationship between the incremental annual disposal burden and the projected pond disposal costs incorporated in the parametric study. As this figure indicates, the projected disposal expense decreases with increasing solids disposal burden to a cost less than $0.50/ton of solids. For the three base cases, these costs range from 4.6 to 5.1% of the total process operating cost. As an indication of the effect of higher disposal costs, a charge of $2.00/ton of solids would result in overall disposal costs ranging from 7 to 15% of the projected annual operating costs for these cases. 5. Raw material costs—Since limestone cost is one of the major operating expenses, the sensitivity of price on annual operating cost was determined. Figure 38 shows the effect of injection stoichiometry and delivered limestone price on the annual and unit operating costs for a 150 MW, 3.0% S coal-fired installation. At a stoichiometry of 4.0, a $2.00 change in the price of limestone results in a 20-30% change in annual costs. The effect of power unit size and delivered limestone price on annual and unit operating costs for the process are shown in figures 39 and 40. ------- Table 1 7 Incremental Electrostatic Precipitator Invesetment3 Required to Maintain Outlet Particulate Loading of 0.03 gr/acf on 1 50 MW Power Units Utilizing Dry Limestone Injection Injection stoichiometry, Sulfur in moles CaO injected per mole coal,% sulfur in coal 0.8 3.0 0.8 4.0 0.8 5.0 0.8 6.0 0.8 7.0 None 763 778 794 808 824 Incremental electrostatic precipitator costs, thousands of dollars, for power units equipped with the following existing dust collection facilities3 99% Eff. Mechancial and electrostatic collectors in series 65% Eff. Mechanical collector 582 601 619 635 648 99% Eff. Electrostatic collector 408 423 439 453 469 321 339 358 373 386 cr> CTi 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 790 843 886 924 831 905 967 1021 606 666 716 753 653 734 797 852 435 488 531 569 476 550 612 666 345 405 454 491 392 473 535 591 a. Including indirects b. Assumes coal with 16% ash ------- 1.2 to § •1-1 .8 CO a) > •So. 6 "8 0.4 T T 150 MW units Fly ash loading:^. 23 gr/acf Outlet loading after dust collection - O.05 gr/acf CTl 02468 Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal Figure 33 . Investment Requirements for Adding Incremental Electrostatic Precipitator to Power Plant without Collectors: Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- 1.0 •§ 0.8 o en O •H iH i-l ll 0.6 •S 0.4 ------- 0.8 en M rt gO,6 w o .0.4 CO ! •gO. 2 x T T 150 MW units Ftyash loading - 3.23 gr/acf Outlet loading after duet collection - O.OJ gr/acf CD IO 02468 Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal Figure 55 . Investment Requirements for Adding Incremental Electrostatic Precipitator to Power Plant Having an Existing 99$ Effective Precipitator: Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- 10 h A r-i o •o w 8 c 0) i 10 I T3 0> 0.8 I I I I 150 MH units fly ash loadings 3.23 gr/acf Outlet loading after dust collection - 0.03 gr/acf 0.6 0.2 -j o 2 U 6 8 Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal Figure Investment Requirements for Adding Incremental Electrostatic Precipitator to Power Plant Having an Existing 99$ Effective Combination of Mechanical and Electrostatic Collectors: Dry Limestone Injection Process ------- 600 T T T T r-l o •O CO •s ol m 3 CO o o OS CO a •J •rt •O (O •O O TO § c Annual costs for solids disposal to pond excluding cost of pond Variable solids disposal costs 500 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 50 100 1-50 200 250 Incremental solids disposal burden, M tons/year _. Effect of Incremental Solids Disposal Burden on Annual Disposal Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Solids 300 ------- Existing 150 MW units 5000 hrs annual operation Regulated economics 2.0 o T> W e o CO o o oo Pi » i.o 0) CU O fl .§0.5 2.67 ------- Existing units 2.0 injection stoichiometry 5000 hrs annual operation Regulated economics co 50 Figure 39 » 100 150 200 Power unit size, MW 250 300 350 Effect of Power Unit Size and Delivered Limestone Cost on Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process: 3.0$ S Coal ------- •o 8 a o -p -66- -p CO O D 00 a •H -p 2 5-0 3-0 B 2.0 1.0 Existing units 2.0 injection stoichiometry 5000 hrs annual operation Regulated economics 0 Figure 100 150 200 250 Power unit size, MW 300 — 1.97 _ 1.58 CO (0 O o 1.18 Jf -p g ------- L-75 6. Annual on-stream time—The effect of variations in process on-stream time on annual operating costs are shown in figure 41 for three plant sizes at various sulfur levels of fuel. As illustrated, the cost effect is much more pronounced for large plants using high sulfur coal. Figure 42 shows the effect of on-stream time on unit operating costs per ton of sulfur removed. These unit operating costs decrease with increased on-stream time and are much higher for the low MW and low sulfur applications. This result is partially the effect of greater economy of scale for operating the larger installations; however, the largest factor is the reduced SO2 absorption efficiency attained for low sulfur coal. 7- Operation at half load—In the dry limestone injection test program, higher sulfur dioxide removal efficiencies were observed during operation of the power unit at half load. To determine the effect of these higher efficiencies on unit operating costs, projections are made for a 150 MW unit operating at full and half load assuming various annual on-stream hours. The resulting unit operating costs are shown in figures 43 and 44. Although approximately 50% lower operating costs per ton of sulfur removed are projected at reduced load, the costs per ton of coal burned are about the same. The operational costs at half load do not include a charge for power generating capacity intentionally idled to increase absorption which, if assessed, would make half-load operation more costly per unit of electricity generated. 8. Remaining life of plant—figures 45 through 47 show the effect of remaining life of the power plant on lifetime total and unit operating costs for various megawatt sizes. Similar relationships indicating the effect of remaining life of power plant on lifetime total and unit operating costs for various sulfur levels are given in figures 48 through 50. Although total operating costs increase as a result of greater operation, these results show that unit operating costs for power plants with 10 years remaining life are approximately half of similar unit costs for plants with 5 years remaining life. This result is attributed primarily to the increased annual capital charge rate resulting from operation for fewer years plus the difference in tons of coal burned or sulfur removed. 9. Labor cost escalation—To determine the effect of escalating labor rates on lifetime operating costs for dry limestone injection, projections assuming annual labor escalation rates varying from 0 to 10.0%/year were made. The results, presented in table 18 and figure 51, show that lifetime operating costs for dry limestone injection are not greatly increased as a result of labor cost escalation. Lifetime unit operating costs range from $3.53/ton of coal burned assuming no escalation to $3.95/ton at an escalation rate of 10%/year for the remaining 15-year life of the plant. At the higher escalation rate, lifetime costs are approximately 11.8% higher than projected costs excluding escalation. ------- Table 18 Effect of Annual Labor Escalation Rates on Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics - 1 50 MW Unit, 3.0% S in Coal, 2.0 Injection Stoichiometry a Annual labor escalation rate % 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Total increase in lifetime Cumulative present worth of net operating cost increase in cost of power Lifetime operating cost resulting from discounted at 10%/yr $ 10,438, 10,669, 10,944, 11,275, 11,670, 200 100 700 500 700 $/ton coal 3.53 3.61 3.71 3.82 3.95 mills/ kWh 2.03 2.06 2.10 2.15 2.20 $/ton S removed 640 654 671 691 715 escalation, % _ 2.2 4.9 8.0 11.8 $ 6,002 6,097 6,206 6,335 6,484 ,800 ,300 ,900 ,300 ,800 $/ton coal 1.39 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.56 mills/ kWh 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.86 $/ton S removed 368 374 380 388 397 -J en a. Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile: 5 yr at 5000 hr/yr 5 yr at 3500 hr/yr 5 yr at 1500 hr/yr ------- a h A r-i o •o w o •u w o u -p to fn V P< O SJ c Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 2.0 1.5 — 1.0 0.5 50 MW , 0.8* S, 3.0 stolen^ 0 1000 2000 3000 UOOO On-stream time, hrs 5000 Figure 41 . Effect of Annual On-Stream Time at Pull Load on Annual Operating Cost for Various Size Dry Limestone Injection Process Installations ------- Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life Regulated economics 8000 •o I v w 6000 c 50 MW units, 0.8# S, J.O injection stoichiometry m O o bO C 1000 00 & o 4J •H B 2000 0 0 S, 2.0 stoich 1000 2000 JOCK) UOOO On-stream time, hrs 5000 Figure Effect of Annual On-Stream Time at Full Load on Unit Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed for Various Size Dry Limestone Injection Process Installations ------- T 2000 § Existing unit - 15 yrs remaining life ?.O=t S coal 2.0 injection stoichiometry Regulated economics CO e Q «^ ^ to O o 2 4) & 1500 1000 500 1 150,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 Annual power generation, MW hours 750,000 Figure Effect of Annual Power Generation at Full and Half Load on Dry Limestone Process Unit Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed: 150 MW Unit ------- •o s oj 8 C O -P •w- -P CO O o bo c o 4J 20 15 10 0 T T T Existing unit - 15 yrs remaining life 3«0# S coal 2.0 injection stoichiometry Regulated economics full load I 1 I I I 00 O 150,000 300,000 1^50,000 6oo>ooo Annual power generation, MW hours 750,000 Figure Effect of Annual Power Generation at Full and Half Load on Dry Limestone Process Unit Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned: 150 MW Unit ------- CO (•4 20 — o •o CO c o 15 — -p CO o u g»10 g P4 o 0) 5 -p o> Actual dollars — Present worth if discounted at Existing units Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiometry to initial yr 0 00 Figure 150 200 Power unit size, MW Effect of Power Unit Size and Years Remaining Life on Lifetime Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection: 3«°# S Coal ------- I § ,0 0) o o c o 09 O V •rl •P 0) h I § V a 4J 0) 4-1 •H 20 10 I I I I Actual dollars Present worth if discounted at 10# to initial yr Existing units Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiometry oo ho Figure Power unit size, MW Effect of Power Unit Size and Years Remaining Life on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of Plant: 3.0% S Coal ------- I 4000 1 1 1 Actual dollars Present worth if discounted at 10% to initial yr Existing units Regulated economics 2.0 injection stoichiometry 3 w C o -p -p TO 8 I § V 3000 2000 1000 0 00 CO 100 150 200 250 300 550 Figure Power unit size, MW Effect of Power Unit Size and Years Remaining Life on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed Over Life of Plant: 3.0* S Coal ------- CO 20 O •O V. O 01 O a •* 43 to 8 g Q> 10 0 Actual dollars Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr Existing units Regulated economics J.O injection stoichiometry 5 — 00 -is. Figure Sulfur in coal, % Effect of Sulfur Content of Coal and Years Remaining Life on Lifetime Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection: 150 MW Units ------- -g a 20 -- Actual dollars — Present worth if discounted at Existing units Regulated economics 3-0 injection stoichiometry to initial yr a o -W- 4J CO O o •H -P 0) Vi o +> •H a 43 0) ------- •o s 8000 Actual dollars Present worth if discounted at 10^ to initial yr Existing units Regulated economics 3-0 injection stoichiometry C O -p ID O U 0$ ------- •8 c Vl I 5.0 B £ 2.0 V CM •H < 1.0 1 1 II 1 <• "" Actual dollars .. >. M. present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr __ Existing unit - 15 yrs remaining life 3.0# S coal 2.0 injection stoichiometry Regulated economics _ _r>^. _ ^ ^^ ^ •—pg— """^ ^J ri ^^"""^ " r ^ — . — f\ _ ._ „ _/~\«« — « — •— ""Q"~ "~ ~" ^™ "^ ^^^^ rM. M> «M* «•» L/~ ™" VJ ^ 1 I 1 I 1 1.9T JH ^ ra r-l r-l e 1.58 i o V bO c 0) 1.18 o ^ § 0) •H •••^ 0.79 ? ^ 0.1Q 0 2.0 Figure 51 k.O 6.0 8.0 10.0 Annual labor escalation rate, Effect of Escalating Labor Rate on Dry Limestone Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned and Per Kilowatt-hour of Electricity Produced Over Life of Plant: 150 MW Unit 00 ------- L-88 References and Abstracts 1. Atchison, J. L. (The Babcock and Wilcox Company). Private communication to Robert L. Torstrick, May 19, 197-2, giving the contract price breakdown of the dry limestone injection process equipment supplied to TVA. 2. Brown, C. B., Jr. (Koppers Company, Inc.). Private communication to William H. Kennedy. May 23, 1972, giving up-to-date price data on rotary dryers and grinding mills for processing limestone prior to injection into a boiler. 3. Brown, R. F. (Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc.). Private communications to Robert L. Torstrick, June 30 and July 6, 1972, giving incremental electrostatic precipitator investment and electricity requirements applicable for installing and operating precipitators on power units utilizing the dry limestone injection process. 4. "Economic Indicators." Chemical Engineering 79(21), September 18, 1972. C. E. Plant Cost Index data was used for obtaining a projected 1972 annual index. This projected index was compared with the annual index for 1969, and used in updating the Shawnee 1969 investment costs. 5. Federal Power Commission. Hydroelectric Power Evaluation. FPCP-35 (1968) and Supplement No. 1, FPC P-38 (1969). Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. This publication is a guide for the evaluation of the hydroelectric power aspects of water resource developments. Included is information concerning investment and operating costs of hydroelectric and thermal-electric power plants and transmission facilities, methods for economic analysis of projects, and methods for presenting the annual costs associated with power generation and transmission under regulated economics. 6. Guthrie, K. M. "Capital Cost Estimating." Chemical Engineering 76(6), March 24, 1969. Data and techniques for preliminary capital cost estimating are presented along with a compilation of costs for a large variety of plant equipment. A "module" technique for making fast, accurate, and consistent estimates is introduced. Especially useful for this study are the equipment scale factors given in the data. 7. "Industry Statistics." Oil and Gas Journal 70(37), September 11, 1972. Published data giving refined-products prices was used to obtain the price for distillate kerosine (No. 2 fuel oil) for use in projecting 1972 operating costs for the dry limestone injection process. 8. The M. W. Kellogg Company. Availability of Limestones and Dolomites. Task No. 1 Final Report, MWKLG-RED-72-1265, Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. CPA 706-8, February 1, 1972. Several processes which remove sulfur oxides from power plant stack gas are based on the use of limestone or dolomite as the absorbent. The objective of this study was to determine the availability and costs of limestone and similar materials throughout the contiguous United States to supplement experimental work. Materials covered in this study include limestone, dolomite, chalk, marble, marl, and shell. Information is presented on location of deposits, production rates, f.o.b. quarry ------- L-89 costs, transportation methods and costs, expected cost increases, uses, chemical composition, and physical properties. 9. Perry. John H., Chilton, Cecil H.p and Kirkpatrick, Sidney D. Chemical Engineers' Handbook. Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1963. "Six-tenths factor" method for scaling equipment costs as a function of capacity is presented along with a set of typical exponents for use with various types of equipment. 10. Peters, Max S. and Timmerhaus, Klaus D. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1968. Economic and design principles, as applied in chemical engineering processes and operations are discussed. The first part of the text presents an overall analysis of the major factors involved in process design, with particular emphasis on economics in the process industries and in design work. The various costs involved in industrial processes, capital investments and investment returns, cost estimation, cost accounting, optimum economic design methods, and other subjects dealing with economics are covered both qualitatively and quantitatively. The remainder of the book deals with methods and important factors in the design of plants and equipment. Generalized subjects, such as waste disposal, structural design, and equipment fabrication, are included along with design methods for different types of process equipment. Basic cost data and cost correlations are also presented for use in making cost estimates. 11. Purcell, Robert W. (The Taulman Company). Private communication to W. H. Kennedy, June 28, 1972, describing design of sluice systems for disposal of waste solids. 12. Tennessee Valley Authority. Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack Gas: Sorption by Limestone or Lime—Dry Procesi, - (1968). Report No. PB 178-972, Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Information, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Injection of dry limestone or lime into the boiler is considered the simplest and least costly process for removing SO2 from power plant stack gases. Product is calcium sulfate which is discarded. The process can be operated intermittently. A detailed economic evaluation is presented. 13. Tennessee Valley Authority. "Wage Schedules." Office Service Branch, Administrative Releases (Memorandum No. 1321), August 1, 1972. TVA wage schedules effective during 1972 are given for chemical and power plant operators and laborers. ------- L-91 _TableA-l Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 1.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 6,300 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 14,400 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 38,400 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 58,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 57,600 Equipment foundations for all areas 16,300 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 27,100 Piping for all areas 35,100 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 33,300 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 42,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 89,000 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 518,300 Engineering design and overheads 46,600 Construction expense 72,600 Contractors fees 46,600 Contingency 67,400 Total fixed capital investment 751,500 Basis: aMidwest location—1972 costs. bO" x iy2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-92 Table A-2 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 2.07 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 7,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 18,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 44,300 Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 71,200 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 64,700 Equipment foundations for all areas 19,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 29,200 Piping for all areas 40,600 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 38,000 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 48,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 94,200 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 575,500 Engineering design and overheads 51,800 Construction expense 80,600 Contractors fees 51,800 Contingency 74,800 Total fixed capital investment 834,500 Basis: fMidwest location-1972 costs. "0" x IVa" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. "incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed t& be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-93 Table A-3 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 2.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 8,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 21,800 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 49,700 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 82,000 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 70,800 Equipment foundations for all areas 22,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 30,800 Piping for all areas 45,500 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 41,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 54,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 99,300 Incremental solids disposal systerrrfor collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 626,400 Engineering design and overheads 56,400 Construction expense 87,700 Contractors fees 56,400 Contingency 81,400 Total fixed capital investment 908,300 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IV-i" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-94 Table A-^ Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 8,900 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 25,100 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 54,400 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 92,500 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 76,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 24,700 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 32,200 Piping for all areas 49,800 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 45,500 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 59,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 103,600 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 672,400 Engineering design and overheads 60,500 Construction expense 94,100 Contractors fees 60,500 Contingency 87,400 Total fixed capital investment 974,900 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. °0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-95 _TableA-5 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.63 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 9,600 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 28,400 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 58,800 Limestone grinding system0 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 102,100 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 81,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 27,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 33,500 Piping for all areas 53,800 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 48,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 64,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 107,200 Incremental solids disposal system"for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 714,800 Engineering design and overheads 64,300 Construction expense 100,000 Contractors fees 64,300 Contingency 92,900 Total fixed capital investment ___^_ 1,036,300 Basis: fMidwest location-1972 costs. "0" x I'A" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-96 Table A-6 Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 4.64 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 10,800 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 34,600 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 66,300 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 119,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 89,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 31,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 35,600 Piping for all areas 60,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 54,500 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 72,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 226,000 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 901,500 Engineering design and overheads 72,100 Construction expense 117,200 Contractors fees 72,100 Contingency ] 17,200 Total fixed capital investment 1,280,100 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x W" limestone pound to 80% minus 400 mesh. ""Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-97 Table A-7 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 6.20 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 12,500 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 43,600 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 76,600 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 144,500 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 100,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 37,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 38,300 Piping for all areas 70,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 62,000 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 83,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 239,000 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,008,100 Engineering design and overheads 80,600 Construction expense 131,100 Contractors fees 80,600 Contingency 131,100 Total fixed capital investment 1,431,500 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. °0" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-98 Table A-8 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment8-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 7.76 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 14,000 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 52,100 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 85,700 Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 167,100 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 109,600 Equipment foundations for all areas 42,800 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 40,500 Piping for all areas 78,500 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 68,700 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 93,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 252,000 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Su btota I d i rect i nvestmen t 1,104,800 Engineering design and overheads 88,400 Construction expense 143,600 Contractors fees 88,400 Contingency 143,600 _jrota\|. fixed capital investment 1,568,800 Basis: fMidwesHocation-1972 costs. bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-99 _Tabje A-9 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment8-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 15,300 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 60,400 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 94,000 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 188,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 118,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 47,800 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 42,500 Piping for all areas 86,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 74,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 102,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 263,000 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,193,200 Engineering design and overheads 95,500 Construction expense 155,100 Contractors fees 95,500 Contingency 155,100 Total fixed capital investment 1,694,400 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. °0" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-100 Table A-lOSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 10.90 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 16,600 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 68,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 101,600 Limestone grinding system3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 208,600 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 125,500 Equipment foundations for all areas 52,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 44,100 Piping for all areas 93,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 80,000 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 111,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 272,000 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,273,200 Engineering design and overheads 101,900 Construction expense 165,500 Contractors fees 101,900 Contingency 165,500 Total fixed capital investment 1,808,000 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x iy-2." limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-101 _Table A-llSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 7.73 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 14,000 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 52,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 85,600 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 167,100 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 109,500 Equipment foundations for all areas 42,700 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 40,500 Piping for all areas 78,300 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 68,500 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 93,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 350,300 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,202,100 Engineering design and overheads 96,200 Construction expense 144,300 Contractors fees 96,200 Contingency 156,300 Total fixed capital investment 1,695,100 ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-102 Table A-12Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 10.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) lnvestment,$ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 16,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 65,600 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 99,000 Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 179,500 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 123,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 50,800 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 43,500 Piping for al I areas 90,600 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 78,100 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 108,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 370,500 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,324,900 Engineering design and overheads 106,000 Construction expense 159,000 Contractors fees 106,000 Contingency 172,200 Total fixed capital investment 1,868,100 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-103 __TableA-13Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment9- Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 12.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 18,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 78,600 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 110,800 Limestone grinding system0 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 233,400 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 134,600 Equipment foundations for all areas 58,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 46,100 Piping for all areas 101,400 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 86,500 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 121,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 390,600 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,479,500 Engineering design and overheads 118,400 Construction expense 177,500 Contractors fees 118,400 Contingency 192,300 Total fixed capital investment 2,086,100 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. dSolids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-104 TableA-1^ Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 15.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 19,800 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 90,900 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 121,400 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 262,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 144,700 Equipment foundations for all areas 64,900 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 48,200 Piping for all areas 111,100 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 93,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 132,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 407,700 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,598,200 Engineering design and overheads 127,900 Construction expense 191,800 Contractors fees 127,900 Contingency 207,800 Total fixed capital investment 2,253,600 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. °0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission late prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of .mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-105 JTableA-15 Summary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 18.17 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 21,400 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 103,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 131,100 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 290,900 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 154,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 71,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 50,100 Piping for all areas 120,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 100,700 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 143,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 421,600 Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,707,600 Engineering design and overheads 136,600 Construction expense 204,900 Contractors fees 136,600 Contingency 222,000 Total fixed capital investment 2,407,700 Basis: "Midwest location-1972 costs. °0" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-106 TableA-16Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 3.0'Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 10.83 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 16,500 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 68,100 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 101,300 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 208,000 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 125,300 Equipment foundations for all areas 52,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 44,100 Piping for all areas 92,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 79,800 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 110,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 463,300 Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,462,100 Engineering design and overheads 102,300 Construction expense 175,500 Contractors fees 102,300 Contingency 190,100 Total fixed capital investment 2,032,300 Basis: ~~~~~ fMidwest location-1972 costs. "0" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-107 TableA-17Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 14.47 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 19,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 85,800 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 117,100 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 251,000 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 140,700 Equipment foundations for all areas 62,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 47,300 Piping for all areas 107,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 90,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 128,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 490,000 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,639,400 Engineering design and overheads 114,800 Construction expense 196,700 Contractors fees 114,800 Contingency 213,100 Total fixed capital investment 2,278,800 Basis: fMidwest location-1972 costs. "0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-108 Table A-l8Siimmary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 18.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 21,400 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 102,700 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 131,000 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 290,300 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 153,800 Equipment foundations for all areas 71,100 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 50,100 Piping for all areas 119,900 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 100,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 143,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 516,600 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,800,800 Engineering design and overheads 126,100 Construction expense 216,100 Co ntracto rs fees 126,100 Contingency 234,100 Total fixed capital investment 2,503,200 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-109 TableA-igSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 21.77 TonsTDry Limestone per Hour) Investment^ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 23,400 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 119,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 143,700 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 327,200 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 165,700 Equipment foundations for all areas 79,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 52,500 Piping for all areas 131,500 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 109,200 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 157,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 539,200 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,947,900 Engineering design and overheads 136,400 Construction expense 233,700 Contractors fees 136,400 Contingency 253,300 Total fixed capital investment 2,707,700 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-110 TableA-20Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 25.43 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 25,300 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 134,700 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 155,200 Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 361,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 176,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 87,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 54,500 Piping for all areas 142,100 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 117,100 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 169,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 557,600 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,081,500 Engineering design and overheads 145,700 Construction expense 249,800 Contractors fees 145,700 Contingency 270,600 Total fixed capital investment 2,893,300 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-lll TableA-21 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per MoleS in Fuel; 1.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 7,000 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 17,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 42,800 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 67,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 62,900 Equipment foundations for all areas 18,600 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 28,700 Piping for all areas 39,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 36,800 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 46,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 95,700 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 563,500 Engineering design and overheads 50,700 Construction expense 78,900 Contractors fees 50,700 Contingency 73,300 Total fixed capital investment 817,100 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitatoi added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-112 TableA-22Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles-CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.89 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment,!)? General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 9,900 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 30,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 60,800 Limestone grinding system^ including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 107,100 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 83,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 28,300 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 34,100 Piping for all areas 55,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 50,400 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 66,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 112,300 Incremental solids disposal system1^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 738,300 Engineering design and overheads 66,400 Construction expense 103,400 Contractors fees 66,400 Contingency 96,000 Total fixed capital investment 1,070,500 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. "0" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. ""Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-113 _TableA-23Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 5.87 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 12,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 41,800 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 74,600 Limestone grinding system5 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 139,600 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 98,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 36,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 37,800 Piping for all areas 68,300 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 60,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 81,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 126,100 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 876,900 Engineering design and overheads 78,900 Construction expense 122,800 Contractors fees 78,900 Contingency 114,000 Total fixed capital investment 1,271,500 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection oflimestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-114 TableA-2^Summary of Estimated Fixed investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 7.86 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) lnvestment,$ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 14,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 52,700 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 86,300 Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 168,700 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 110,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 43,100 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 40,700 Piping for all areas 79,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 69,100 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 94,400 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 136,300 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 994,500 Engineering design and overheads 89,500 Construction expense 139,200 Contractors fees 89,500 Contingency 129,300 Total fixed capital investment 1,442,000 Basis: ~ aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. dSolids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-115 TableA-25Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 5.80 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 12,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 41,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 74,200 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 138,400 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 97,500 Equipment foundations for all areas 35,900 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 37,700 Piping for all areas 67,900 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 60,200 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 81,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 243,000 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 989,200 Engineering design and overheads 79,100 Construction expense 128,600 Contractors fees 79,100 Contingency 128,600 Total fixed capital investment 1,404,600 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-116 TabieA-26Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment8—Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 11.67 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 17..100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 72,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 105,100 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 218,200 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 129,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 54,600 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 44,900 Piping for all areas 96,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 82,500 Revisions aand additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 115,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 285,000 Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,319,800 Engineering design and overheads 105,600 Construction expense 171,600 Contractors fees 105,600 Contingency 171,600 Total fixed capital investment 1,874,200 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-117 -gySummary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta~Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 17.60 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 21,000 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 100,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 129,100 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 284,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 152,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 69,900 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 49,800 Piping for all areas 118,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 99,200 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 141,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 320,000 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct Investment 1,585,600 Engineering design and overheads 126,800 Construction expense 206,100 Contractors fees 126,800 Contingency 206,100 Total fixed capital investment 2,251,400 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVa" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-118 TableA-28Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 23.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 24,400 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 126,900 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 149,400 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 344,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 171,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 83,300 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 53,500 Piping for all areas 136,800 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 113,200 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 163,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 346,000 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,812,800 Engineering design and overheads 145,000 Construction expense 235,700 Contractors fees 145,000 Contingency 235,700 Total fixed capital investment 2,574,200 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. °0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. dSolids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-119 JTableA-ggSummary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta~Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.67 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 15,600 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 62,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 95,800 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 193,100 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 119,700 Equipment foundations for all areas 48,800 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 42,800 Piping for all areas 87,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 75,800 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 104,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 376,700 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,323,000 Engineering design and overheads 105,900 Construction expense 158,800 Contractors fees 105,900 Contingency 172,000 Total fixed capital investment 1,865,600 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x I'/z" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-120 Table A-30Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 19.45 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and ydrains 22,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 108,700 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 135,700 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 303,900 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 158,300 Equipment foundations for all areas 74,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 51,000 Piping for all areas 124,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 103,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 148,400 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 441,800 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,772,200 Engineering design and overheads 141,800 Construction expense 212,700 Contractors fees 141,800 Contingency 230,400 Total fixed capital investment 2,498,900 Basis: aMidwest location-197 2 costs. °Q" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-121 _TableA-31 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 29.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 27,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 151,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 166,600 Limestone grinding system3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 397,100 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 186,600 Equipment foundations for all areas 95,000 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 56,500 Piping for all areas 152,500 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 124,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 182,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 496,000 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,135,700 Engineering design and overheads 170,900 Construction expense 256,300 Contractors fees 170,900 Contingency 277,600 Total fixed capital investment 3,011,400 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of .mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-122 TableA-32Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 39.32 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 31,500 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 190,800 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 192,900 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 480,400 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 209,700 Equipment foundations for all areas 113,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 60,800 Piping for all areas 176,600 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 142,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 211,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 536,300 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 135,000 Subtotal ddirect investment 2,480,800 Engineering design and overheads 198,500 Construction expense 297,700 Contractors fees 198,500 Contingency 322,500 Total fixed capital investment 3,498,000 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. °0" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-123 _Tj^teA-33Summary of Estimated Fixed Irwejrtn^^^ Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 1 .0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 13.53 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 18,500 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 81,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 1 13,200 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 240,200 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 137,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 59,700 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 46,600 Piping for all areas 103,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 88,200 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 123,900 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 498,200 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond _ 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,610,500 Engineering design and overheads 1 1 2,700 Construction expense 193,300 Contractors fees 1 1 2,700 Contingency 209,400 Total fixed capital investment ______________ 2,238,600 Basis: ^Midwest location -197 2 costs. bO" x iy2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-124 ummary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 27.23 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 26,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 142,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 160,600 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 378,200 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 181,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 90,800 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 55,500 Piping for all areas 147,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 120,800 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 175,700 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 584,300 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,162,500 Engineering design and overheads 151,400 Construction expense 259,500 Contractors fees 151,400 Contingency 281,100 ^JTotalJixed capital investment ___ 3,005,900^ Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-125 Jjble A-35Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 41.07 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 32,100 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 197,700 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 197,200 Limestone grinding system0 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 494,300 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 213,500 Equipment foundations for all areas 116,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 61,500 Piping for all areas 180,500 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 145,400 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 215,700 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 656,000 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 135,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,645,100 Engineering design and overheads 185,200 Construction expense 317,400 Contractors fees 185,200 Contingency 343,900 Total fixed capital investment 3,676,800 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. "0" x VA." limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-126 Table A-36Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 55.04 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 37,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 249,800 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 228,300 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 597,700 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 239,900 Equipment foundations for all areas 138,500 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 66,100 Piping for all areas 209,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 165,800 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 249,700 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 709,300 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 175,000 Subtotal direct investment 3,066,300 Engineering design and overheads 214,600 Construction expense 368,000 Contractors fees 214,600 Contingency 398,600 Total fixed capital investment 4,262,100 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x W limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-127 JablgA-37Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment9- Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.23 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 9,000 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 25,900 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 55,300 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 94,700 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 77,300 Equipment foundations for all areas 25,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 32,600 Piping for all areas 50,600 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 46,400 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 60,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 108,700 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 686,400 Engineering design and overheads 61,800 Construction expense 96,100 Contractors fees 61,800 Contingency 89,200 Total fixed capital investment 995,300 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x I'/z" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-128 TableA-38Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 6.53 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) lnvestment,$ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 12,800 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 45,400 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 78,700 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 149,800 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 102,300 Equipment foundations for all areas 38,600 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 38,800 Piping for all areas 72,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 63,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 86,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 131,200 Incremental solids disposal system01 for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 919,300 Engineering design and overheads 82,700 Construction expense 128,700 Contractors fees 82,700 Contingency 119,500 Total fixed capital investment 1,332,900 Basis: aMidwest location—1972 costs. "0" x W limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-129 JTableA-39 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investtnenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.89 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 15,800 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 63,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 96,900 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 195,900 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 120,900 Equipment foundations for all areas 49,500 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 43,100 Piping for all areas 88,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 76,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 106,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 148,500 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,105,200 Engineering design and overheads 99,500 Construction expense 154,700 Contractors fees 99,500 Contingency 143,700 Total fixed capital investment 1,602,600 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-130 TableA-UOSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta--Dry Limestone Injection Process (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 13.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 18,300 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 80,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 112,400 Limestone grinding system3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 238,000 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 136,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 59,200 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 46,400 Pi ping for all areas 102,900 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 87,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 123,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 163,900 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,268,100 Engineering design and overheads 114,100 Construction expense 177,500 Contractors fees 114,100 Contingency 164,900 Total fixed capital investment 1,838,700 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x \Vi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. ^Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-131 jfgbie A-^lSummary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta~Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.70 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investments General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 15,600 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 62,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 95,800 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 193,400 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 119,900 Equipment foundations for all areas 48,300 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 42,900 Piping for all areas 87,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 75,900 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 104,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 276,000 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,222,600 Engineering design and overheads 97,800 Construction expense 159,000 Contractors fees 97,800 Contingency 159,000 Total fixed capital investment 1,736,200 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. "0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-132 TableA-42Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta—Dry Limestone injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 19.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 22,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 109,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 136,200 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 305,500 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 158,800 Equipment foundations for all areas 74,500 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 51,100 Piping for all areas 124,700 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 104,200 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 149,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 333,000 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,668,500 Engineering design and overheads 133,500 Construction expense 217,000 Contractors fees 133,500 Contingency 217,000 Total fixed capital investment 2,369,500 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. "0" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-133 _TableA-^3Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 29.66 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) lnvestment,$ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 27,300 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 152,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 167,600 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball milt and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 399,900 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 187,400 Equipment foundations for all areas 95,600 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 56,700 Piping for al I areas 153,400 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 125,500 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 183,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 377,000 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 135,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,061,000 Engineering design and overheads 164,900 Construction expense 267,900 Contractors fees 164,900 Contingency 267,900 Total fixed capital investment 2,926,600 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-134 TableA-4^Summary of Estimated Fixed investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 39.99 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 31,700 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 193,400 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 194,600 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 485,600 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 211,300 Equipment foundations for all areas 114,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 61,100 Piping for all areas 178,100 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 143,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 212,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 416,000 Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 135,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,377,600 Engineering design and overheads 190,200 Construction expense 309,100 Contractors fees 190,200 Contingency 309,100 Total fixed capital investment 3,376,200 Basis: "Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-135 _TableA-^5Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 16.17 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment^ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 20,200 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 93,800 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 123,700 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 269,600 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 147,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 66,500 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 48,700 Piping for all areas 113,200 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 95,600 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 135,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 427,800 Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 1,641,500 Engineering design and overheads 131,300 Construction expense 197,000 Contractors fees 131,300 Contingency 213,400 Total fixed capital investment 2,314,500 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-136 Table A-J46Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment9—Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 32.65 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 28,700 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 164,400 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 175,900 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 425,600 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 194,800 Equipment foundations for all areas 101,300 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 58,000 Piping for all areas 161,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 131,100 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 192,400 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 516,200 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 135,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,284,400 Engineering design and overheads 182,800 Construction expense 274,100 Contractors fees 182,800 Contingency 297,000 Total fixed capital investment 3,221,100 Basis: "'Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-137 TableA-^TSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 49.43 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 35,300 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 229,200 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 216,300 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 557,400 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 229,900 Equipment foundations for all areas 129,900 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 64,400 Piping for all areas 198,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 158,000 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 236,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 584,400 Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 175,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,814,400 Engineering design and overheads 225,200 Construction expense 337,700 Contractors fees 225,200 Contingency 365,900 Total fixed capital investment 3,968,400 Basis: fMidwest location-1972 costs. °0" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-138 TableA-1+8Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 66.65 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) lnvestment,$ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 41,000 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 291,100 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 251,300 Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 676,900 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 259,100 Equipment foundations for all areas 155,400 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 69,400 Piping for all areas 230,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 180,700 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 274,900 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 644,800 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 175,000 Subtotal direct investment 3,249,600 Engineering design and overheads 260,000 Construction expense 390,000 Contractors fees 260,000 Contingency 422,400 Total fixed capital investment 4,582,000 Basis: fMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x l!/2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-139 -49Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 22.63 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 23,900 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 122,700 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 146,400 Limestone grinding system^ including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 335,500 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 168,200 Equipment foundations for all areas 81,300 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 52,900 Piping for all areas 134,000 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 111,100 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 160,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 565,800 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 100,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,002,000 Engineering design and overheads 140,100 Construction expense 240,200 Contractors fees 140,100 Contingency 260,300 Total fixed capital investment 2,782,700 Basis: ^Midwest location-1972 costs. bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-140 TableA-^OSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 45.71 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Investment,^ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 33,900 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 215,300 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 208,100 Limestone grinding system3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 529,900 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 222,800 Equipment foundations for all areas 123,900 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 63,200 Piping for all areas 190,500 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 152,500 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 227,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 682,700 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 175,000 Subtotal direct investment 2,825,400 Engineering design and overheads 197,800 Construction expense 339,000 Contractors fees 197,800 Contingency 367,000 Total fixed capital investment 3,927,000 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-141 _TableA-5lSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 69.21 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 41,700 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 300,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 255,900 Limestone grinding system^ including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 693,600 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 263,000 Equipment foundations for all areas 158,900 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 70,000 Piping for all areas 234,300 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 183,800 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 280,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0 772,900 Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 175,000 Subtotal direct investment 3,429,100 Engineering design and overheads 240,000 Construction expense 411,500 Contractors fees 240,000 Contingency 445,800 Total fixed capital investment 4,766,400 Basis: ''Midwest location-1972 costs. °0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-142 TableA-52Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 93.31 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) I nvestment, $ General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water piping and drains 48,500 Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and conveyors 381,000 Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts, bucket elevator, and dryer shed 297,200 Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier, storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors 842,500 Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and injectors 296,400 Equipment foundations for all areas 190,100 Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed 75,500 Piping for all areas 272,100 Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit, trays, groundings, and telephone 210,300 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines 325,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator systemc 852,800 Incremental solids disposal system1^ for collecting and sluicing limestone solids to pond 270,000 Subtotal direct investment 4,061,500 Engineering design and overheads 284,300 Construction expense 487,400 Contractors fees 284,300 Contingency 528,000 Total fixed capital investment 5,645,500 Basis: aMidwest location-1972 costs. bO" x I'/z" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh. clncremental electrostatic precipitatoi added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. ------- L-143 8,200 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 33,200 Table A-53-Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission _fromjpwer Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 1.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 43,500 gal 267,000 M gal 49,200 kWh 437,900 kWh 78,700 kWh -58,800 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 50 hr 10.00/hr 60,400 4,800 8,000 300 3,100 600 (400) 3,600 19,900 2,600 500 103,400 136,600 Total Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 132,300 20,700 6.000 159,000 295,600 2,800 Total annual cost, $ 298,400 aBasis: Coal burned-97,900 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x iy2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $751,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection ot limestone. Uust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. , Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-144 10,900 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr Table A-^h Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 2.07 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 57,800 gal 267,000 M gal 65,400 kWh 582,100 kWh 104,600 kWh -57,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 50 hr 10.00/hr 44.100 44,100 60,400 6,400 8,000 500 4,100 700 (400) 3,600 22,300 2,700 500 108,800 152,900 146,900 21,800 6,000 174,700 327,600 3,700 Total Cost/ton of coal burned. $ Total annual cost. $ 3.38 331,300 aBasis: Coal burned-98,100 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x \Vi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $834,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-145 TableA-55Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission _from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics8 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 2.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 13,700 tons 4.05/ton 55.500 55,500 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities'^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 72,600 gal 267,000 M gal 82,200 kWh 731,600kWh 131,500kWh -56,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 60 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 60,400 8,000 8,000 600 5,100 900 (400) 3,600 24,300 2,900 600 114,000 169,500 159,600 22,800 6.000 188,700 358,200 4,600 Total annual cost. $ 3.69 362,800 aBasis: Coal burned-98,200 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $908,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-146 TableA-56 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ 16,400 tons 4.05/ton 66.400 66,400 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust col lection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 86,900 gal 267,000 M gal 98,400 kWh 875,800 kWh 157,400 kWh -55,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 70 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 3.99 60,400 9,600 8,000 700 6,100 1,100 (400) 3,600 26,200 3,000 700 119,000 185,400 171,600 23,800 6,000 201,400 386,800 5,500 Total annual cost. $ 392,300 aBasis: Coal burned-98,400 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x \Vi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $974,900 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-147 19,100 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr Table A-57 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.63 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost. $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaCO3) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 101,200 gal 267,000 M gal 114,600 kWh 1,019,900 kWh 183,400 kWh -53,800 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 80 hr 10.00/hr 77r400 77,400 60,400 11,100 8,000 800 7,100 1,300 (400) 3,600 28,000 3,100 800 123,800 201,200 Total Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 182,400 24,800 6.000 213,200 414,400 6,400 Total annual cost, $ 4.27 420,800 "Basis: Coal burned-98,500 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x \W limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,036,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Uust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. . Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-148 24,400 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr TableA-58 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company^Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 4.64 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 129,300 gal 267,000 M gal 146,400 kWh 1,303,000 kWh 234,200 kWh -176,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 90 hr 10.00/hr 98.800 98,800 60,400 14,200 8,000 1,000 9,100 1,600 (1,200) 3,600 32,100 6,300 900 136,000 234,800 225,300 27,200 6.000 258,500 493,300 8,300 Total Cost/ton of coal burned.$ Total annual cost.S ±.11 501.600 aBasis: Coal burned-293,800 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yi Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x I'/z limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,280,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-149 Table A-59 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 6.20 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual . Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 32,700 tons 4.05/ton 132.400 132,400 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 173,300 gal 267,000 M gal 196,200 kWh 1,746,200 kWh 313,900 kWh -173,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 100hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 60,400 19,100 8,000 1,400 12,200 2,200 (1,200) 3,600 36,100 6,800 1,000 149,600 282,000 252,000 29,900 6.000 287,900 569,900 11,000 Total annual cost. $ 1.97 580.900 ""Basis: Coal burned-294,300 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,431,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. . Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-150 Table A-60Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission _fromJPgwer Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 7.76 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual . Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 40,900 tons 4.05/ton 165.600 165,600 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 216,800 gal 267,000 M gal 245,400 kWh 2,184,100kWh 392,600 kWh -168,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 120hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 60,400 23,800 8,000 1,700 15,300 2,700 (1,200) 3,600 39,900 7,200 1.200 162,600 328,200 276,100 32,500 6.000 314,600 642,800 13,800 Total annual cost, $ 2.23 656,600 aBasis: Coal burned-294,700 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yi Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x IVi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,568,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection to limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-151 Table A-6lAverage Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 jromJPower Plants by Dry Limestone Emission ^ (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual .__^^Q]Ja.!jayantity_ Uoitcpst^S cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 49,100 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 260,200 gal 267,000 M gal 294,600 kWh 2,621,900 kWh 471,400kWh -165,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 130hr 10.00/hr Total Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 2.47 198,900 198,900 60,400 28,600 8,000 2,100 18,400 3,300 (1,200) 3,600 43,300 7,500 1,300 175,300 374,200 298,200 35,100 __6,QOO 339,300 713,500 16,600 Total annual 730,100 aBasis: Coalburned-295,100 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,694,400 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection to limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. , Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-152 Table A-62Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 10.90 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unjt^gstJiL—__costt_$. Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95%CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total aBasis: 57,400 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 304,200 gal 267,000 M gal 344,400 kWh 3,065,200 kWh 551,OOOkWh 161,500kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 150hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.S 232,500 232,500 60,400 33,500 8,000 2,400 21,500 3,900 (1,100) 3,600 46,500 7,700 1,500 187,900 420,400 318,200 37,600 6,000 361,800 782,200 19,300 Total annual cost. S 2.71 801,500 Coal burned-295,600 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-! 5 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,808,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. BCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-153 Table A-63Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Ecgnmrijcsg_ (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 7.73 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost,_$__ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities'^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Sol ids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 40,700 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 215,700 gal 267,000 M gal 244,200 kWh 2,173,400 kWh 390,700 kWh -294,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 120hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 164.800 164,800 60,400 23,700 8,000 1,700 15,200 2,700 (2,100) 3,600 41,000 9,900 1.200 165,300 330,100 298,300 33,100 6.000 337,400 667,500 13,800 Total annual cost, $ 1.39 681,300 Coal burned-489,700 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x I'/z limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,695,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. , Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-154 TableA-6l4Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 10.33'Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03} Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 54,400 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 288,300 gal 267,000 M gal 326,400 kWh 2,905,000 kWh 522,200 kWh -287,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 140hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned. $ 220,300 220,300 60,400 31,700 8,000 2,300 20,300 3,700 (2,000) 3,600 45,600 10,400 1.400 185,400 405,700 328,800 37,100 6.000 371,900 777,600 18,400 Total annual cost, $ 1.62 796,000 Coal burned-490,400 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr MnJwestj>lantlocation-1972 costs O" x IVi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,868,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-155 TableA-65 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economicsa (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 12.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant _Annual quantity U_njt_cost. $ 68,100 tons 4.05/ton Total annual cost, $ .275,800 275,800 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 60,400 360,900 gal 267,000 M gal 408,600 kWh 3,636,500 kWh 653,800 kWh -280,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 160 hr 10.00/hr Total Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 39,700 8,000 2,900 25,500 4,600 (2,000) 3,600 51,600 11,000 1,600 206,900 482,700 367,200 41,400 6.000 414,600 897,300 23,000 Total annual cost, $ 1.87 920,300 aBasis: Coal burned-491,200 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,086,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. , Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-156 Table A-6£Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 15.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 81,900 tons 4.05/ton 331,700 "331,700 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 434,100 gal 267,000 M gal 491,400kWh 4,373,500 kWh 786,200 kWh -275,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 180 hr 10.00/hr Total Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 60,400 47,800 8,000 3,400 30,600 5,500 (1,900) 3,600 56,100 11,500 1,800 226,800 558,500 396,600 45,400 6.000 448,000 1,006,500 27,600 Total annual cost. $ 2.10 1,034,100 aBasis: Coal burned-491,900 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x Wi' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,253,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-157 Table A-67Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission _jrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 18.17 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cosi, j> Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust col lection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 95,700 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 507,200 gal 267,000 M gal 574,200 kWh 5,110,400kWh 918,700 kWh -269,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 200 hr 10.00/hr 387,600 "387,600 60,400 55,800 8,000 4,000 35,800 6,400 (1,900) 3,600 60,300 11,900 2.000 246,300 633,900 Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 423,800 49,300 6.000 479,100 1,113,000 32,200 Total annual cost. $ Total 2.32 1,145,200 "Basis: Coal burned-492,600 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yi Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 11A" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,407,700 _ Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection ot limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. , Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-158 TableA-68 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 10.83 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cpsj, $ jcost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 57,000 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 302,100 gal 267,000 M gal 342,000 kWh 3,043,800 kWh 547,200 kWh -411,600kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 150hr 10.00/hr Total Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 230,900 "230900 60,400 33,200 8,000 2,400 21,300 3,800 (2,900) 3,600 48,100 12,900 1,500 192,300 422,300 357,700 38,500 6.000 402,200 824,500 19,300 Total annual cost. $ 1.23 843,800 aBasis: Coal burned-685,600 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x \Vi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,032,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-159 Table A-69Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO, Emission Jrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics8 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel- 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 14.47 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total annual cost, $ 76,200 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 403,900 gal 267,000 M gal 457,200 kWh 4,069,100 kWh 731,500kWh -402,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 170hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 308.600 308,600 60,400 44,400 8,000 3,200 28,500 5,100 (2,800) 3,600 54,800 13,600 1,700 220,500 529,100 401,100 44,100 6.000 451,200 980,300 25,700 Total annual cost. $ Total 1.47 1,006,000 dBasis: Coal burned-686,600 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,278,800 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-160 Table A-70Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission Jrqm Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 18.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 95,300 tons 4.05/ton 386.000 386,000 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding I njection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 505,100 gal 267,000 M gal 571,800kWh 5,089,000 kWh 914,900 kWh -392,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 200 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 1.69 60,400 55,600 8,000 4,000 35,600 6,400 (2,700) 3,600 60,700 14,400 2.000 248,000 634,000 440,600 49,600 6.000 496,200 1,130,200 32,200 Total annual cost, $ 1,162,400 aBasis: Coal burned -687,600 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,503,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- 114,600 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr L-161 Table A-71 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission __fromPower Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 21.77 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost. $ cost. S Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 607,400 gal 267,000 M gal 687,600 kWh 6,119,600kWh 1,100,200 kWh -385,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 220 hr 10.00/hr 464,100 464,100 60,400 66,800 8,000 4,800 42,800 7,700 (2,700) 3,600 66,200 15,000 2.200 274,800 738,900 476,600 55,000 6.000 537,600 1,276,500 38,600 Total Cost/ton of coal burned. $ Total annual cost, $ 1.91 1,315,100 "Basis: Coal burned-688,600 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yi Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,707,700 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-162 TableA-72 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel; 7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 25.43 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding I njection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 133,900 tons 4.05/ton 11,720 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 709,700 gal 267,000 M gal 803,400 kWh 7,150,300 kWh 1,285,400 kWh -376,600 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 240 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 2.14 542.300 542,300 70,300 78,100 8,000 5,600 50,100 9,000 (2,600) 3,600 71,300 15,500 2.400 311,300 853,600 509,200 62,300 7,000 578,500 1,432,100 45,000 Total annual cost, $ 1,477,100 aBasis: Coal burned-689,600 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs O" x \V" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,893,300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. DCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-163 Table A-73Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8 ~ (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 1.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ ~~~"Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 10,200 tons 4.05/ton 41.300 41,300 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 54,100 gal 267,000 M gal 61,200kWh 544,700 kWh 97,000 kWh -57,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 50 hr 10.00/hr Total "Basis: Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 60,400 6,000 8,000 400 3,800 700 (400) 3,600 21,700 2,800 500 107,500 148,800 143,800 21,500 6.000 171,300 320,100 3,000 Total annual cost, $ 3.30 323,100 Coal burned-98,000 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant—15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x P/2 limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $817,100 . . . t. !•„,,„,„„„ n,,ct Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of l™«tane- Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. bCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-164 Table A-T^Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 2.0 Mojes CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.89 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total Annual quantity Unit cost. $ 20,500 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr Total annual cost, $ 83.000 108,700 gal 267,000 M gal 123,000 kWh 1,094,700 kWh 196,800 kWh -52,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 80 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 83,000 60,400 12,000 8,000 900 7,700 1,400 (400) 3,600 28,800 3,300 800 126,500 209,500 188,400 25,300 6,000 219,700 429,200 5,900 Total annual cost,$ 4.42 435,100 "Basis: Coal burned-98,400 tons/yt; .788 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant locatkm-1972 costs 0" x W-i limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,070,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-165 Table A-7 5 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 5.87 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 30,900 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 163,800 gal 267,000 M gal 185,400 kWh 1,650,100 kWh 296,600 kWh -48,800 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 100hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal 5.42 _125J_00 125,100' 60,400 18,000 8,000 1,300 11,600 2,100 (300) 3,600 34,400 3,700 1.000 143,800 268,900 223,800 28,800 6.000 258,600 527,500 8,900 Total annual cost. $ 536,400 "Basis: Coal burned-98,900 tons/yr; .791 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh collection efficiency and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. °Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- 41,400 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr L-166 Table A-76Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 7.86 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities'^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 219,400 gal 267,000 M gal 248,400 kWh 2,210,800 kWh 379,400 kWh -46,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 120hr 10.00/hr 167,700 60,400 24,100 8,000 1,700 15,500 2,700 (300) 3,600 39,300 4,000 1.200 160,200 327,900 lolal Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 253,800 32,000 6.000 291,800 619,700 12,000 Total annual cost, $ 6.36 631 700 aBasis: Coal burned-99,400 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yt Midwest plant location-197 2 costs 0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,442,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-167 Table A-77 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in Fuel; 5.80 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) ___ Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Total annual cost, $ 30,600 tons 4.05/ton Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 123.900 123,900 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 60,400 162,200 gal 267,000 M gal 183,600 kWh 1,634,000 kWh 293,800 kWh -171,OOOkWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 100hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 17,800 8,000 1,300 11,400 2,100 (1,200) 3,600 35,200 6,900 1.000 146,500 270,400 247,200 29,300 6.000 282,500 552,900 8,900 Total annual cost, $ 1.91 561,800 Coal burned-293,900 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant^-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1% limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,404,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full Value. ------- L-170 Table A-80 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 23.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 124,200 tons 4.05/ton 503.000 503,000 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 658,300 gal 267,000 M gal 745,200 kWh 6,632,300 kWh 1,192,300 kWh -138,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 230 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 60,400 72,400 8,000 5,200 46,400 8,300 (1,000) 3,600 67,400 9,800 2.300 282,800 785,800 453,100 56,600 6JQQO 515,700 1,301,500 35,800 Total annual cost,$ 4.48 1,337,300 aBasis: Coal burned-298,200 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant^lS yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yt Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x Wi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,574,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond Water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-171 Table A-SlAverage Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Inject ion-Regulated Power Company Economic^ (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel- 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.67 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Total annual cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaCO3) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Sol ids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 50,900 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 269,800 gal 267,000 M gal 305,400 kWh 2,718,100 kWh 488,600 kWh -285,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal ,007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 140hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 206,100 60,400 29,700 8,000 2,100 19,000 3,400 (2,000) 3,600 45,400 10,600 1.400 181,600 387,700 328,300 36,300 6.000 370,600 758,300 14,800 Total annual cost, $ 1.58 773,100 aBasis: Coal burned-489,900 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest giant location-1972 costs 0" x 1% limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,865,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-174 Table A-8U Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 39.32 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 207,000 tons 4.05/ton 838.400 838,400 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 11,720 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,097,100 gal 390,000 M gal 1,242,000 kWh 11,053,800 kWh 1,987,200 kWh -230,000 kWh 750,800 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 320 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 70,300 120,700 11,700 8,700 77,400 13,900 (1,600) 5,300 89,800 15,100 3.200 414,500 1,252,900 615,600 82,900 7,000 705,500 1,958,400 59,700 Total annual cost. $ 4.06 2.018.100 Coal burned-497,000 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVi' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investmen-t, $3,498,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-175 Table A-8 5 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission jrom_Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 13.53 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Total annual cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities5 Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 71,200 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 377,400 gal 267,000 M gal 427,200 kWh 3,802,100 kWh 683,500 kWh -399,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 170hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 288.400 288,400 60,400 41,500 8,000 3,000 26,600 4,800 (2,800) 3,600 53,400 13,800 1.700 214,000 502,400 394,000 42,800 6.000 442,800 945,200 20,700 Total annual cost, $ 1.41 965,900 Coal burned-685,800 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant—15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1V4 Hmestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,238,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection ot limestone, uust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. . Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-178 TableA-88 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 55.04 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaCO3) Subtotal raw material 289,700 tons 4.05/ton 1.173.300 1,173,300 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities0 Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust col lection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust col lection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 13,370 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,535,400 gal 570,000 M gal 1,738,200 kWh 15,470,000 kWh 2,781,100 kWh -322,000 kWh 1,097,300 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 390 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 80,200 168,900 17,100 12,200 108,300 19,500 (2,300) 7,700 108,200 19,700 3.900 543,400 1,716,700 750,100 108,700 8.000 866,800 2,583,500 83,600 Total annual cost. $ 3.83 2,667,100 aBasis: Coal burned-695,800 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $4,262,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. DCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-179 Table A-89 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 3.2 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Total annual cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 17,000 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 90,100 gal 267,000 M gal 102,000 kWh 907,800 kWh 163,200 kWh -53,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 70 hr 10.00/hr 68.900 68,900 60,400 9,900 8,000 700 6,400 1,100 (400) 3,600 26,700 3,200 700 Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 120,300 189,200 175,200 24,000 _ 6000 205,200 394,400 4,900 Total annual cost. $ 4.06 399,300 Coal burned-98,300 toiis/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x I1//' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $995>300 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-182 TableA- 92 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection Regulated (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 13.3 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit costf,.$____cgstt_$___ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Iota! aBasis: 70,200 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 372,100 gal 267,000 M gal 421,200kWh 3,748,700 kWh 673,900 kWh -38,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 160hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ ~8.72 284,300 284,300 60,400 40,900 8,000 2,900 26,200 4,700 (300) 3,600 50,400 4,800 1,600. 203,200 487,500 323,600 40,700 6.000 370,300 857,800 20,200 Total annual cost, $ Coal burned-100,700 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant—15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x I'/z' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $1,838,700 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power Unit, Cost of solids disposal pond not included. bCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-183 Table A-93Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Poy^r_Pl^tsj3^Dry i-imestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel- 1.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in Fuel; 9.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaCO3) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total quantity Unj^cost $ 51,100 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 270,800 gal 267,000 M gal 306,600 kWh 2,728,700 kWh 490,600 kWh -160,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 140hr 10.00/hr Total annual cost, $ 207.000 207,000 60,400 29,800 8,000 2,100 19,100 3,400 (1,100) 3,600 44,300 7,800 1.400 178,800 385,800 305,600 35,800 6,000 Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 2.54 347,400 733,200 14,800 Total annual cost, $ 748,000 Coal burned-294,800 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1% limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital 6investment, $1,736,200 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-184 TableA-9^ Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 19.6 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 103,100 tons 4.05/ton 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 546,400 gal 267,000 M gal 618,600 kWh 5,505,500 kWh 989,800 kWh -142,000 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 140 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 417.600 417,600 60,400 60,100 8,000 4,300 38,500 6,900 (1,000) 3,600 61,600 9,500 1f400 253,300 670,900 417,000 50,700 6.000 473,700 1,144,600 29,900 Total annual cost, $ 3.95 1,174,500 aBasis: b, Coal burned-297,300 tons/yr; .793 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x \Vi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,369,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. 'Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-185 TableA-95 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 29.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Total annual cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 156,000 tons 4.05/ton 11,720man-hr 6.00/man-hr 827,300 gal 390,000 M gal 936,600 kWh 8,335,700 kWh 1,498,600 kWh -128,000 kWh 750,800 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 270 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned. $ -631J300 631,800 70,300 91,000 11,700 6,600 58,300 10,500 (900) 5,300 77,100 10,700 2.700 343,300 975,100 515,100 68,700 7fOOO 590,800 1,565,900 45,100 Total annual cost. 5.38 1,611,000 "Basis: Coal burned-299,700 tons/yr; .799 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant—15 yr Power plant on-stream time—5000 hi/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1V4 limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,926,600 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection oi limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-186 Table A-96Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 40 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ 21 0,500 tons 4.05/ton 852.500 852,500 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust col lection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 11,720 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,115,700 gal 390,000 M gal 1,263,000 kWh 11,240,700 kWh 2,020,800 kWh -115,500 kWh 750.800 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 320 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned,$ 70,300 122,700 11,700 8,800 78,700 14,100 (800) 5,300 89,500 11,800 3.200 415,300 1,267,800 594,200 83,100 7.000 684,300 1,952,100 60,700 Total annual cost, $ 6.66 2,012,800 aBasis: Coal burned-302,100 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $3,376,200 Incremental electrostatic piecipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-187 Table A-97 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission jfrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 16.8 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) rect Costs terial CaCOs ) later! a I Annual quantity 85, 100 tons Unit cost, $ 4.05/ton Total annual cost, $ 344.700 344,700 Delivered raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities'^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 451,000 gal 267,000 M gal 510,600 kWh 4,544,300 kWh 817,000 kWh -267,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 190hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned. $ 60,400 49,600 8,000 3,600 31,800 5,700 (1,900) 3,600 57,300 12,100 1.900 232,100 576,800 407,400 46,400 6,000 459,800 1,036,600 24,600 Total annual cost. $ 2.16 1,061,200 Total aBasis: Coal burned-491,400 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location—1972 costs 0" x 1% limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,314,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-188 TableA-98 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 32.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost. $ Total annual cost. $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 171,900 tons 4.05/ton 11,720 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 911,100 gal 390,000 M gal 1,031,400 kWh 9,179,500 kWh 1,650,200 kWh -236,500 kWh 750,800 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 280 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 696,200 696.200 70,300 100,200 11,700 7,200 64,300 11,600 (1,700) 5,300 82,000 14,600 2.800 368,300 1,064,500 566,900 73,700 7.000 647,600 1,712,100 49,900 Total annual cost. $ 3.56 1.762.000 "Basis: Coal burned-495,400 tons/yr; .793 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $3,221,100 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-189 TableA-99 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO, Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 49.4 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Total annual cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 260,200 tons 4.05/ton 11,720 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,379,100 gal 570,000 M gal 1,561,200 kWh 13,894,700 kWh 2,497,900 kWh -213,500 kWh 1,097,300 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 360 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 4.86 1.053.800 1,053,800 70,300 151,700 17,100 10,900 97,300 17,500 (1,500) 7,700 102,600 16,500 3.600 493,700 1,547,500 698,400 98,700 7,000 804,100 2,351,600 75,200 Total annual cost. $ 2,426,800 aBasis: Coal burned-499,400 tons/yr; .799 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x 1V4 limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $3,968,400 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-190 TableA-100 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SOj Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 66.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 350,800 tons 4.05/ton 13,370 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,859,200 gal 609,000 M gal 2,104,800 kWh 18,732,700 kWh 3,367,700 kWh -192,500 kWh 1,172,300 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 430 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 1.420.700 1,420,700 80,200 204,500 18,300 14,700 131,100 23,600 (1,300) 8,200 119,300 18,200 4.300 621,100 2,041,800 806,400 124,200 8.000 938,600 2,980,400 101,100 Total annual cost, $ 6.12 aBasis: 3,081,500 Coal burned-503,500 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x l'/2f limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $4,582,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-191 Table A-101 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SQ2 Emission _Jrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 22.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 119,100 tons 4.05/ton 482.400 482,400 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilities^ Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 10,070 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 631,200 gal 267,000 M gal 714,600 kWh 6,359,900 kWh 1,143,400 kWh -374,500 kWh 514,000 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 230 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned.$ 60,400 69,400 8,000 5,000 44,500 8,000 (2,600) 3,600 67,800 15,700 2.300 282,100 764,500 489,800 56,400 6.000 552,200 1,316,700 34,500 Total annual cost. $ 1.96 1,351,200 aBasis: Coal burned-688,000 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant—15 yr Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $2,782,700 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. , Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-192 TableA-102Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; '45.8 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost. $ cost. $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material 240,600 tons 4.05/ton 974.400 974,400 Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 11,720 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,275,200 gal 570,000 M gal 1,443,600 kWh 12,848,000 kWh 2,309,800 kWh -331,100 kWh 1,097,300 kWh -11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 340 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal Jjurned,$ 3.33 70,300 140,300 17,100 10,100 89,900 16,200 (2,300) 7,700 98,800 19,000 3.400 470,500 1,444,900 691,200 94,100 7,000 792,300 2,237,200 69,800 Total annual cost, $ 2,307,000 aBasis: Coal burned-693,600 tons/yr; .793 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stieam time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $3,927,000 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-193 TableA-103 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Comnany Economic (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel- 3.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in Fuel • 69.2 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Annual quantity Unit cost, $ Total annual cost, $ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) So I ids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant 364,300 tons 4.05/ton 13,370 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 1,930,800 gal 630,000 M gal 2,185,800 kWh 19,453,600 kWh 3,497,300 kWh -298,900 kWh 1,212,800 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 440 hr 10.00/hr Total Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 4.57 1.475.400 1,475,400 80,200 212,400 18,900 15,300 136,200 24,500 (2,100) 8,500 121,500 21,500 4.400 641,300 2,116,700 840,600 128,300 8.000 976,900 3,093,600 105,200 Total annual cost, $ 3,198,800 aBasis: Coal burned-699,200 tons/yr; .799 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant—15 yr Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $4,766,400 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. . Cost of solids disposal pond not included. Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- L-194 Table A-lQl+Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO3 Emission from Power Plants by Dry Limestone injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel; 4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel; 93.3 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour) Total annual Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $ _ Direct Costs Delivered raw material Limestone (95% CaC03) Subtotal raw material Conversion costs Operating labor & supervision including payroll overhead Utilitiesb Fuel oil (drying) Sluice water Electricity Receiving-drying Grinding Injection Dust collection (credit) Solids disposal Maintenance Labor and material Drying, grinding, injection, and solids disposal areas Dust collection Analyses Subtotal conversion costs Subtotal direct costs Indirect Costs Average capital charges at 17.6% of initial fixed investment Overhead Plant, 20% of conversion costs Administrative, 10% of operating labor Subtotal indirect costs Average annual operating cost for dry limestone injection Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant Total 491,100 tons 4.05/ton 1.989.000 1,989,000 15,350 man-hr 6.00/man-hr 92,100 2,602,800 gal 831,DOOM gal 2,946,600 kWh 26,224,700 kWh 4,714,600 kWh -269,500 kWh 1,599,700 kWh .11/gal .03/M gal .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh .007/kWh 530 hr 10.00/hr Cost/ton of coal burned, $ 286,300 24,900 20,600 183,600 33,000 (1,900) 11,200 145,700 23,700 5,300 824,500 2,813,500 993,600 164,900 9.200 1,167,700 3,981,200 141,500 Total annual cost, $ 5.85 4,122,700 aBasis: Coal burned-705,000 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh Remaining life of power plant-15 yr Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr Midwest plant location-1972 costs 0" x \V" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh Capital investment, $5,645,500 Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical and electrostatic devices. Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included. "Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value. ------- Table A-105 DRY LIMESTONc INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO.- ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.3 S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 751500 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KV»-HR/KW M KwH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 5.- _ 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 5000 5000 5 JOO 5000 3500 3500 3500 3_.5.0_.0_ 1500 1500 1500 1500 250000 250000 250000 250000 25.QO.flii _ 175000 175000 175000 175000 1250.0.0. 75000 75000 75000 75000 97900 97900 97900 97900 212Q2_ 68600 6S600 68600 68600 29400 29400 29400 29400 224.00 TOTAL 50000 2500000 979500 EQUIVALENT CCST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IE DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT rtJRTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL bURNED EQUIVALENT fVEScNT ft'JRTH, 1ILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 376200 365800 355400 344900 3_ 2.4.5-0.0. 283000 277600 267200 256700 _24.6.3_QQ. _ 180200 169800 159400 143900 13a5QQ. 3909400 3.99 1.56 2223900 2.27 0.89 376200 742000 1097400 1442300 1226.3.30. 2064800 2342400 2609600 2866300 3.1126.Q.Q. 3292800 3462600 3622000 3770900 01 ------- Table A-106 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIREO POWER UNIT, 0.81 S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: t 834500 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPAMY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR * CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IS COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 3.Q 1500 250000 250000 250000 250000 175000 175000 175000 175000 75000 75000 75000 75000 98100 98100 98100 98100 68700 68700 68700 68700 29400 29400 29400 29400 _ 224QQ- TOTAL 50000 2500000 981000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 417800 406200 394600 383100 318800 307200 295600 284100 198100 186600 175000 163400 1512QQ 4326400 4.41 1.73 2464300 2.51 0.99 417800 824000 1218600 1601700 laiazao- 2292000 2599200 2894800 3178900 3649500 3836100 4011100 4174500 ID ------- Table A-107 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 5.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 908300 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 ~6 7 8 9 -10. 11 12 13 V4 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 3Q_ 5000 5000 5000 5000 5.QQQ. 3510 3500 3500 3500 _ as.QQ. 1500 1500 1500 1500 250000 250000 250000 250000 25QOQQ_ 175000 175000 175000 175000 75000 75000 75000 75000 25QO.Q 98200 98200 ' 98200 ' 98200 ' 68800 ; 68800 ; 68800 : 68800 : 6jaaQQ i 29500 i 29500 i 29500 ] 29500 ; 2.2500 __ J TOTAL 50000 2500000 982500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 456900 444300 431700 419100 _iQ6.5QQ 347400 334800 322200 309600 -2.220.0.0. 214300 201700 189100 176500 16.3,200. 4715000 4.80 1.89 2689400 2.74 1.08 456900 901200 332900 ^752000 2J.5fl5Qfl_ 2505900 2840700 3162900 3472500 3983800 4185500 4374600 4551100 47-15.0.00. <£> ------- Table A-108 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8S S IN FUEL, 6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 974900 YEARS AFTER POWER. ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWERJ TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 20 5QOO ^ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 • 350Q 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 ifl _L5fifl ^ 250000 250000 250000 250000 175000 175000 175000 175000 __125flQQ_ 75000 75000 75000 75000 15QQQ 98400 98400 98400 98400 _, 98400 68900 68900 68900 68900 29500 29500 29500 29500 29500 TOTAL 50000 2500000 984000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 493400 479900 466300 452800 4a22QQ 374400 360900 347300 333800 3.2D.3.0.Q 229700 216200 202600 189100 115.400. 5081600 5.16 2.03 2901100 2.95 1.16 493400 973300 1439600 1892400 23.3.1J.QO. 2706100 306700C 3414300 3748100 4P.684.Qp'. 4298100 4514300 4716900 4906000 saaiiafl. 00 ------- Table A-109 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POHER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: * 1036300 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR ", CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 -10. 11 13 14 15_ 16 17 18 19 -2.Q. 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 _2tt TOT PRE 5000 250000 5000 250000 5000 250000 5000 250000 _5.QQO_ 250000 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 15OO 1500 1SOQ 175000 175000 175000 175000 115QQfl 75000 75000 75000 75000 75000 98500 98500 98500 98500 69000 69000 69000 69000 6.2QQQ . 29600 29600 29600 29600 226QQ AL 50000 2500000 985500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR SENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OS TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 528300 513900 499500 485100 4iaaaa _„ 399800 385400 371000 356700 3.4.22QQ _ 243900 229500 215200 20080 18.6.4.QU 5428600 5.51 2.17 3102100 3.15 1.2* 528300 1042200 1541700 2026800 2 8 9 74 00~ 3282800 3653800 40105OO 4596700~ 4826200 5041400 5242200 54.2.B6.QQ VD ------- Table A-110 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8S S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIONETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1280100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 2 3 4 ^5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 ^20 _ 5000 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 3500 3500 3500 3500 . 750000 750000 750000 750000 525000 525000 525000 525000 1500 225000 1500 225000 1500 225000 1500 225000 1500 22jOQO 293800 293800 293800 293800 205700 205700 205700 205700 88100 88100 88100 88100 _BfllQQ TOTAL 50000 7500000 2938000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 634300 616500 598800 581000 -56.3,10.0 478500 460800 443100 425300 40.16.QJi 291400 273700 256000 238200 6489000 2.21 0.87 3712400 1.26 0.49 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, * 634300 1250800 1849600 2430600 ,. , 2223900 3472400 3933200 4376300 4801600 52Q22QQ 5500600 5774300 6030300 6268500 &.4S2QQQ IV) o o ------- Table A-lll DRY LIMESTONE INJECTIONt REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1431500 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTIONt TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWERJ $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, * 750000 750000 750000 750000 ,15.0.0.0.0.- 525000 525000 525000 525000 225000 225000 225000 225000 294200 294200 294200 294200 729300 709400 689600 669700 206000 206000 206000 206000 88300 88300 88300 88300 aaaofl 547700 527900 508000 488200 329700 3099QO 290000 270200 __ 2.5.0100. 729300 1438700 2126300 2798000 -34.4.12QQ. 3995600 4523500 5031500 5519700 6317800 6627700 6917700 7187900 TOTAL 50000 7500000 2942500 7438200 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.53 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.99 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 4262400 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 1.45 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.57 ------- Table A-112 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.88 S IN FUEL, 5.0 INJECTION STOICHIOM6TRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1568800 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR I Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ,10 ^rT- 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 750000 17 5000 750000 18 5000 750000 19 5000 750000 _2Q 5UCJ2 7.5QQQO 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 350O 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 30 , , 15Q0 , - , 525000 525000 525000 525000 525QQ&. 225000 225000 225000 225000 225QQ.fi ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE R01 FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER! POWER. TONS COAL/YR § $ 294700 294700 294700 294700 ^_2S4ZOa^.,li».r- 206300 206300 206300 206300 2Q6300 88400 88400 88400 88400 8fl400_ TOTAL 50000 7500000 2947000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 819300 797600 775800 754000 . Z3.22Qa_ 613300 591600 569800 548100 526.3flQ 365400 343700 321900 300200 2ia4Qa_ 8337700 2.83 1.11 4784000 1.62 0.64 819300 1616900 2392700 3146700 3.S1SQQQ 4492300 5083900 5653700 6201800 6-22JLLQ2 7093500 7437200 7759100 805930O . aaaziflo. l\3 O ------- Table A-113 DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1694400 YEARS AFTER. POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KH-HR/KW M KWH/YR 1 2 3 4 •j 6 7 8 9 -10 11 12 13 14 1> 16 17 ia 19 -2.0. 21 22 23 24 25 5000 5000 5000 5000 5QOO 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 750000 750000 750000 750000 isaoao- 525000 525000 525000 525000 525QOO 26 1500 225000 27 1500 225000 28 1500 225000 29 1500 225000 20. i5CO 225QQQ ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR $ 295100 295100 295100 295100 zasiaa _ 206600 206600 206600 206600 ZQfifiQfl 88500 88500 88500 88500 Sfl5.QQ TOTAL 50000 7500000 2951000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 905800 882300 858800 835300 aiiaofl_ 676000 652500 629000 605500 aazQ-QQ 399300 375800 352300 328800 3Q52QQ 9200500 3.12 i.23 5284900 1,79 0.70 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, i 905800 1788100 2646900 3482200 . i224QDfl 4970000 §622500 6251500 6857000 Z4.22QQfl_ 1838300 821100 3566400 8895200 22£Ki5_QQ IV) o 00 ------- Table A-llU OR LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.81 S IN FUEL, 7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRV. FIXED INVESTMENT: * isoaooo YEARS AFTER POWER. UNIT START ~~I 2 3 4 ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 6 7 8 9 "ll" 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 -2,5 26 27 28 29 5000 5000 5000 5000 aaoa— 3500 3500 3500 3500 asafl 1500 1500 1500 1500 750000 750000 750000 750000 -isaflfla.. 525000 525000 525000 525000 _525_aaa. 225000 225000 225000 225000 295600 295600 295600 295600 2256.0.0— 206900 206900 206900 206900 2fl62QQ_. 88700 88700 88700 88700 988800 963700 938600 913600 988800 1952500 2891100 3804700 736200 711200 686100 661100 63.6QQ.O.- 431400 406400 381300 356200 5429400 6140600 6826700 7487800 8555200 8961600 9342900 9699100 1QQ3.Q.3.QO. TOTAL 50000 7500000 2956000 10030300 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 3.39 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.34 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 5766600 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 1.95 EQUIVALENT PRESENT-WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.77 ------- Table A-115 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 6.8X S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1695100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) POWER, START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 20 ^5OOQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 2500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 ^n 1500 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 _125flflQQ_ 875000 875000 875000 875000 aiiaaa. 375000 375000 375000 375000 375000 489700 489700 489700 489700 „. 489700, _,..,- 342800 342800 342800 342800 34.2flQ.fl 146900 146900 146900 146900 __ JAfiSQQ __ TOTAL 50000 12500000 4897000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 857200 833700 810200 786700 -1632,00 642200 618700 595200 571600 54B1QQ 384800 361300 337800 314300 __22QflQQ 8715800 1.78 0.70 4999800 1.02 0.40 857200 1690900 2501100 3287BOO 4fl51QQfl. 4693200 5311900 5907100 6478700 _ ZQ2.6flflQ 7411600 7772900 8110700 8425000 ,- „, ,9715800 ------- Table A-ll6 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: * 1868100 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY INET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) * CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A.5 16 17 IB 19 2.0. ^ - 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 3.Q 5000 5000 5000 5000 50QC 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1«500 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 125QQQQ 875000 875000 875000 875000 "375000 375000 375000 375000 375000 490400 490400 490400 490400 34330O 343300 343300 343300 343100 147100 147100 147100 147100 1471QQ 989600 963700 9378OO 911900 48.6jO.PQ 738000 712100 686200 660300 6.14400 435500 409600 383700 357800 331900 989600 1953300 2891100 3803000 4&fl2flflQ_ 5427000 6139100 6825300 7485600 fli2flQOQ_ 8555500 8965100 9348800 9706600 10.03.8.500. TOTAL 5000C 12500000 4904000 10038500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.05 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.80 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 5768300 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 1.18 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.46 17 N) o ------- Table A-117 ORV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 5.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRV. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2086100 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KHH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POKER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR * CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, « 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1O , ., 11 12 13 14 A5 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 2Q _5DQO_ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 35 QQ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 30 15QQ 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 lisaaoa 875000 875000 875000 875000 ai5flOQ_ 375000 375000 375000 375000 375QQO 491100 491100 491100 491100 ^TT ^491100,^ ^ 343800 343800 343800 343800 343800 147300 147300 147300 147300 1413-0.0. _ _ TOTAL 50000 12500000 4911000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT HORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT HORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1136400 1107500 1078500 1049600 __1QZQ1QQ 844800 815900 787000 758000 2221QQ 493400 464400 435500 406600 —17-7.&OQ 11505000 2.34 0.92 6619100 1.35 0.53 1136400 2243900 3322400 4372000 5322200- 6237500 7053450 7840400 8598400 22225flQ_ 9820900 10285300 10720800 11127400 li505flflQ_ O -si ------- Table A-118 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8S S IN FUEL, 6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: S 2253600 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING RP6ULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 _10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 ^2.0 5000 5000 5000 5000 5.OOO . . 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 35OO 26 27 26 29 3.0 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 875000 875000 875000 875000 875000 375000 375000 375000 375000 375000 491900 491900 491900 491900 42123Q _ 344300 344300 344300 344300 24&3.Q.a_ 147600 147600 147600 147600 14-7.6.0.0— TOTAL 50000 12500000 4919000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT .WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1267700 1236500 1205300 1174000 -ll&ZflQO _ 939900 908700 877500 846200 aiSQQQ 543500 512300 481000 449800 41&60H 12818800 2.61 1.03 7382400 1.50 0.59 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, S 1267700 2504200 3709500 4883500 6flZ63flfl_ 6966200 7874900 8752400 9598600 ,,10413600 10957100 11469400 11950400 12400200 IZfllflSQQ. ro o oo ------- Table A-119 DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: * 2407700 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL EQU ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW 5000 5000 5000 5000 50OO 3500 3500 3500 3500 35flQ 1500 1500 1500 1500 150° 50000 IVALENT COST, POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 ,. 875000 875000 875000 875000 ,_ aisjwp 375000 375000 375000 375000 -325000. 12500000 DOLLARS PER TON OF POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR 492600 492600 492600 492600 4226.QQ 344800 344800 344800 344800 _ _,_34^aoa 147800 147800 147800 147800 4926000 COAL BURNED ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY tNET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) S 1394700 1361300 1327900 1294500 1261200 1031600 998200 964800 931400 591600 558200 524800 491400 14087600 2.86 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, t 1394700 2756000 4083900 5378400 _ 6.6.226.00 7671200 8669400 9634200 10565600 _ 114.43.6.0.Q 12055200 12613400 13138200 13629600 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.13 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 8120000 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 1.65 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.65 o to ------- Table A-120 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8J S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2032300 YEARS AFTER POWER. ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT CNET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 5 ,- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 2Q__ _5QQQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 _25 J5QO 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 3g T — L5QQ _.,„„„ 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 -1Z500QO- 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 12.25.DQQ .. 525000 525000 525000 525000 525QOQ 685600 685600 685600 685600 , n 6.856QQJ 479900 479900 479900 479900 _ £239.00 205700 205700 205700 205700 205700 TOTAL 50000 17500000 6856000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1055400 1027200 999100 970900 stiziao. 787200 759000 730800 702600 6.145.00 465900 43 700 409500 381300 -15.1IQO. 10696900 1.56 0.61 6146600 0.90 0.35 1055400 2082600 3081700 4052600 4995300 5782500 6541500 7272300 7974900 aai240Q 9115300 9553000 9962500 10343800 106.i62QQ ------- Table A-121 ORY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 HW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOHETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: s 2278800 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR * 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1ft 11 12 13 -15. 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 5000 5000 5000 5000 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 1500 L5QQ 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 _1Z5QQQO_ 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 _I2Z5£Qfl_ _ 525000 525000 525000 525000 525.QQQ 686600 686600 686600 686600 480600 480600 480600 480600 206000 206000 206000 206000 206000 TOTAL 50000 17500000 6866000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. 0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1242200 1210600 1179000 1147400 11I5MQ 922400 890800 859200 827600 _Z26.QQQ 537500 505900 474300 442800 4.112QO. 12562700 1.83 0.72 7230600 1.05 0.41 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, * 1242200 2452800 3631800 4779200 5Jl25flflQ_ 6817400 7708200 8567400 9395000 J>fll210.QQ 10728500 11234400 11708700 12151500 ------- Table A-122 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 HW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL* 5.0 INJECTION STOICHIOHETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: S 2503200 YEARS AFTER. POWER. ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KH M KHH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR * CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, » 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2P 5000 5000 5000 5000 5OOO 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 ,25 35DO 26 27 28 29 3Q 1500 1500 1500 1500 150O_ 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 J,75QOOO_ 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 .1225000. 525000 525000 525000 525000 525QQQ 687600 687600 687600 687600 ,687600 481300 481300 481300 481300 4R1300 206300 206300 206300 206300 2O6300 TOTAL 50000 17500000 6876000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1421900 1387200 1352400 1317700 —uaaaoa 1052200 1017500 9B2800 948000 213200 605800 571100 536400 501700 .4J&.1QDQ 14358000 2.09 0.82 8274100 1.20 0.47 1421900 2809100 4161500 5479200 626220Q. 7814400 8831900 9814700 10762700 11626000- 12281800 12852900 13389300 13891000 . _ -14358000. ro ------- Table A-123 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8X S IN FUEL, 6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2707700 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POKER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KH-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR * 1 a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ifl 11 12 13 1* 15 16 5COO 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 ?0 5.Q.QQ 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 1Z5QQQQ 21 3500 1225000 22 3500 1225000 23 3500 1225000 24 3500 1225000 25 25QQ 1225OOO 26 1500 27 1500 26 1500 29 1500 2Q L5fl-Q 525000 525000 525000 525000 525000 688600 688600 688600 688600 _ 68.S6J2Q 482000 482000 482000 482000 4£2flQ.Q. 206600 206600 206600 206600 246.6.0.0. TOTAL 50000 17500000 6886000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1595800 1558300 1520700 1483200 14.456.flQ 1177900 1140300 1102800 1065200 1Q22ZQQ 670900 633300 595800 558200 52QZCQ 16096400 2.34 0.92 9285400 1.35 0.53 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1595800 3154100 4674800 6158000 Z6.D26.QQ. 8781500 9921800 11024600 12089800 13.1115flQ 13788400 14421700 15017500 15575700 16.32£4.flQ GO ------- Table A- DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2893300 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR t CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, » 1 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8 9 .,10 .„_ ,, , 11 12 13 14 16 5000 1750000 17 5000 1750000 18 5000 1750000 19 5000 1750000 2ft_ _5flflfl_ ^ 1750000 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 2* 3500 24 35QP 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 3Q_ t L5QQ n 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 -1225QUQ- 525000 525000 525000 525000 •5P5000 689600 689600 689600 689600 &&2&QQ_ _ 482800 482800 482800 482800 4828QQ 206900 206900 206900 206900 206900 TOTAL 5000C 17500000 6896500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1776900 1736800 1696700 1656500 16.164QQ 1309600 1269500 1229300 1189200 .1142100 740300 700200 660000 619900 5Z2flQQ 17930200 2.60 1.02 10347900 1.50 0.59 1776900 3513700 5210400 686690O aiaiiflQ- 9792900 11062400 12291700 13480900 _ _14£3.flQ.Qfi_ 15370300 16070500 16730500 17350400 11230200. r IVJ ------- Taisle A-125 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MM EX. COAL FIRED POKER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: t 817100 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR 1 2 3 4 5 ^_^_ - _,„ - 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 Zfl 5000 „ ,_ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 3500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 3.0 _15Dfl_ 250000 250000 250000 250000 175000 175000 175000 175000 75000 75000 75000 75000 750QO ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR » 98000 98000 98000 98000 28000 68600 68600 68600 68600 6860Q 29400 29400 29400 29400 29400 TOTAL 50000 2500000 980000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 407900 396500 385200 373800 311600 300200 288900 277600 194000 182700 171300 160000 iifilQa 4227100 4.31 1.69 2406900 2.46 0.96 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 407900 804400 1189600 1563400 13253Q2_ 2237500 2537700 2826600 3104200 3.3.Ifl4.QQ_ 3564400 3747100 3918400 4078400 422JlQPr 01 ------- Table A-126 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0? S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: « IOTOSOO YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KH M KWH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 20 5QQQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 _J15QQ_ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 250000 250000 250000 250000 175000 175000 175000 175000 _liaQQQ_ 75000 75000 75000 75000 15.QQQ 98400 98400 98400 98400 98400 68900 68900 68900 68900 68900 29500 29500 29500 29500 _295Qfl _ TOTAL 50000 2500000 984000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESF.NT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 546100 531200 516400 501500 -4.a6.ZQQ 412900 398100 383200 368400 3535QQ 251600 236700 221800 207000 1221QQ 5607200 5.70 2.24 3205200 3.26 1.28 546100 1077300 1593700 2095200 2994800 3392900 3776100 4144500 4749600 4986300 5208100 5415100 , 56QI2QQ r\j i—» 01 ------- Table A-12? DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION ST01CHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1271500 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 11 12 13 14 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 PO 5000 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25. -3.500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 an _150-0 250000 98900 250000 98900 250000 98900 250000 98900 250000 2H2QQ _ _. 175000 69200 175000 69200 175000 69200 175000 69200 115000 -u ,69200 75000 29700 75000 29700 75000 29700 75000 29700 isaaa_ 22ZQO TOTAL 50000 2500000 989000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT ORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 668100 650400 632800 615200 52Z50Q 502100 484400 466800 449200 431500 ,_ 301000 283300 265700 248100 . 23Q4QQ 6826500 6.90 2.73 3911300 3.95 1.56 668100 1318500 1951300 '.566500 3164000- 3666100 4150500 4617300 5066500 5799000 6082300 6348000 6596100 IV) ------- Table A-128 DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0 S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: * 144-2000 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF PDWERI START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 2 3 4 , .5 _..^_ ..„ . 6 7 8 9 IP 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 20. 5poo 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 3500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 3.Q _ L50Q 250000 250000 250000 250000 25QQOQ 175000 175000 175000 175000 1Z5QQU „„ 75000 75000 75000 75000 75QQQ TOTAL 50000 2500000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. 0* TO INI EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOW 99400 99400 99400 99400 224QQ _ 69600 69600 69600 69600 _6.9.6.QQ 29800 29800 29800 29800 2.2&Q.Q. 994000 BURNED TIAL YEAR, DOLLARS OF COAL BURNED ATT-HOUR 781000 761000 741100 721100 _ .101100 584200 564200 544200 524200 5Q4.2.QQ 345700 325800 305800 285800 7955200 8.00 3.18 4565900 4.59 1.83 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, 781000 1542000 2283100 3004200 4289500 4853700 5397900 5922100 . 6.4 2.6.3.QQ_ 6772000 7097800 7403600 7689400 7_3S520J} oo ------- Table A-129 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 140600 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION, START KH-HR/KW 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 2.O 5.0QQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 ?> 3500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 _aa isafl — TOTAL 50000 EQUIVALENT COST, EQUIVALENT COST, POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR 750000 750000 750000 750000 Z5QQ.QQ _ 525000 525000 525000 525000 5_2.5QQfl 225000 225000 225000 225000 22.5QO.Q 7500000 DOLLARS PER TON OF POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR 293900 293900 293900 293900 2,9.3.9.00, 205700 205700 205700 205700 20.5100. 88200 88200 88200 88200 aazfio. 2939000 COAL BURNED MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) ( 707400 687900 668400 649000 62.95_O.Q 532000 512500 493100 473600 iSilQQ . 321600 302100 282600 263200 Z&3.1D.Q 7220700 2.46 0.96 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 707400 1395300 2063700 2712700 3.3.422QQ 3874200 4386700 4879800 5353400 ._ 5flQl5QQ 6129100 6431200 6713800 6977000 122.fllQO._ TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 4135700 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.41 0.55 [7 N> I—* to ------- Table A-130 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1374200 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START 1 2 3 4 ..5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25_ 26 27 28 29 .30 ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000^ 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 1500 150Q 750000 750000 750000 750000 525000 525000 525000 525000 225000 225000 225000 225000 -22.5000— ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) t CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, S 295300 1029400 1029400 295300 1003500 2032900 295300 977500 3010400 295300 951500 3961900 -225300 9.25500. iflaiAQQ- 206700 766200 5653600 206700 740300 6393900 206700 714300 7108200 206700 688300 7796500 .2Q61QQ 6.&210Q ai5MQQ 88600 447800 8906600 88600 421900 9328500 88600 395900 9724400 88600 369900 10094300 3.A32QQ TOTAL 50000 7500000 2953000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 10438200 3.53 1.39 6002800 2.03 0.80 ------- Table A-131 ORY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2251400 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 20 5QQQ_ 750000 750000 750000 750000 75QQQO 21 3500 525000 22 3500 525000 23 3500 525000 24 3500 525000 ?•> 350Q - - 525OOO 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 •n i son 225000 225000 225000 225000 225000 296700 296700 296700 296700 226.1Q.Q 207700 207700 207700 207700 -2Q.ZZQQ 89000 89000 89000 89000 890QO TOTAL 50000 7500000 2967000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1324800 1293600 1^62300 1231100 J.1922QO. 979700 948500 917200 8B6000 560600 529400 498100 466900 _4.25ZQ.a 13388600 4.51 1.79 7717400 2.60 1.03 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1324800 2618400 3880700 5111800 6.3.11ZQ.Q 7291400 8239900 9157100 10043100 lQfl2I2QQ 11458500 11987900 12486000 12952900 123.aflfi.QQ ------- Table A-132 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0JE S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2574200 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER. ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5COO 2Q 5000 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 _25QQ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 30 _ _.150Q ,_ 750000 750000 750000 750000 I5QOQQ _ _ 525000 525000 525000 525000 225000 225000 225000 225000 225000 298200 298200 298200 298200 22B2.QQ 208700 208700 208700 208700 89500 89500 89500 89500 TOTAL 50000 7500000 2982000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1604200 1568500 1532800 1497200 14615.QQ 1181300 1145600 1109900 1074200 1023.500 665000 629300 593600 557900 522ZQQ . 16181700 5.43 2.16 9342200 3.13 1.25 1604200 3172700 4705500 6202700 Z&6_42QQ 8845500 9991100 11101000 12175200 13878700 14508000 15101600 15659500 . 16iSlZflfl rvs ------- Table A-133 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.01 S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1865600 YEARS AFTER. POWER ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION, START KW-HR/KW ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 e 9 ifl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -2.Q ai 22 23 24 _2i 26 27 28 29 _lfl TOT PRE 5000 5000 5000 5000 5.00Q 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1 ^00 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 J.2.5QQQQ 875000 875000 875000 875000 &Z5.QQQ 375000 375000 375000 375000 3I5QQQ 489800 489800 489800 489800 4fl2flflQ 342900 342900 342900 342900 34.22QQ 147000 147000 147000 147000 1470.0.0. _ A, 50000 12500000 4898500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR SENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 966600 940800 914900 889000 a&aiaa 722000 696100 670200 644300 ftiasaa 428400 402500 376600 350800 124."iPQ 9808700 2.00 0.78 5633500 1.15 0.45 966600 1907400 2822300 3711300 4,57.44.0.0. 5296400 5992500 6662700 7307000 iszssaa 8353900 8756400 9133000 9483800 2flflfl2QQ co ------- Table A- DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0? S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOIC HI OMETR Y. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 298900 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START 1 2 3 4 6 7 e 9 _ifi_ 11 12 13 ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW POWER GENERATION M KHH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, t I\J ro 1,5 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 -Zi_ 26 27 28 29 5000 1.750000 492200 1456800 1456800 5000 1250000 492200 1422100 2878900 5000 1250000 492200 1387500 4266400 5000 1250000 492200 1352800 5619200 5QO.Q 1250000 4222QQ 13.1B2QQ 6.2224.00- 3500 875000 344500 1076800 8014200 3500 875000 344500 1042200 9056400 3500 875000 344500 1007500 10063900 3500 875000 344500 972800 11036700 1500 375000 147700 615900 12590800 1500 375000 147700 581300 13172100 1500 375000 147700 546600 13718700 1500 375000 147700 512000 14230700 L5QQ 325000 142200 422200 TOTAL 5000C 12500000 4922000 14708000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.99 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.18 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 8480000 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 1.72 EQUIVALENT PRESFNT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.68 ------- Table A-135 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRV. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 301100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT ------- Table A-136 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0J S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 393000 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START ANNUAL POWER OPERATION, GENERATION KH-HR/KW M KWH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 17 18 19 3D 21 22 23 24 _25_ 26 27 28 29 2P 5000 5000 5000 5000 _5CQQ 3500 3500 3500 3500 _3.5QQ 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 12j5.QO.aQ 875000 875000 875000 875000 aisQo.0. 375000 375000 375000 375000 31500.0. 497000 497000 497000 497000 _ 421QQQ . 347900 347900 347900 347900 34J2QQ- 149100 149100 149100 149100 149100 2380700 2332200 2283700 2235200 21&6.ZQQ 1743400 1694900 1646300 1597800 __ _15i23.QQ 960100 911600 863100 814600 16.6.1OO TOTAL 50000 12500000 4970000 23965700 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 4.82 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.92 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 13863600 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.79 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.11 2380700 4712900 6996600 9231800 _114ia5QQ 13161900 14856800 16503100 18100900 126.5.QZQQ 20610300 21521900 22385000 23199600 2.3.265IQQ ro ------- Table A-137 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULA1tD POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: t 2238600 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS AFTER POWER. ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION, START K.W-HR/KW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 PO 50OO 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 s«; 3500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 i9 1500 ^n 1500 TOTAL 5000C INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POxER GENERATION M KWH/YR 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 115.000.0. 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225LQO.fl 525000 525000 525000 525000 52500.0 17500000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF POWER UNIT INET FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN TONS COAL/YR 685600 685800 685800 685800 , , ._ ., 6B5aQQ 480000 480000 480000 480000 AflQQQQ 205700 205700 205700 205700 __20 510.0 6857500 COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0% TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR ANNUAL INCREASE COST OF POWER) S 1197900 1166900 1135900 1104800 iaz.3.$.Q.a 890800 859700 828700 797700 26.6.6.0.0. 521700 490700 459600 428600 1216.00 12121000 1.77 0.69 6973000 L.02 0.40 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, t 1197900 2364800 3500700 4605500 56.12300 6570100 7429800 8258500 9056200 28.22&00 10344500 10835200 11294800 11723400 . 12121000 N> M --J ------- Table A-138 DRY tIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0J S IN FUELt 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 3005900 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14 15 _ 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 _2.Q 5QQQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 25QQ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 30 15.00 TOTAL 50000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 -1Z5QQQQ 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 I225fl]0.fl 525000 525000 525000 525000 _52SQQQ_ 17500000 PER TON OF POWER UNIT (NET FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN TONS COAL/YR 689100 689100 689100 689100 6S21QQ 482300 482300 482300 482300 4fi23QQ 206700 206700 206700 206700 2.Q6ZQQ 6890500 COAL 8URNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS , DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED , MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR ANNUAL INCREASE COST OF POWER) S 1858900 1817200 1775600 1733900 16922QQ 1369300 1327600 1285900 1244300 12Q26QQ 772200 730500 688300 647100 &Q55.QQ 18751600 2.72 1.07 10824500 1.57 0.62 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1858900 3676100 5451700 7185600 aaziflQQ_ 10247100 11574700 12860600 14104900 1520.Z5QQ. 16079700 16810200 17499000 18146100 19. 7.5 16. 0.0 IV) oo ------- Table A-139 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 3676800 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL POWER UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POHERJ TONS COAL/YR * CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 _10 11 12 13 14 16 17 IB 19 ~21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 o n 5000 5000 5000 5000 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500- 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 525000 525000 525000 525000 692400 692400 692400 692400 6224.00 484700 484700 484700 484700 _4fl4.1QO 207700 207700 207700 207700 _ 2Q2IQQ _ _ TOTAL 50000 17500000 6924000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 2501700 2450700 2399700 2348700 2222BQQ 1833200 1782200 1731200 1680200 1622200 1010900 959900 908900 857900 806300 25199100 3.64 1.44 14573700 2.10 0.83 2501700 4952400 7352100 9700800 11998600 13831800 15614000 17345200 19025400 21665500 22625400 23534300 24392200 IV) CO ------- Table A- DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. CDAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOIC HIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 4262100 YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START ANNUAL OPERATION, KW-HR/KW POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) TOTAL 50000 17500000 6957500 31268000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 4.49 EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.79 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 18110200 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.60 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.03 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1750000 695800 3108900 3108900 1750000 695800 3049800 6158700 1750000 695800 2990700 9149400 1750000 695800 2931600 12081000 ilSflQttfl ___ 625_EQQ ________________ 21Z2.5aQ _______________ 142535Qfl_ 1225000 487000 2268900 17222400 1225000 487000 2209800 19432200 1225000 487000 2150700 21582900 1225000 487000 2091600 23674500 U2.5.00Q ____ ifizaaa --------------- 2.fl3.250.Q _________________ 25IQZflflC. 525000 208700 1230400 26937400 525000 208700 1171300 28108700 525000 208700 1112200 29220900 525000 208700 1053100 30274000 525QQQ _______ 2CfilQQ ________________ 224.QQQ ro U) o ------- Table A-lUl DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNITt 5.0? S IN FUELi 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: * 995300 YEARS AFTER POWER. ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION, START KW-HR/KW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 16 5000 19 5000 2_U 5.0QQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 2_5 35QQ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 an 1 5DQ jV_i^^ . — _ Jh^MVi — TOTAL 50000 POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR 250000 250000 250000 250000 25.UO.aQ 175000 175000 175000 175000 H5J}Q,Q 75000 75000 75000 75000 15.fl.UO. 2500000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR 98300 98300 98300 98300 2S3.UU . 68800 68800 68800 68800 _&.aauu 29500 29500 29500 29500 _225J1U_ _ 983000 COAL BURNED ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) $ 502600 488800 475000 461200 . iiiiOQ 361000 367200 353300 339500 _3252fla__ 233700 219900 Z06100 192300 liaSUQ . 5172200 5.26 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 502600 991400 1466400 1927600 2.225.UUQ. 2756000 3123200 3476500 3816000 ilillflfl 4375400 4595300 4801400 4993700 _ 51.1220.0_ EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 2.07 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 2953500 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 3.00 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.18 ro u> ------- Table A-1U2 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: * 1332900 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER. ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Ifl 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 _2,Q _____5QQQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 35QO 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 30 1500 250000 250000 250000 250000 ._2SQflQfl_ 175000 175000 175000 175000 1T5QOQ -r- _ 75000 75000 75000 75000 15QQO_ 99100 99100 99100 99100 2210.0. 69400 69400 69400 69400 6.240.0. 29700 29700 29700 29700 297.00. TOTAL 50000 2500000 991000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 707500 689100 670600 652100 . 613.6J)0. 530600 512100 493600 475100 4566.Qfl 316600 298100 279600 261200 242.1QQ 7219100 7.28 2.89 4139200 4.18 1.66 707500 1396600 2067200 2719300 3_a5_22QQ 3883500 4395600 4889200 5364300 -5.8.209.0.Q 6137500 6435600 6715200 6976400 7.219J.QJ) oo ------- Table A-1^3 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0* S IK FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: t 1602600 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POhER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UMT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 20 5000 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 3.Q 1 ?Q° 250000 99900 250000 99900 250000 9990C 250000 99900 25QflQfl _222Qfl 175000 69900 175000 69900 175000 69900 175000 69900 75000 30000 75000 30000 75000 30000 75000 30000 75J3QQ 3QQQQ TOTAL 50000 2500000 999000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OS TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 892400 870200 848000 825800 665000 642800 620500 598300 576100 . 389300 367100 344900 322700 9067100 9.08 3.63 5211300 5.22 2.08 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 892400 1762600 2610600 3436400 ft2.itQQ.SlQ 4905000 5547800 6168300 6766600 73_42_ZQQ 7732000 8099100 8444000 8766700 2Q6.11QQ LO 00 ------- Table A-lM DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5-0* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY, FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1838700 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER. ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, S 11 12 13 14 15 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 £0 _5QQQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 2.5 _25QQ_ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 1Q 1500 250000 250000 250000 250000 iSflCOQ- 175000 175000 175000 175000 1TSO.OO 75000 75000 75000 75000 25QQQ 100700 100700 100700 100700 1UQ1QQ 70500 70500 70500 70500 2Q5QQ_ _ 30200 30200 30200 30200 302QQ TOTAL 50000 2500000 1007000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1068700 1043200 1017700 992200 S6&1QQ 792900 767400 741900 716400 6.2Q2QQ 457500 432000 406500 3BIOOO laasoa 10830500 10.76 4.33 6235100 6.19 2.49 1068700 2111900 3129600 4121800 SflflflSafl 5881400 6646800 7390700 8107100 BiaaoflQ 9255500 9687500 10094000 10475000 10.13.05.00. a> ------- Table A- DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 1736200 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J-5 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 2Q 5QQQ 21 3500 22 3500 23 3500 24 3500 25 35DQ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 •n 1 "5DQ 750000 294800 750000 294800 750000 294800 750000 294800 »i5£oaa_ zaifiQQ. 525000 206400 525000 206400 525000 206400 525000 206400 525QQQ_ ZQfiiHQ 225000 88500 225000 88500 2Z5000 88500 225000 88500 ?25000 flflSQQ TOTAL 50000 7500000 2948500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 928000 904000 879900 855800 __ aaiaaa 692600 668500 644500 620400 52&3.QQ . 408500 384400 360300 336300 3JL220.Q 9423500 3.20 1.26 5413800 1.84 0.72 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 928000 1832000 2711900 3567700 4.2225QQ_ 5092100 5760600 6405100 7025500 -Z&ZlflQD 8030300 8414700 8775000 9111300 24225QQ ro co en ------- Table A-lU6 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POwER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIREO POWER UNIT, 5.OX S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2369500 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED AFTER RQI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) START KW-HR/Kri M K.WH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ 1 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 11 12 13 14 16 17 1« 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 5000 DOOO 5000 5000 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 750000 750000 750000 750000 525000 525000 525000 525000 225000 225000 225000 225000 225-Q.Oi) ^7200 297200 297200 297200 208100 208100 208100 208100 89200 89200 89200 89200 &32SQ TOTAL 50000 7500000 2972500 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL UURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PKtSFNT WHRTH, COLLARS PER TON OF COAL BORNEO EQUIVALENT PKtStNT WORTH, rtlLLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1420300 1387400 1354500 1321700 1048700 1015900 983000 950100 596500 563700 530800 497900 14341700 4.82 1.91 8271800 2.78 1.10 1420300 2807700 4162200 5483900 &112.13S 7821400 8837300 9820300 10770400 llfcfillQQ 12284200 12847900 13378700 13876600 r ro GO 01 ------- Table A-1^7 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: t 2926600 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION, START KW-HR/Kw POWER u,ENERAT ION M KrtH/YR POWER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 1,5 16 5000 17 5000 18 5000 19 5000 2fl 5.J20J2 21 3500 22 3500 23 3bOO 24 3500 2i_ 3.5_iJO_ 26 1500 27 1500 28 1500 29 1500 30 1..5.0.0. 750000 750000 750000 750000 Z5.flQ.ilO. 525000 525000 525000 525000 5.25.0.00. 225000 225000 225000 225000 22520.0. 299700 299700 299700 299700 _ 222iQfl 209800 209800 209800 209800 _2 0230.0. 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900. 1914300 1873800 1833200 1792600 1Z.52.QP_Q 1406500 1365900 1325400 1284800 783400 742800 702300 661700 TOTAL 50000 7500000 2997000 19304000 EQUIVALENT CUST, DOLLARS PF.R TON CF COAL BURNED 6.44 EQUIVALENT CCST, MILLS PER KI LOwATT-HUUR 2.57 PRESENT «ORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 11153800 EgUIVAL^NT PKtSFNT WURTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF CGAL BURNED 3.72 EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.49 1914300 3788100 5621300 7413900 10572400 11938300 13263700 14548500 16576100 17318900 18021200 18682900 ._ _ 123.0.4.0.QQ 1\D 00 ------- Table A- DKY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATEJ POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIAED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IS FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STDICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 3376200 YEARS AFTER. PUrtER. ANNUAL L.N1T OPERATION, START KW-HR/KW i 2 4 0 7 ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED KOI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, I 9 "ll" 13 16 5COO i7 5000 16 5000 19 5000 20. SflQH 21 3500 2^ 35CC 23 3500 ^4 3500 26 1500 27 1500 2o 1500 ^9 1500 10 1,500 750000 750000 750000 750000 Z5Q.Q.Q.Q 525000 525000 525000 525000 225000 225000 225000 225000 302100 302100 302100 302100 .3.0.20.20. 211500 211500 211500 211500 211500. 90600 90600 90600 90600 TbTAL 50000 7500000 3021000 EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PkESENT ORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.02 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED tUUlVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 2362800 2316000 2269200 2222400 _ 2J.156.Q.Q 1728700 1681900 1635100 1588300 946900 900100 853300 806500 23788000 7.87 3.17 13765400 4.56 1.84 2362800 4678800 6948000 9170400 113.463.23 13074700 14756600 46391700 17980000 20468400 21368500 22221800 23028300 OJ 00 ------- Table A- DRY LIMESTOME INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNITt 5.0% S IN FUELt 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2314500 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE POWFR ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF UNIT JPERATIOIM, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) POWER, START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR , $ $ 1 2 3 4 __5 6 7 8 9 JU) 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2fl 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5000 5000 5000 5000 3500 3500 3500 3500 ^.^.il^l 1500 1500 1500 1500 15ilil 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 875000 375000 d75000 875000 375000 375000 375000 375000 491400 491400 491400 491400 _ 4214Q12 344000 344000 344000 344000 147400 147400 147400 147400 TOTAL 50000 12500000 4914000 EQUIVALENT CUST, DOLLAKS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, HILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT MIRTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0% TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EOUIVALFNT PKESENT WORTH, HILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1301100 1269000 1236900 1204800 JLLlZZSfl 964400 932300 900300 86S200 557500 525400 493300 461200 13152300 2.68 1.05 7575100 1 .54 0.61 1301100 2570100 3807000 5011800 7148900 8081200 8981500 9849700 11243300 11768700 12262000 12723200 co 10 ------- Table A-150 DRY LIMESTONE 1NJECMON, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 Md EX. COAL FIREO POWER UNIT, 5.0 S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 3221100 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEAKS AFTFR INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOK POWER COMPANY POWER ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION, START K, 1 2 3 4 5 __ 6 7 a 9 ifl — 11 12 13 _15 _ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z5 26 27 28 29 _3Q TOTAL 5 EQUIVALENT tgulVALENT PRESENT v»i.UTH EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT i-HK/Kri 5000 5000 5000 5000 t££3. 3500 3500 3500 3500 JiSilii 1500 15uO 1500 1500 liUii 0000 cusr, u CHST, v, POWER GENERATION M KWH/YR 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 Ii.ii20.li 875000 875000 875000 875000 iii5jiiii 375000 375000 375000 375000 ili^iiii _ 12500000 DLLARS PER TON OF POwER UNIT (NET FUEL CONSUMPTION, [N TONS COAL/YR 495400 495400 495400 495400 _4.9..5.4.Qi! 346800 346800 346800 346800 _ liJifiail 148600 148600 146600 14S600 1466QO 4954000 COAL BURNED ILLS PER KILOwATT-HOUR IF DISCJUI.TtU AT 10. OS PhLSENT PRbSHNT TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS nURTh, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR ANNUAL INCREASE COST OF POWER! $ 2095700 2051000 2006400 1961700 J.91710Q 1539000 1494300 1449700 1405000 JJi£0_4.i)0_ 857000 812400 767700 723000 678400 21118800 4.26 1.69 12204500 2.46 0.98 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 2095700 4146700 6153100 8114800 1QQ212QQ 11570900 13065200 14514900 15919900 172SQ3DQ 18137300 18949700 19717400 20440400 21 i i 8800 ro -ti o ------- Table A-151 DRY LIMESTONE. INJECTION, REGULATED PO«ER CO. ECON., 250 Mw EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0 S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXFD INVESTMENT: $ 3968400 YEARS AFTER P0.it R UNIT START 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 LO 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 TOTAL L'JUl tjU I PRESENT ANNUAL o°FKATini-;, K.W-HI-./KW 5000 50 JO 5000 5JUJ j500 3500 3500 j500 1 500 15JO 1500 I SOU 5 0 0 0 ~j VALFNT CuST, DC VALi-.\T C'JST, M W )KTM U DliCO EQUIVALENT P-'.LS'.\T VALi:.\iT Pi-K SFM POrtER GENERATION M KwH/YR 1250000 1250000 1250000 123000J 875000 675000 875000 875000 375000 375000 375000 375000 1250JOOO LLA°S PER TJN LLS PEK KILGnA U "1 T t 0 AT 10.0 AJRTH, OGLL^SS nJHTH, •I ILLS P PQwER UNIT FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS CCJAL/YR 499400 499400 499400 499400 349600 349600 349600 349600 149dOO 149aGO 149800 149&00 4994000 OF CJAL HUKNFO TT-H'JU^ ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) $ 2838200 2783200 2728200 2673100 2072 300 2017300 1962300 1907200 1127100 1072000 1017000 961900 28537000 5. 71 2. 29 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 2838200 5621400 8349600 11022700 15713100 17730400 19692700 21599900 24579200 25651200 26668200 27630100 S. TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 16526400 PER TON iJF COAL RURNEO EK KIL'.lwATT-riOUR 3.31 1.32 N> ------- Table A-152 DRY LIMESTUN^ INJECTION, REGULATED POrtER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOHETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 4582000 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS AFTER POER UNIT START 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 ID 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3J. TOTAL INCLUDING REGULATED ANNUAL UPbRATIOM, Krt-HR/Kw 5000 5000 5000 5000 Siiiiii 3500 35CO 3500 3500 A^.Q.11 1500 1500 150o 1500 liiiii 5^u0 EQUIVALENT Ct.ST, U( EUUI VAL PRESENT M.I FOUIVAL C 0 U 1 V A L POWER oENERAT ION M KrtH/YR 1250000 1250000 1250300 1250000 125222.2 875000 375000 875000 875000 .8.25222 375000 375000 375000 375000 3 75QQO 12500000 ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN TONS COAL/YR 503500 503500 503500 503500 50350Q 352500 352500 352500 352500 iiZiuil 151100 151100 151100 151100 151122 5035500 "iLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED F.NT CiiST, MILLS PER KILOHlAT i ------- Table A-153 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. FCON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 2782700 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEARS AFTER POWER UNIT START 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 TOTAL EQL1 L JUI PREStM PQUl LiJUl INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY ANNUAL OPERATION, K-Hk/K* 5000 5000 5300 5000 iilsii! . 3500 35'OU « Sou Jpu 1500 1500 1500 ;^j' 50000 VALFNf Ci ST , Di VALHM C:-!-'»T TO INITIAL YEAS, DOLLARS K.JRTH, !>JLLARS PER TUN OF COAL bURNtO rt'.jpTh, MILLS PER KILOwATT-HOUR NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) $ 1639600 1601000 1562400 1523800 L^L&5.£.Q.Q. 1209900 1171300 1132700 1094100 688800 650200 611600 573000 16533600 2.40 0.94 9538500 1.39 0.55 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1639600 3240600 4803000 6326800 - _ laiZlflfl 9022000 10193300 11326000 12420100 14164400 14814600 15426200 15999200 r IV) 00 ------- Table A-15U ORV LlMESTGl\iF INJECTl-d\, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 Mrf EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.03! S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXEO INVESTMENT: $ 3927000 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL P'JWFR UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION START Kn-HR/KW M KiriH/YR ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION', IN COST OF POWER) TONS COAL/YR $ CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 1 2 3 4 6 7 e 9 11 12 13 15. __ 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 28 29 5000 5000 5000 5000 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 1500 liUil 1750000 1750000 1750000 1750000 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 525000 525000 525000 525000 iZSjJOO 69 3 60 0 693600 693600 693600 485500 485500 485500 485500 2C8100 208100 208100 208100 TOTAL 50000 17500000 6936000 EQUIVALENT GUST, DOLLARS PER TUN OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.02 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS EQUIVALENT PREScMT wOKTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 2714000 2659600 2605100 2550700 1984700 1930300 1875800 1821400 1I662.Q.Q. _ 1087300 1032800 978400 923900 27296600 3.94 1.56 15799300 2.28 0.90 2714000 5373600 7978700 10529400 15010300 16940600 18816400 20637800 23492000 24524800 25503200 26427100 2122660.0_ ------- Table A-155 DRY LIMESTCM- INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 NU EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: $ 4766400 YEARS AFTER POWER ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION START K'rt-HP/Kn 1 2 3 4 -5. 6 7 9 10 _ 11 12 13 16 5JOO 17 5JOJ 18 50UO 19 ?JuU 2fl iUGy 21 J50U 22 J5UO 23 j5>jo 24 35UO 25 3-5. 00 26 l^OU 27 1500 28 15JU 29 15Ju TUTAL 'jOOOO EQUIVALENT CuST, EQUIVALENT COST, POWER , GENT RAT I ON M KrtH/YR 1750000 1750000 1 750000 1 750JOO llidiilifl _ 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 IZZSiiiia _ 525000 525JOO 525000 525000 1 75JOOOO DOLLARS PER TON GF- POWER UNIT FUFL CONSUMPTION TONS COAL/YR 699200 699200 699200 699200 69V200 489400 489400 489400 469400 4-&24.^Q 209300 209800 209800 209800 6992000 COAL BURNED M1LLS PER KI LOrtATT-HOUR PRESENT wOKTn IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. (H EQUIVALENT PRl-Sh tuU IVAL EM P.-!:-S !• TO INITIAL YEAR, D'. ANNUAL OPERATING COST INCLUDING REGULATED ROI FOR POWER COMPANY (NET ANNUAL INCREASE , IN COST OF POWER) $ 3691200 3625100 3559000 3492900 34,26.800 2685700 2619600 2553500 2487400 24.Z.1.3..0..Q 1437000 1370900 1304800 1238700 37086500 5.30 2.12 1LLARS 21504200 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 3691200 7316300 10875300 14368200 -UJSiJiJi) 20480700 23100300 25653800 28141200 •3.Q.5.&2.500 31999500 33370400 34675200 35913900 NT m.iRTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL bURNEL) 3.08 NT nijivTH, MILLS PFR KILOWATT-HOUR 1.23 r ro en ------- Table A-156 DRY Ll'-ttSTLJNb i ,MJ EOT 10i\, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW fcX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY. FIXED INVESTMENT: t 5645500 ANNUAL OPERATING COST YEAKS AFTFK POwER ANNUAL UNIT OPERATION STAKT K'4 — Hri/KW 1 2 3 -5. _ 6 7 9 11 13 16 5000 17 5000 18 500U 19 5000 20 3QQO 21 J.50U 22 3500 23 J500 24 J500 25 -i5.flii 26 1500 n isuo 28 1500 29 15uO .3J1 15iii) TOTAL 50000 EQUIVALENT COST, EQUIVALENT CuST, PRESENT h,jiTH IF 01 EQUIVALENT PRbSi- EQUIVALKNT PKi.-SH INCLUDING REGULATED POWE , GENERATION M KWH/YR 1750000 1 750000 1750000 1750000 l.Z5.Qj2i}iJ 1225000 1225000 1225000 1225000 iZZiJiiv 525000 525000 525000 525000 525.0..Q.Q 17500000 DOLLARS PER TON OF R(.! POWER UNIT ( FUEL CONSUMPTION, TONS COAL/YK 705000 705000 705000 705000 .ZU50_^0_ 493500 493500 493500 493500 493500 211500 211500 211500 211500 2115242 7050000 COAL BURNEO i-tlLLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR SC(JUNTliD AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS NT KlmTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF CUAL BURNED NT wDRTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR I FOI< POWER COMPANY NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF POWER) t 4708000 4629700 4551400 4473100 4394800 3416000 3337700 3259400 3181100 3102800 1802000 1723700 1645400 1567100 1488800 47281000 6.71 2.70 27443100 3.89 1.57 CUMULATIVE NET INCREASE IN COST OF POWER, $ 4708000 9337700 13889100 18362200 22 75 7000 26173000 29510700 32770100 35951200 39054000 40856000 42579700 44225100 45792200 472Q 1QQQ ro •P» 01 ------- L-247 I. Title and Subtitle ^itU'ur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack Gas by Dry Limestone Injection--Full Scale Demonstration and Support Projects (Volumes T; TTJ and ITT) ; '. Autlior(s) F. E. Gartrell BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 1. Id-port No, EPA-650/2-73-019-a, -b, -c 3. Recipient's Accession No. 5. Report Date August 1973 6. 8- Performing Organization Kept. No. 9. Performing Organisation Name and Address Tennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 11. Contract/Grant No. iiteragency Agreement TV-30541A 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address EPA, Office of Research and Development NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final 14. 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstracts ,pne repOrt gives results of a test program of dry limestone injection, demonstrated on a 150-Mw pulverized-coal-fired boiler at TVA's Shawnee Plant. The program included: equipment shakedown, dust distribution studies, process optimi- zation, and long-term injection trials. It identified major process variables; evaluated distribution of lime dust in the boiler, effect of operating variables on distribution, and resulting effects on SO2 removal; evaluated the sensitivity of SO2 removal to key operating and process variables; evaluated conditions for optimum SO2 removal; studied process effects on boiler operation and maintenance, on solids collection equipment, and on water quality; and completed a process economics study. The pro- gram is discussed in context with previous investigations and EPA-sponsored sup- port activities. Appendices contain test program detail results and results of EPA support projects. Because of low SO2 removal efficiencies and the potential for major reliability problems , it does not appear that dry limestone injection will play an important role in controlling SO2 emis- sions from power plants. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors Air Pollution Coal Desulfurization Limestone Boiler Dust Sulfur Dioxide Calcium Oxides Economic Analysis 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms Air Pollution Control Stationary Sources Dry Limestone Injection 17c. COSATI Field/Group 13B, 14A Reliability Electric Power Plants Flue Gases 18. Availability Statement Unlimited 19.. Security Cla.'is (This Report) 20. Security (,lass (This Page UNCI.ASSII-MKO 21. No. of Pages 356 22. Price KO«M NTIS-35 IRtV. 3-/2) USCOMM-OC 14952-P72 -------


 EPA-650/2-73-019-C
 August 1973          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY SERIES
i||||l^
1^
                             iiliii ill iiii 11 ;iiiiiiiiiiiii

-------
                                       EPA-650/2-73-019-C
                 FULL-SCALE


DESULFURIZATION  OF  STACK  GAS


  BY  DRY  LIMESTONE  INJECTION


                  VOLUME  III  -

           APPENDICES  I  THROUGH  L

                        by
                 Tennessee Valley Authority
                  Chattanooga, Tennessee

               Interagency Agreement TV-30541A

               Project Officer: Richard D. Stern
                 Control Systems Laboratory
             National Environmental Research Center
               Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

         TVA Contracting Officer: Dr. F. E. Gartrell, Director
               Division of Environmental Planning
                 Tennessee Valley Authority
                  Chattanooga, TN 37401

                     Prepared for
              Office of Research and Development
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Washington, DC 20460

                     August 1973

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and




approved for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents




necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does




mention of  trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement




or recommendation for use .

-------
                                    CONTENTS

                                     Volume 1

                                     Main Text

                                                                               Page
Abstract	    v

List of Figures  	  xiii

List of Tables	  xix

Acknowledgement	  xxi

Summary and Conclusions  	    1

Introduction  	   21

Test Program	   31

    A. Objectives and Overall Approach	   31
    B. Test Facility	   32

       1.  Unit 10 Boiler   	   32
       2.  Limestone Injection Process Equipment	   32
       3.  Sampling Stations  	   40
       4.  Laboratory Capability	   41

    C. Phase I Shakedown	   43

       1.  Objectives	   43
       2.  Approach  	   43
       3.  Results	   46
       4.  Conclusions	   77

    D. Phase II Dust Distribution Studies  	   79

       1.  Objectives	   79
       2.  Approach  	   79
       3.  Results	   79
       4.  Conclusions	104

    E. Phase III  Process Optimization  	Ill

       1.  Objectives	Ill
       2.  Approach  	Ill
       3.  Results	119
       4.  Conclusions	164

    F. Phase IV  Long-Term Operation	171

       1.  Objectives	171
       2.  Approach  	171
       3.  Test Results	174
       4.  Conclusions	198

-------
                               CONTENTS

                                Volume 2

                                                                     Page

APPENDIX A-STATISTICS ON BOILER AND LIMESTONE SYSTEM  	A-l

APPENDIX B-WATER-COOLED PROBE DEVELOPMENT	B'1

APPENDIX C-TESTING, SAMPLING, AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES	C-l

APPENDIX D-COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FOR PHASE I TESTS  	D-4

APPENDIX E-INSTANTANEOUS DUST DISTRIBUTION STUDIES  	E-l

APPENDIX F-LIMESTONE INJECTION EFFECTS ON SOLIDS
COLLECTION SYSTEM  	F-l

        Report and Analysis of Field Tests at Shawnee Station Prepared
        for the EPA by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc.

APPENDIX G-LIMESTONE INJECTION EFFECTS ON DISPOSAL
WATER QUALITY  	G-l

        Introduction  	G-l
        Evaluation Program	G-2
        Summary and Conclusions	G-31
        Data Storage Format  	G-35

APPENDIX H-ADDITIONAL HEAT REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS	H-l

-------
                                    CONTENTS

                                      Volume 3

                                                                                Page

APPENDIX I-LIMESTONE FACTORS

Section A,  Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides	1-3

       I. Introduction and Objectives	1-3

      II. Approach	1-3

     III. Results and  Conclusions  	1-4

             Limestone Type  	1-4
             Chemical  Form of the Additive	1-4
             Particle Sife	1-5
             Calcination Temperature  	1-5
             Catalysts   	1-5

     IV. Abstracted Results of Individual Projects   	1-6

             Illinois State Geological Survey  	1-6
             Tennessee Valley Authority  	1-6
             Babcock & Wilcox	1-8
             Peabody Coal Company	1-8
             In-House  EPA   	1-9

      V. Recommendation on Limestone Properties for Application
        to the Dry Limestone Injection  Process  	1-11

Section B,  Limestone Availability in the  United States	1-13

       I. Introduction and Objectives	1-13

      II. Approach	1-13

     III. Results	1-13

             Potential  Demand - Power Plants	1-13
             Carbonate Rock Reserves	1-16
             Mining and Production  	1-19

     IV. Supply/Demand Relationship of Carbonate Rocks
        for Pollution Control	1-22

             Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to Power Plants  	1-22
             Potential  Demand Relative  to Production	1-22
             Costs	1-23

      V. Conclusions   	1-31

-------
                                      Volume 3
                                      (Continued)

                                                                              Page


      VI. Recommendation for Application to Dry Limestone
         Injection and other Limestone-Based Processes	

 Section C, Definitions	

                                                                               1-35
 Section D, References	

 APPENDIX  J-MATHEMATICAL  MODELING  OF THE  LIMESTONE  INJECTION
                PROCESS

       I. Introduction and Objectives	J'3

      II. Summary of Modeling Activities  	t	J'5

      III. Discussion  	J'23

      IV. Conclusions  	J-26

      V. References	J-27

 APPENDIX K-UTILIZATION OF LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH   	K-l

       I. Introduction and Objectives	K-3

      II. Approach	K-3

     III. Results and Conclusions  	K-3

            A.  Unmodified Fly Ash Utilization   	K-3
            B.  Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Utilization	K-12

     IV. Summary	K-19

      V. Recommendations  	K-19

            A.  Unmodified Fly Ash  	K-20
            B.  Wet-Collected Limestone-Modified Fly Ash	K-21

     VI. References	K-22

APPENDIX L-PROCESS ECONOMICS

      I. Introduction	L-l

            Design Premises   	|__2
            Base Case  	l_.j 1
            Actual Investment	L-13
            Investment Projections   	L-13
            Annual Operating  Cost   	  L-18
            Lifetime Operating Cost	  L-24

-------
                                 Volume 3
                                (Continued)

                                                                            Page

 II. Summary of Results and Conclusions	L-27

        Investment	L-27
        Relative Investment Cost Distribution	L-27
        Annual Operating Cost   	L-32
        Relative Operating Cost Distribution   	L-36
        Lifetime Operating Cost	L-36
        Results of Sensitivity  Analysis  	L-59

III. References and Abstracts	L-88

-------
                               CONVERSION TABLE

        EPA policy is to express all  measurements in Agency documents in metric units.
When implementing this policy  results in undue cost or difficulty in clarity, the National
Environmental  Research  Center-Research  Triangle  Park (NERC-RTP) provides  conversion
factors for the  particular nonmetric  units  used in  the document.  For  this report these
factors are:

     British                                                       Metric
Multiply                            By                        To Obtain
feet                                 3.0480 x 10"1             meters
feet2                                9.29 x 10'2               meters2
feet/sec.                             3.0480 x 10"1             feet/sec.
feet3/min.                          4.720 x 10"1               liters/sec.
grains (troy)                         6.48 x 10~2               grams
grains/dry s.c.f. @ 70° F              2.464                     grams/meter3 @ 0° C
gallon                               3.785                     liters
inch                                2.5400 x 10'2             meters
micron                              l.OxlO"6                 meters
ounce (troy)                         3.1103 x 10'               grams
pound                              4.536 x 10~J               kilograms
pound/in.2                          7.03 x 10"2               kg/cm2
quart                               9.463 x 10"1               liters
tons/hr.                             2.520 x 10"1               kg/sec.

-------
                  APPENDIX I
               Limestone Factors
Section A     Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides
Section B     Availability in the United States
Section C     Definitions
Section D     References

-------
                                        1-1

                                    APPENDIX I
                               LIMESTONE FACTORS
       The  author  discusses those  factors which experimentation  identified  as  most
important to the  process. These include limestone type, chemical form  of the  additive,
particle size, calcination temperature, and the effects of catalysts.
       Discussed are the activities of the following organizations:
                            Illinois State Geological Survey
                            Tennessee Valley Authority
                            Babcock & Wilcox
                            Peabody Coal Company
                            Environmental Protection Agency
       Included are  recommendations for additive preparation  for  the  dry  limestone
injection process.
       Regarding  availability, the author discusses the potential demand for limestone, its
distribution, mining, and production as well as the supply/demand relationship of carbonate
rocks for pollution control.
       Transportation and costs for limestone use at power plants are covered.
       Recommendations  for  application   to   dry  limestone  injection  and  other
limestone-based  processes indicate  the use  of the available  information for study by a
potential user.

-------
1-3

Section A
Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides

I. Introduction and Objectives
The activities of the Research Laboratory Branch, Control Systems Division in
support of the high priority development of throw-away processes, have been directed
toward specific areas relating to the limestone processes. During the last 2-1/2 years major
emphasis has been on acquiring information on the dry injection process which would be
required for application of the process on a wide scale. Earlier, a little was known about the
mechanism and rate of reaction between limestone and sulfur oxides, and differences
between limestones had not been related to their potential reactivity. This information was
vital for optimization of the process. Limestone injected into a power boiler must calcine
(evolve CO2 to become lime) and react with most of the sulfur oxides present—all within 2
seconds or less. If limestone is injected too close to the highest temperature combustion
zone, the lime produced will be deadburned and unreactive. If the limestone is injected
higher than or farther from this zone, the residence time for the lime particles in the zone of
the boiler favoring reaction with sulfur oxides will be seriously reduced. The overall
objective of this activity was to support the full scale process optimization at the TVA
Shawnee Steam Plant by recommending limestone type, particle size, and other sorbent and
process parameters.

II. Approach
The general approach toward meeting the first objective was to measure reaction
rates and capacities of limestones and then correlate results with their mineralogical,
petrographic, and chemical analyses. Bench scale calcination and sulfation tests were
conducted in-house in fixed-bed and differential reactors and under contract in a standard
laboratory thermogravimetric-analyzer apparatus by TVA and a dispersed phase reactor by
Battelle. Under contract with Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and TVA,
petrographic and electron microscopy, X-ray, and additional chemical analyses were
performed on raw, calcined, and sulfated samples from the bench-scale tests. Correlations
between results of these analyses and the bench-scale reactivity results were then attempted.
Pilot-scale tests were conducted under contract with Babcock & Wilcox and Peabody Coal at
conditions simulating, as closely as possible, actual furnace injection conditions. These tests
were conducted for comparison with the bench-scale data and limestone reactivity
correlations developed.
The approach toward the second objective, determining the characteristics of dead
burning, was to conduct full-scale tests with pure additive in an oil-fired furnace. Pure
additive and the oil-fired furnace were selected in order to avoid possible chemical changes
during dead burning which can occur by reaction of CaO with oxides of silicon, iron, and
aluminum present as a limestone impurity and in coal fly ash. Injection with the fuel was

-------
1-4

selected to maximize residence time at high temperatures for fast calcination and sulfation.
With this approach it was possible to characterize the phenomena of dead burning
specifically in terms of physical changes and their relationship to reactivity with SO2
Concurrent with this activity, methods for testing the degree of dead burning (loss of CaO
reactivity) were evaluated through literature searches, analysis of various chemical and
physical properties of different limestones calcined at a range of temperatures, and
laboratory testing. More promising tests were applied to samples from pilot scale tests by
Babcock and Wilcox and from early injection tests at the TVA Shawnee Steam Plant.

III. Results and Conclusions
Integrated results of the projects and correlation with other investigations are
presented by major item. These are followed by abstracted results of the individual projects.
Limestone Type: All studies have noted marked differences in reactivity between
limestone types. In-house, fixed-bed experiments showed a five-fold range in SO2 capacity:
marl and chalk were the best. Differential reactor results were widely spread: marl was the
•¥•
best^ Pilot plant data also showed the pronounced effect of limestone type: aragonite was
the best at Peabody Coal,4 and marl was the best at Babcock & Wilcox.3 Initially these
results may not appear to agree; however, it is significant to note that the best performing
limestone types were fine grained and generally high in calcium carbonate, as opposed to
dolomitic materials. Since calcitic stones (marl and chalk) and aragonite are highly reactive,
it appears that both calcium carbonate crystal structures can be used as long as the
crystallites (or grains) are small.
Other investigators have compared limestones (i.e., calcites) and dolomites.
Goldschmidt1 ° and Brocke12 showed that calcitic additives were more effective than
dolomitic additives. A good detailed examination of the effect of limestone type is given by
Borgwardt and Harvey.6
Chemical Form of the Additive: Many different forms of carbonate rocks have been
tried in tests ranging from laboratory to demonstration scale. Most investigators have
compared hydrated lime, calcined limestone and uncalcined limestone although dolomitic
lime, half calcined dolomite, hydrated dolomitic lime and others have been used on
occasion. In general, the ranking of reactivity is hydrated lime > limestone (uncalcined) >
lime.3'7'9 However, the optimum temperatures of injection for different forms of the
additive may span 752° F and a comparison at a given temperature is misleading. Zentgraf7
reports that limestone injected at its optimum temperature (2732° F) is slightly more
effective than hydrated lime at its optimum temperature (2102° F). Even in tests where the
hydrate is consistently better, the difference is insufficient to warrant the extra cost of the
hydrate versus the uncalcined limestone. Tests with dolomitic counterparts of the limestone
(i.e. calcite) chemical forms also show the hydrate to be the most reactive but still less
reactive than the hydrated lime.1 °

^Superscripts refer to references on pages 1-35.

-------
1-5

Particle Size: Except in certain cases, all studies noted some increase in reactivity
with decreasing particle size. It appears that the effect of particle size is not the same for all
stones but is determined primarily by the pore size. Small pores lead to the highest
sensitivity between calcine reactivity and particle size. Calcines with very large pores may
show no dependence of reactivity on particle size. In differential reactor experiments not
much improvement was noted below 100 u.
At Babcock & Wilcox, particle size was related to specific surface area by the
Lea-Nurse technique (air permeability). Depending on the grindability, minus 60 mesh
(approximately 250 ju) produces 2000-6000 cm2 /gram in area. The maximum reactivity was
recorded when the surface area reached 2000 cm2/gm or more. Analyses of reacted fly ash
showed that particles between 2 and 6p contained 8 to 12 percent sulfur (as SO3), and
particles greater than 30jn had less than 4 percent sulfur.
These results are generally supported by Battelle6 and Zentgraf7 who reported that
above 50 and 60jj respectively, the particle size was inversely porportional to the SO2
reactivity while below these values particle size had no effect. In addition, Ishihara8
reported that for particles below lOp the initial reaction rate increased as the particle size
decreased and Tanaka9 reported that for the 3 sizes he studied (all greater than 74p) a
decrease in particle size gave an increase in removal. Zentgraf7 also reported that as the
particle size increases the pore size decreases.
Calcination Temperature: All experiments showed that higher calcination
temperatures give rise to loss of reactivity known as dead burning. Both in-house and TVA
studies showed that higher temperatures lead to growth of crystallites with a corresponding
loss of surface area and pore volume which accounts for the loss of reactivity. In-house,
Peabody Coal, and Babcock & Wilcox data show that injection of limestone with the fuel or
near the flame gives a dead burned stone with little SO2 removal efficiency. This conclusion
is supported by reports of Goldschmidt1 ° and Ishihara.11 Optimum injection temperatures
have been reported to be 2500-2700° F3, 2000-2450° F4 , 2732° F7, and 1652-2192° F8
depending on the system tested. The time-temperature profile is actually the controlling
factor.
Catalysts: In-house fixed-bed studies showed no evidence of the limestone-SO2
reaction being catalyzed by minor constituents in limestone. Both ISGS and TVA showed
an improvement in reactivity with sodium content in the stone but no general conclusions
could be drawn. At Babcock & Wilcox, vanadium decreased the additive effectiveness but
iron oxide improved it slightly. It was concluded that the improvement was due to higher
surface areas, not the iron oxide. This is not in agreement with Ishihara8 who found
limestone containing over 1 percent Fe2O3 were 50 percent more effective than those with
less than 0.5 percent during oil-fired pilot plant experiments. However, SO2 removals were
not increased by addition of ferric oxide powder or yellow ochre to the limestone.

-------
1-6

IV. Abstracted Results of Individual Projects
Illinois State Geological Survey1-Detailed petrographic, mineralogical, and chemical
analysis of 26 carbonate rocks were made and compared with the capacity (3-1/2
reaction period) and differential reactivity (120 second reaction period) of calcined
specimens for sorption of SO2. A wide range of petrographic and SO2 sorptive properties
were revealed.
Three petrographic and chemical properties appear to be useful indexes of the SO2
sorption capacity: the pore volume, the grain size, and the sodium oxide content of the
rocks. The larger the pore volume, the greater was the sorption capacity of the rock. Pores
with a maximum chord length between 2 and 16/j appear to have the most influence on this
behavior. In general, the finer the grain size of the rock, the higher was the sorption
capacity, although certain samples showed an opposite correlation owing to the effect of
intercrystalline pores in the crinoidal fossil fragments abundant in some of the samples. Of
the 15 chemical elements analyzed, only sodium showed a correlation trend with the SO2
test data. The sodium present in the samples increased with increasing sorption capacity.
The reaction products of the samples calcined at 1796° F for 2 hours and exposed to
sulfur oxides in laboratory tests are solid grains of anhydrite (CaSO4). Electron microscopy
shows two types of behavior: the calcines of the Iceland spar calcite absorbed sulfur on the
outer surface of its particles, whereas in calcines of a porous limestone, absorption took
place throughout the particles. Sulfation occurred on the outer surfaces of particles by
multiple nucleation of anhydrite crystallites, which enlarged until they abutted each other
to produce a tightly interlocking texture of subrounded grains.
The relatively high SO2 reactivity observed for chalks, calcareous marls, and oolitic
aragonite sand samples is believed due mainly to the high pore volume and fine grain size of
these carbonate rocks. Geologically, high pore volume is indicated by the relatively
unconsolidated nature of these rock materials.
Tennessee Valley Authority2—The reactivities of 35 stones were measured and
correlated with mineralogical and crystallographic properties.
Calcination of the limestone proceeds from the outside surface toward the center of
each particle. The rate of calcination is affected by the reaction temperature, the particle
size of the stone, the crystallite size of the carbonate mineral in the stone, the relative
amounts of magnesium and calcium in the stone, and the partial pressures of CO2 and SO2
in the furnace atmosphere. The reaction of CaO with SO2 and O2 at 1682° F is first order
with respect to the partial pressure of SO2 in the range 1 to 8.4 percent by volume, zero
order with respect to the partial pressure of O2 in the range 1 to 10 percent by volume, and
zero order with respect to the loading of product until the layer of CaSO4 completely
shields the available reaction surface. Below 1182° F, the formation of sulfite predominates
over that of sulfate; the oxidation of sulfite to sulfate begins at about 1332° F, a
temperature range in which the sulfite also begins to decompose and disproportionate.
Disproportionation of sulfite at 1612° F is prevented by the presence of oxygen or CO2,

-------
                                          1-7

either of which promotes the formation of sulfate. The first-order specific rate constants for
the decomposition of CaSO3 and CaSO4  and the loss of reactivity (dead burning) of a  high
calcitic (Colbert)  limestone were expressed in Arrhenius form.
       Water  vapor  affects the rate  of reaction of SO2 with MgO but not with CaO; the
reaction  with MgO  is too  slow to  be  important under  injection conditions. The direct
substitution of SO2 for CO2  in the limestone also is too slow to be significant under furnace
injection  conditions. The sulfation  reaction occurs  simultaneously with  the calcination
reaction  when the rate of the calcination reaction is  low; sulfation is more rapid, however,
when there is a  relatively large surface  of unreacted CaO.  The products of the sulfation
reaction  retard the calcination reaction when the two  reactions occur simultaneously.
       The physical  properties  of a calcine and  its reactivity with  SO2  are influenced
markedly by  the texture of the parent  limestone from which  the calcine  is formed. An
Iceland spar, of mean crystallite  size 7125° A., calcined slowly below 1742° F because of its
high thermal stability, and yielded a calcine with small pores and small crystallites of CaO. A
very pure calcitic limestone, of  mean crystallite size 3875°A, yielded  larger crystallites of
CaO than did the Iceland spar under the same conditions, but the pore volume was larger
and more favorably distributed between different sized pores for reaction with SO2 • Between
1832° F  and 2012° F the calcines  of both materials showed a minimum in pore volume,
which  was interpreted as the end of sintering and the beginning of recrystallization  of the
CaO. During  sintering,  small pores  coalesce into larger pores  with small  changes  in the
crystallite size of the oxide; during recrystallization the crystallites grow into massive single
crystals  of CaO  at rates proportional to the crystallite size of the original carbonate.  The
Iceland  spar  was less reactive  with SO2 than  was  the calcitic limestone under  all  the
experimental  conditions  tested  because  of its slower calcination, its unfavorable pore-size
distribution and  pore volume,  and  its more rapid  recrystallization.  Electron  microscope
photographs of cleaved  sulfated  particles of these stones clearly showed the reaction zone
between oxide and sulfate and the growth of the crystallites of sulfate at the outer surface.
       The calcination,  isothermal sulfation, and  polythermal calcination-sulfation  of 35
limestones  were studied  and  the  distinguishing characteristics  of  each  reaction  were
correlated with the chemical and mineralogical properties of the  stones. Six measures of the
capacity and rate of reaction with  S02 were correlated with  the  chemical and mineralogical
properties  of  the stones, as well as  the  reaction parameters.  Multiple correlations  of the
capacity and rate parameters with the properties of the stones yielded equations from which
the reactivity of  a  stone could  be  predicted  from its   chemical  and  mineralogical
characteristics. The equations were  tested  with five stones considered for use  in the Shawnee
full-scale tests, using the reaction rate data at five temperatures  obtained by Battelle in the
dispersed-phase reactor.  The prediction of the polythermal capacity for absorption  of  SO2
from the chemical and  mineralogical properties of the  stones correlated well with  the
Battelle  reaction  rates at temperatures below 1724° F, but not at  higher temperatures. No
other predicted  reactivity measure  correlated  significantly with  the  Battelle rate  at any
temperature.

-------
1-8

Although the data obtained at the temperatures accessible in this experimental study
(maximum of 1742° F) do not extrapolate well to the higher temperatures that are
encountered in actual power plant combustion chambers, the properties of stones that were
shown to be desirable at low temperatures probably will be advantageous at the furnace
temperatures also. Perhaps the major difference to be expected between the results obtained
at low temperature and those anticipated at high temperatures is the marked increased in
the rate and extent of dead burning at the high temperatures, as indicated by the results of
the X-ray examinations. The data indicate no way of avoiding the detrimental effect of
rapid dead burning at temperatures above about 1922° F. They indicate that stones that
contain the smallest amounts of impurity minerals and whose rhombic carbonates are
primarily calcitic and are present as the smallest crystallites will be most effective for
injection into the combustion chamber. Increasing the sodium content of the stone increases
its reactivity; however, if iron is present, it should be in the form of limonite or goethite
rather than in the lattice of the stone.
Babcock & Wilcox3—Using a small pulverized coal pilot plant, 415 tests were run
with 129 different additives. The variables studied relative to additive reactivity included
temperature at the point of injection, residence time of the additive in the reactive zone,
additive surface area, chemical form of the additive (e.g., carbonate, oxide, or hydrate) and
catalyst content.
In general, raw limestones and dolomites were most effective when injected into the
pilot plant at points corresponding to mid- and upper-furnace regions of full-scale units. This
behavior appeared in part to be an effect of gas temperature, but particle residence time was
probably the most important factor. Feeding the raw additives with coal or upstream of the
combustion zone resulted in very poor performance, indicating that dead burning took place
under these conditions.
Increasing additive specific surface area to about 2000 cm2/g, or slightly higher,
improved additive performance to a maximum. Larger surface area gave no further
improvement, and in some cases the amount of SO2 removal was actually decreased,
probably due to agglomeration of very fine particles.
Hydrated stones were slightly more effective than their parent raw material,
particularly at lower (approximately 1900° F) injection temperatures, but not to the extent
that the cost of additive processing would be justified. Precalcining the stones in most cases
decreased effectiveness of the additives.
Iron oxide (as Fe2 O3 and Fe3O4) was found to improve additive effectiveness
slightly while vanadium (as V2OS) actually decreased it. It was concluded that improved
effectiveness resulted from higher surface areas, not the iron oxide.
Marl, a kind of limestone, was the most effective type of additive tested under most
conditions.
Peabody Coal Company4—Tests were conducted in a pilot size chain-grate stoker
with an aragonite, a calcite, two types of dolomite, and a chalk. "Red mud," the dried

-------
1-9

tailings from the manufacture of alumina from bauxite was also tested. Variables related to
additive reactivity included temperature at the point of injection and particle size.
Calcination and calcium oxide utilization were determined.
Sulfur dioxide removal ranged from 6 to 65 percent depending upon operating
conditions. A comparison of sorbents, compared on a per-unit-weight-of-raw-stone basis,
shows that the calcites and aragonite remove more SO2 than do dolomites. Sorbent 1683,
an aragonite, was the most effective material tested when injected into the gas stream.
However, it was relatively ineffective when mixed with the coal prior to combustion.
The particle size study was not as definitive as desired due to overlapping particle
sizes between injected screen cuts. A step-wise regression analysis of 59 runs, with samples
1337 and 1684 (dolomite), 1683 (aragonite), and 1359 (calcite) combined, indicated that
reducing the sorbent particle size leads to higher SO2 removal rates.
Each sorbent, except red mud, was injected at temperatures from 1800° F to
2450° F. Computer results on all test data combined did not indicate a significant
correlation between SO2 removal and injection temperature. However, graphical analysis
did indicate that temperature was a significant parameter for some of the individual samples.
The degree of sorbent calcination varied directly with temperature and ranged from
50 to 60 percent at 1800° F to more than 90 percent at 2450° F. Above 2000° F, particle
size did not appear to significantly affect the degree of calcination.
Calcium oxide utilization varied from 6.30 percent (for particle sizes greater than
100 mesh) to 59.50 percent (for 200 mesh sizes). Aragonite, Sample 1683, and dolomite
Sample 1684, demonstrated the greatest utilization.
Red mud, when injected into the gas stream at 1200° F to 1300° F and 2000° F was
relatively ineffective in removing SO2 -
In-House EPA5—Eighty-six carbonate rock samples were tested in a fixed-bed
reactor to determine their capacity to react with flue gas containing SO2 . Although most of
the work was performed with the carbonate and the oxide at standard test conditions,
supplementary tests were made on hydrates, oxides, and carbonates over a wide range of
reaction temperatures and calcination conditions. Differences between the samples were
related only slightly to chemical composition; porosity, as measured by mercury pore
volume best explained variations in capacities of the samples. Chalks and oolitic samples
were the most efficient absorbents; magnesite and Iceland spar the least efficient of the
stones tested.
The SO2 reaction kinetics of calcines prepared from 11 rock types representing a
broad spectrum of limestones and dolomites, which were examined by ISGS, were
determined at 1800° F. Stones of various geological types yield calcines of distinctly
different physical structures that show correspondingly large differences in both rate of
reaction and capacity for SO2 sorption. Pore size and particle size tog-ether determine the
extent to which the interior of individual particles react. Particles smaller than 0.01 cm (100
u) with pores larger than O.ljj react throughout their internal pore structure at a rate

-------
1-10

directly proportional to the B. E. T. surface. The rate decays exponentially as sulfation
proceeds until the pores are filled with reaction product. The ultimate capacity of small
particles is determined by the pore volume available for product accumulation, generally
equivalent to about 50 percent conversion of the CaO in limestones. Variations in
effectiveness of carbonate rocks for flue gas desulfurization are explained by the physical
properties of their calcines, which are related to the crystal structure of the original rock.
The high reaction rates achieved in the limestone injection process apparently result from
the large surface area existing for short periods immediately following the shock dissociation
of CaCO3.
The relative ranking of calcines with respect to isothermal rate of reaction with SO2
at 1796°F is: marl > high purity limestone > Iceland spar > aragonite > marble. Magnesite
reacts only slowly with SO2 at any temperature between 1004 and 1796P F.
The relative ranking of limestones with respect fo fixed bed capacity at 1796° F with
-18 +20 mesh particles (approximately 840-1000 u) is: marl chalk > oolite > dolomite >
calcite > marble> magnesite> Iceland spar.
The rate of reaction increases with decreasing pore size until a critical pore diameter
of about O.lu is reached. Presumably pores smaller than O.lu are rapidly blocked by
reaction products. Maximum rate results when B. E. T. surface area is in the region of 3.5
M2/g (corresponding to pore diameters of 0.2 - O.Sjj) under isothermal reaction conditions.
The total SO2-sorption capacity increases with increasing pore size. Furthermore,
the capacity of limestones is correlated to the area of pores greater than 0.3)u but not to B.
E.T. surface area.
Both rate and capacity of SO2 sorption are highly dependent upon particle size. The
effect of particle size is not the same for all stones, but is determined by the size of the
pores.
Small pores lead to the highest sensitivity between the reactivity of calcines and
particle size. Calcines with very large pores may show no dependence of reactivity upon
particle size.
Loss of reactivity because of high calcination temperatures (dead burning) is
attributed to growth of CaO crystals and the subsequent loss of surface area and pore
volume. During sintering and CO2 evolution, small pores coalesce into larger pores with
small changes in crystallite size of the oxide. At excessive temperatures recrystallation
occurs and the crystallites grow into massive single crystals at rates proportional to the
crystallite size of the original carbonate. Since loss of surface area and loss of pore volume
are similar functions of increasing calcination temperature, both reaction rate and capacity
of dead-burned stones are lost proportionally.
Four reactivity tests—flue gas absorption, SO2 absorption, CO2 absorption, and
hydration weight gain were found to be suitable as dead-burning tests for samples of limited
size diluted with fly ash. The last three are considered sufficiently uncomplicated to be used
as field tests.

-------
                                        1-11
V.   Recommendations  on Limestone Properties for Application to the Dry  Limestone
     Injection Process
       a. A fine-grained (e.g., having small crystallites) high calcium carbonate stone should
be used. While many common  limestones are of this type, marl, aragonite, and chalk are
almost always fine  grained. Many deposits of chalk and marl are sufficiently pure for the
injection process and most deposits of aragonite are very pure.
       b. Injection  of uncalcined limestone is indicated except where only injection at low
temperature (< 1800° F) is possible. In this case lime hydrate should be used.
       c. The additive should be finely ground. While improvement does not appear to be
significant  below lOOjJ, a directional improvement  has been  shown. A  particle size of 90
percent minus 300 mesh (approximately 50jj)  is preferable.
       d. The additive should not be injected with the fuel or near the flame. The optimum
injection point is a function of the system to be controlled but should be approximately
2000-2200° F. The  optimum injection temperature  may  be  higher  in  boilers  where the
residence time in the hottest zone is very short. In any case the injection point should be
located so as to insure complete calcination without dead burning.
       e. The hydration  weight gain  test for dead  burning  is recommended  since it  is
independent of the degree of sulfation.

-------
1-13

Section B
Limestone Availability in the United States1

I. Introduction and Objectives
A great deal of emphasis is being placed on the development of processes which
remove sulfur oxides from the stack gases of plants which burn coal or oil as a primary fuel.
Several of these processes are based on the use of limestone or dolomite as the sorbent for
the sulfur oxides. The use of these materials to control sulfur emissions is contingent upon
several factors. Among these, the proximity of adequate carbonate rock deposits to
potential users and the relationship of carbonate rock production to possible demand,
appear to be most important in establishing the relative merits of any carbonate rock-based
process. The objective here was the determination of the availability and costs of limestone
and similar materials throughout the contiguous United States to provide a basis for
determining the feasibility and economics of limestone-based SO2 removal processes for
typical plant sites.

11. Approach
Search of publications and communications with Federal and state government
agencies, trade associations, and various crushed stone or limestone producers were the
sources of the data presented. The data was gathered on a national, regional and state-wide
basis. Since the objective is primarily concerned with limestone availability as it relates to
potential consumption by fossil fueled power plants, the regions were chosen to coincide
with those defined by the National Coal Association. Materials covered include limestone,
dolomite, chalk, marble, marl and shell. Location of deposits, production rates, f.o.b.
quarry costs, transportation methods and costs, expected cost increases, uses, chemical
composition and physical properties were covered. Summary results most germane to this
report follow. Additional details in these and other areas may be found in the references
provided.

III. Results
Potential Demand - Power Plants
Most of the power capacity from fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States
occurs in the eastern half of the country. Figure 1 shows the location of the major (>200
MW) power plants in the United States which burn either coal or oil as the primary fuel.
Included are a few plants which, although not yet constructed, are being designed
exclusively for either coal or oil and are scheduled to be on stream by 1975. Of the 275
plants shown, 84 percent are coal-fired. The oil-fired plants are all located along the eastern
coast, with most of these in the northeast. About 90 percent of all power plants shown are
located east of the Mississippi River, with locally high concentrations in the northeastern
quarter of the country, particularly in many of the major metropolitan areas.

1, Adapted from references 13 and 14.

-------
                                                                      FIGURE  1
                                         MAJOR  THERMAL  POWER  PLANTS  IN  THE  UNITED STATES

                                                BURNING  COAL  OR  OIL  AS THE PRIMARY FUEL
                                                                                                                                             2 PLANTS WITHIN
                                                                                                                                           THE NEW YORK CITY
                                                                                                                                            LIMITS BURN COAL.
                                                                                                                                            5 PLANTS BURN OL.
NOTE:
  MAJOR  POWER PLANTS ARE  DEFINED
  AS THOSE HAVING  INSTALLED  GENERATING
  CAPACITIES  OF 200  MEGAWATTS  OR MORE.
SOURCES:
  I  Principal Electric  Facilities, Faderol Power  Commiscion,
     (1970). (S«ri«i  of (cyan  mep<)

  2. Steam-Electric  Plant factors SI97O Edition.  Notional
      Coal  Association.  Wathing:on.  D.C..  (November  I97O).

-------
                                         1-15
       Based on  1969 fuel  consumption  statistics, an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur
oxides were emitted by power plants  in the United States.  Assuming 1.25 stoichiometry,
more than  40 million tons of limestone would have been required to remove these oxides
from the stack gases. This potential limestone demand, which assumes that all  power plants
use a limestone-based  process for sulfur removal, has been broken down by region, with the
regions being defined as follows:
          Region
       New England
       Middle Atlantic

       East North Central

       West North Central


       South Atlantic
        East South Central

        West South Central

        Mountain


        Pacific
          States Included
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania

Illinois,  Indiana, Michigan,  Ohio, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland (includ-
ing Washington, DC), North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,  Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming

California, Oregon, Washington
       Table  1  itemizes potential demand by  region.  The East North Central region far
outranks any  other region in  potential  limestone requirements with over one-third of the
total. With the exception of New England, all regions in the eastern half of the country had
potentially large  demands for limestone.

-------
                                         1-16
                                       Table 1
               Potential Limestone Demand by Power Plants in the United States
       Region                         Limestone (103 Tons)                   °/0 of Total
 New England                                1,369                              3-4
 Middle Atlantic                              6,583                            16-2
 East North Central                          14,307                            35.1
 West North Central                           2,738                              6-7
 South Atlantic                               8,471                            20-8
 East South Central                           5,645                            13-9
 West South Central                               5
 Mountain                                    1,351                              3.3
 Pacific                                        266                              0-6
    Total                                    40,735                           100.0
   Carbonate Rock Reserves
       Deposits of carbonate rocks, including limestone, dolomite, shell, marble, and marl,
occur in some form in every state. Total reserves have never been estimated, but are known
to be enormous.
       Figure 2 shows the distribution of surface carbonate rocks in the United States and
includes limestone, dolomite, and marble. The map shows that surface deposits of carbonate
rocks occur throughout the nation but are particularly in evidence in the eastern half of the
country.   A  band  of  deposits  beginning  in  Vermont  extends southward  along  the
Appalachian  Mountains into central  Alabama. Extensive  deposits are found in the  state
surrounding the Great Lakes,  reaching southward into northern Alabama. Large areas of
Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri are covered with carbonate rocks and broad outcrops occur
in Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.
       Particularly in the central lowlands, carbonate rock  deposits  frequently occur as
thick, horizontal formations covering  large areas.  In general, the deposits  found in western
states are  different. They  commonly  occur as steeply dipping or vertical beds of small areal
extent. However, notable exceptions  to this are found, particularly in Colorado, Arizona,
and New Mexico where large outcrops occur.
       Limestone occurrences, including chalk but excluding dolomite, are shown in Figure
3. The map is similar to  Figure 2 and shows that although limestone is found throughout the

-------
                  FIGURE 2
CARBONATE  ROCK DEPOSITS IN  THE UMITED STATES

-------
                                                                                     00
        ij=3 CHALK DEPOSITS
        •H LIMESTONE DEPOSITS
                               FIGURE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF CHALK AND  LIMESTONE DEPOSITS IN THE  UNITED STATES
           (REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES BULLETIN NO. 395)

-------
1-19
country, the more numerous and extensive deposits occur in the eastern half of the nation.
In the western states, the deposits tend to be discontinuous and relatively small in areal
extent.
The formations shown in Figure 3 include limestones of different degrees of purity.
Estimates have been made that only about 2 percent of the known reserves of commercially
usable limestone is chemical grade (> 95 percent carbonate content), and that the bulk of
these reserves will be exhausted in 40-50 years. Much of this high purity limestone occurs in
the area extending from the Great Lakes southward to Alabama.
Chalk deposits are shown in several of the central states and in a curving belt
through Alabama and Mississippi. In general, they are not high purity limestones, but locally
they may contain over 95 percent calcium carbonate.
Figure 4 shows the location of high grade (> 25 percent magnesium carbonate)
dolomite quarries. Although originally drawn in 1941, it is a useful guide to the important
occurrences of dolomite. As with limestone, the largest deposits are located in the eastern
half of the country. Two major areas are noted. First a belt of dolomite extends from
Vermont to central Alabama along the Appalachian Mountains. This coincides quite well
with a similar band of limestone previously noted. Second, large formations of dolomite
occur in the states encircling the Great Lakes. These deposits coincide with or adjoin large
limestone deposits in the region.
The most significant deposits of marble are found along virtually the entire length of
the Appalachian Mountains in the east, and as scattered occurrences in the Rocky
Mountains in the west. Although eastern marbles are predominantly calcitic (high calcium),
dolomitic types also occur. Both types are found in the west.
Shell limestone occurs primarily in Gulf Coastal waters, but it also is found in bay
waters along both the east and west coasts. It is usually a very pure type of calcium
carbonate.
Marl deposits exist in several areas, notably around the Great Lakes, and along the
southeastern coastal plain. This soft, relatively impure form of calcium carbonate varies
considerably in character, that of the Great Lakes area being precipitated calcium carbonate,
while that of the coastal plain is an impure shell deposit. Limited occurrences in other
regions are generally impure chalks or soft limestones.

Mining and Production
Carbonate stones are recovered by several methods, including underground mining
and dredging but quarrying is employed most commonly. After removal of overburden and
primary blasting of the stone, various crushing, grinding, sizing, and cleaning operations are
performed to produce a range of marketable products. A large, modern quarry is an
expensive, complex, and highly mechanized unit.
Over 4,700 quarries, producing 861 million tons of crushed stone of all types, were
in operation in the United States in 1969. Since production of crushed carbonate rocks
totaled 652 million tons, it can be assumed that, roughly, over 3,500 of these quarries

-------
oo
ro
10
                                               FIGURE  4-


                  LOCATION OF HIGH-GRADE  DOLOMITE QUARRIES IN  THE UNITED STATES



                     (REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU  OF MINES  INFORMATION CIRCULAR  NO. 7192)

-------
                                         1-21

produced  limestone, dolomite, and related stones. More than one-third of all quarries had
annual production  rates of less  than  25,000  tons. The  large operations (over 900,000
tons/year)  produced one-third  of the total crushed stone, although they represented less
than 4 percent of the total number of quarries.
       Crushed carbonate rock production in the United States in 1969 was distributed as
follows:

                                                           106 Tons
                 Limestone
                 Dolomite
                 Shell
                 Calcareous Marl
                 Marble
                         Total                              652

No production of any type was reported in three states, viz., Delaware, New Hampshire, and
North Dakota. These states, plus Louisiana, were the only states which did not produce any
limestone. Dolomite was produced in twenty-four states, chiefly  in  the north-eastern quarter
of the country.
       Production of limestone and dolomite, by region, was a follows:
                                                           106 Tons
                 New England                                  2.4
                 Middle Atlantic                               90.9
                 East North Central                           185.6
                 West North Central                            92.5
                 South Atlantic                                87.5
                 East South Central                            81.3
                 West South Central                            58.3
                 Mountain                                     10.7
                 Pacific                                       18.8
                       Total                                  628

 Nationwide, Pennsylvania and  Illinois were the leading producers of limestone and dolomite,
 respectively. Within most regions, production rates of individual states varied from near zero
 to tens of millions of tons. The New England and Mountain regions, however, had fairly
 uniform and low outputs. The  East North  Central region was also an exception, with all
 states  reporting large quantities of limestone and dolomite, ranging from 16 to 55 million
 tons.
        Shell was dredged from bay waters along all three coasts.  However, 83 percent came
 from Texas and  Louisiana,  with the latter being the  leading producer. Small quantities of

-------
1-22

marl were produced in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina,
Texas, and Virginia. Eighteen states, principally in eastern and western mountainous regions
quarried marble, with Alabama recording the highest production at 632,000 tons.

IV. Supply/Demand Relationship of Carbonate Rocks for Pollution Control
Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to Power Plants
Comparison of Figures 1-4 indicates that the major deposits of carbonate rocks
largely coincide in location with the power plants. This is particularly true in the East North
Central region where huge reserves of stone occur. Both high calcium limestone and high
grade dolomite abound and many deposits are found near the major power generation
centers throughout the region.
The New England region is not as fortunate. While the power plants are located
primarily in coastal areas, the rock deposits occur in the mountainous western sections.
Most of the deposits are highly crystalline stone or marble and many are dolomitic. The
suitability of these materials would have to be determined before including them as a
possible source.
Availability of stone should not be a problem for power plants in the Middle
Atlantic region. All types of stone occur and nearby deposits can be found. Plants in
western and eastern Pennsylvania, particularly, are fortunate in that large reserves of high
grade stones are present.
In the South Atlantic region, most plants are located near an adequate source of
stone, particularly if the crystalline limestones and dolomites of the mountainous areas
prove suitable. Several coastal plants could use shell or coral limestone, or marl. However,
for some inland power plants in North Carolina, for example, no nearby deposits exist.
Large quantities of high calcium limestone occur throughout the East South Central
region and power plants should experience no difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies.
Many plants located in Alabama and Tennessee also could obtain dolomite quite easily.
The less abundant and more widely scattered carbonate resources of the western
states are of minor importance, since there are few coal-fired power plants in this area. With
the exception of the two power plants located in North Dakota, which are far removed from
any commercially important carbonate deposits, the few plants that do exist are fairly near
reserves of high calcium stone.

Potential Demand Relative to Production
As previously mentioned, the potential demand for limestone by coal-and oil-fired
power plants in 1969 exceeded 40 million tons. This represents only 7.3 percent oFthe
national limestone production of 559 million tons. Dolomite production, on the other hand,
was roughly 60 percent greater than the potential demand. Shell production was only
one-half of the demand. The quantities of calcareous marl and crushed marble quarried were
relatively insignificant. Obviously, limestone is the only stone produced in sufficient
quantities to warrant nationwide consideration as an agent for SO2 removal. Dolomite and

-------
1-23

shell, however, are quarried in large enough amounts to make them important materials in
some regions. Marl and crushed marble may be useful in certain localities where the other
rocks do not exist but their limited occurrence and production do not permit wide-scale use
of these materials.
Table 2 shows the relationship of limestone and dolomite production to potential
demand, by region and state. The third column of the table is the ratio of total limestone
and dolomite production to potential demand, for 1969.
With the exception of New England, the eastern regions of the country all have large
relative supplies of limestone and dolomite. There are some exceptions to this among the
individual states. New Jersey and Delaware have a potential need which exceeds their
production. Adjacent states, however, are large producers of stone and could provide the
necessary tonnages. Mississippi and both of the Carolinas have low relative supplies of stone.
If they could not otherwise be supplied, marl deposits which occur extensively in all three
states could be used. Georgia and West Virginia, with comparatively low relative supplies,
could easily obtain needed stone from surrounding states. It is interesting to note that the
region with the highest limestone demand, i.e., the East North Central region, also has the
highest limestone and dolomite production.
The New England region faces a shortage of limestone and dolomite, with two states
producing less stone than potentially required. The marble resources of the region could
improve the situation somewhat, but power plants would have to rely on shipments of stone
from nearby states such as New York, or, perhaps, on imports.
Most states in other regions of the country have ample production. North Dakota,
with no production, is an outstanding exception to this, however. A few other states have
low relative supplies of stone, but either the demand is quite small, or the production could
easily be expanded to meet the need.

Costs
F.O.B. Quarry Costs
The average unit value, or net selling price at the quarry, for all crushed carbonate
stones produced in the United States in 1969 was $1.49/ton and varied by type of stone as
follows:
Limestone $1.45/ton
Dolomite $1.55/ton
Shell $1.42/ton
Marl $1.01/ton
Marble $9.69/ton

The high unit value of marble reflects its primary use as a decorative material.
Unit value also varies with end use. Stone used for all construction purposes
averaged $1.44/ton while stone used in applications requiring a high purity material had an

-------
                                        1-24

                                      Table 2
           Availability of Limestone and Dolomite for Pollution Control (1969)

                              Production           Potential Demand
  Region and State             (103 Tons)              (*Q3 Tons) _

 New England                                                                  „ ,-r
  Connecticut                      275                    47                 056
  Maine                            800
  Massachusetts                     750
  New Hampshire
  Rhode Island                   < 100                     39
  Vermont                         525
                                                        _
    Totals                        2,400                  1-369                 1.75

 Middle Atlantic
  New Jersey                       800                    935                 °-86
  New York                     33,457                  2,132                 15.7
  Pennsylvania                   56,667                  3,516                 16.1
    Totals                       90,900                  6,583                 13.8

 South Atlantic
  Delaware                                                177                    0
  Florida                        40,729                  1,009                 40.4
  Georgia                         4,334                    931                 4.66
  Maryland                       9,804                  1,010                 9.71
  North Carolina                  4,500                  2,003                 2.25
  South Carolina                  1,900                    459                 4.14
  Virginia                        17,829                  1,088                 16.4
  West Virginia                    8,405                  1.794                 4.69
    Totals                       87,500                  8,471                 10.3

East South Central
  Alabama                       17,752                  1,931                 9.19
  Kentucky                      30,158                  1,785                 16.9
  Mississippi                        300                     71                 4.23
  Tennessee                      33,109                  1,858                 17.8
    Totals                       81,300                  5,645                 14.4

East North Central
  Illinois                        54,844                  3,665                 15.0
  Indiana                        25,157                  2,786                 9.03
  Michigan                       39,066                  2,511                 15.6
  Ohio                          50,595   .               4,181                 12.1
  Wisconsin                      15,937                  1,164                 13.7
    Totals                      185,600                 14,307                 13.0

West North Central
  Iowa                          26,200                    453                 57.8
  Kansas                        15,334                     42                  365
  Minnesota                      4,127                    648                 6.37
  Missouri                       41,200                  1,093                 37.7
  Nebraska                       4,663                    110                 42.4
  North Dakota                        -                    357                    0
  South Dakota                     989                     35                 28 3
    Totals                       92,500                  2,738                 33^3

-------
                                       1-25

                                Table 2 (continued)

                             Production            Potential Demand
  Region and State             (103 Tons)               (103 Tons)              Ratio

West South Central
  Arkansas                       5,676                      4                1419
  Louisiana                           -                     <1                    0
  Oklahoma                     16,300                     <1                 Large
  Texas                         36,300                     <1                 Large
    Totals                       58,300                     <7                Large

Mountain
  Arizona                        2,339                     50                46.8
  Colorado                       1,650                    358                4.61
  Idaho                            250
  Montana                       1,442                     74                19.5
  Nevada                         1,000                     78                12.8
  New Mexico                      956                    345                2.77
  Utah                           2,400                     67                35.8
  Wyoming                         649                    379                1-71
    Totals                       10,700                   1,351                7.92

 Pacific
  California                     17,400                    266                65.4
  Oregon                           350                    <1                Large
  Washington                     1,050                    < 1                Large
    Totals                    ^  18,800                  <268                >70

-------
1-26

average value of $1.69/ton. Average prices ranged from $0.69/ton for fill to $6.00/ton for
exposed aggregate (decorative stone). Stone for most applications, however, averaged under
$2.00/ton. The variation in price depends not only on supply and demand but also on the
chemical and/or physical properties required for the particular application.
Average prices of limestone and dolomite are shown in Table 3, by region and state.
Within most states, average prices were $1.00-$2.00/ton, although spot prices ranged from
$0.12-$25.00/ton. Several states in the New England and Mountain Regions, in addition to
New Jersey, reported average values above $2.00/ton. Rhode Island reported the highest
average value: $7.57/ton for limestone. The prices reported in California and Washington
were unusual in that average values for limestone were below the national average, while
average values for dolomite far exceeded $2.00/ton. Production of the particular stone was
limited in all cases where average unit values were high.
With the exception of Virginia, which reported $3.92/ton, average prices of shell
were $1.00-$2.00/ton. Unit values for marl were all below $1.15/ton and varied widely in
price.

Transportation Costs
Trucks dominated in the transportation of carbonate rocks from quarry to
consumer, accounting for almost three-fourths of all stone. Rail and waterway hauls,
amounting to one-fifth of the stone shipments, were about equally divided.
Trucks generally are used for shorter hauls of under 50-100 miles while rail is
employed for longer distances. Where conditions permit, shipment of stone by barge or boat
is preferred since this is usually the cheapest method of transportation.
Typical capacities of the various vehicles used to transport stone are:
Truck up to 50 tons
Rail Car 60-100 tons
Barge 1200-1400 tons
Boat up to 29,000 tons
Trucks were a popular mode of transportation in all sections of the nation, while railroads
were important in eastern states, particularly in the southeast. Large amounts of stone were
moved via inland waters, notably in the Great Lakes area and along the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway. The abundance of highways, railroads, and inland waterways found in the east is
not duplicated in western states, thereby limiting the selection of a transportation method
in the latter area.
Generally, sufficient trucks, barges, and boats are available to haul stone although in
some areas in peak seasons the supply may be limited. In most sections of the country a
shortage of rail cars does occur. For a power plant where the limestone demand would be
known and deliveries could be scheduled well in advance, the affect of a shortage of vehicles
should not be severe.

-------
                                       1-27
                                     Table 3

                Unit Value of Crushed and Broken Limestone and Dolomite
                  in the United States in 1969, By Region and State

                                                 Average Unit Value ($/Ton)
Region and State
New England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
East North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
West North Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
South Atlantic
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Limestone

NR1
1.32
4.14
-
7.57
1.46

2.49
1.56
1.46

1.44
1.32
1.02
1.54
1.17

1.49
1.40
1.32
1.39
1.87
-
1.22

-
1.31
1.50
1.57
1.62
1.51
1.52
1.62
Dolomite

4.20
.2
5.24
-
-
1.53

-
1.97
1.73

1.45
1.28
1.45
1.48
1.21

1.72
-
1.38
1.13
.
-
-

-
-

-
-
-
1.37
1.62
1.  "NR" indicates that value was not reported
2.  "-" indicates no production

-------
                                      1-28
                                Table 3 (continued)
  Region and State

East South Central
  Alabama
  Kentucky
  Mississippi
  Tennessee
                                                  Average Unit Value ($/Ton)
Limestone
  1.17
  1.46
  1.00
  1.33
                                                                           Dolomite
                                   1.60
West South Central
  Arkasas
  Louisiana
  Oklahoma
  Texas
  1.36

  1.30
  1.35
 NR
1.17
Mountain
  Arizona
  Colordao
  Idaho
  Montana
  Nevada
  New Mexico
  Utah
  Wyoming

Pacific
  California
  Oregon
  Washington

Total United States
  1.64
  2.04
  1.10
  1.24
  1.64
  1.51
  2.25
  2.11
   1.07
   1.00
   1.28

   1.45
2.83
1.77
 NR
2.66
2.91

6.00
   :>
1.55
1. 'NR" indicates that value was not reported
2. "-" indicates no production

-------
1-29
So many factors influence transportation rates and costs that it becomes very
difficult to establish average rates, even within a single area. Most freight rates for crushed
stone in the United States fall within the following ranges, in cents per ton-mile:
Truck 5.0-10.0 (@ 10 miles) * 2.0 - 5.0 (@ 100 miles)
Rail 4.5- 6.0 (@ 10 miles) * 0.75-1.5 (@ 250 miles)
Water 0.9- 1.5 (@ 20 miles) * 0.25 - 0.50 (@ 500 miles)

Delivered Costs
The delivered price of limestone to a power plant is the sum of the price of the stone
at the quarry plus the transportation charges. The delivered price of limestone to 37 selected
power plants is estimated in Table 4, based on the assumption that a calcium limestone
would be required. Most of the plants are located in the eastern half of the United States
where the major coal- and oil-fired power capacity is found. Prices range from
$1.95-$13.20/ton. Half of the plants could be supplied at under $4.00/ton, while all but 3
could obtain limestone at under $6.00/ton. The latter 3 plants are located in the west in
areas where base prices are higher or limestone deposits are remote. For several eastern
seaboard plants, particularly in New England, the availability of low-cost high calcium
limestone is contingent upon the acceptability of an imported stone. Domestic sources are
either inadequate or too distant to provide a low-cost material.
Carbonate rocks historically have been stable, low-priced commodities. Based on
average unit values for the years 1960-1969, projected average base prices for 1975 are as
follows:
1969 1975
Limestone and Dolomite $1.46/ton $1.67-1.82/ton
Marl $1.01/ton $1.28-1.48/ton
The average value of shell has dropped considerably since 1960. It is unlikely that it will
continue to decrease through 1975. More probably, it should parallel limestone and
dolomite but not exceed them in value. Average unit values for crushed marble are highly
variable, reflecting the sensitivity of price to market conditions.
Transportation rates during the next 5 years should rise about 6 percent/year,, on the
average. Estimates by type of transportation are as follows:
Truck 4 - 6%/year
Rail 6 - 8%/year
Water 5 - 10%/year
These estimates, based on predictions by various stone producers, assume a continuance of
the present rate of inflation.
It should be noted that the lime industry could be affected greatly from the national
concern for the environment. Specifically, the power industry may require large amounts of
lime by 1980, in the form of an additive to control sulfur oxides from the burning of fossil

-------
                                       1-30
                                      Table 4

          Delivered Price of High-Calcium Limestone to Selected Power Plants
Power Plant

Benning
Gorgas
Cherokee
J. McDonough
Devon
Fisk
R.S.Wallace
Will County
D.H.Mitchell
Wabash
Riverside
Lawrence
Cane  Run
Elmer Smith
Riverside
Edgar
L Street
Delray
High Bridge
Hawthorn
Sioux
Essex
Port Jefferson
Waterside
Allen
Leland Olds
Tidd
Miami Fort
Acme
Horseshoe Lake
Elrama
Schuylkill
Wateree
Bull Run
Cabin Creek
Kammer
Lakeside
Location

Washington, D.C.
Gorgas, Alabama
Denver,  Colorado
Cobb County, Georgia
Millford, Connecticut
Chicago, Illinois
East Peoria, Illinois
Lockport, Illinois
Gary, Indiana
Terre Haute, Indiana
lowana, Iowa
Lawrence, Kansas
Louisville, Kentucky
Owensboro, Kentucky
Baltimore, Maryland
N. Weymouth, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan
St.  Paul, Minnesota
Kansas City, Missouri
West Alton, Missouri
Newark, New Jersey
Port Jefferson, New York
New York, New York
Belmont, North Carolina
Stanton, North Dakota
Brilliant, Ohio
North Bend, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Horseshoe Lake, Oklahoma
Elrama, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Rockland City, South Carolina
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Cabin Creek, West Virginia
Captina, West Virginia
St.  Francis, Wisconsin
Delivered Price ($/Ton)

       4.50*
       3.23
       6.36
       4.50
       4.50*
       2.40
       3.30
       3.30
       2.65
       2.25(75-94%CaC03)
       1.95
       3.66
       3.00
       3.72
       3.85
       4.50*
       4.50*
       2.40
       3.00
       4.60
       3.10
       4.50*
       4.50*
       4.50*
       5.39
      13.20
       3.80
       2.45
       2.45
       8.00
       5.55(92%CaCO3)
       4.50*
       3.90(88%CaC03)
       4.24
       6.00
       4.00(80%CaC03)
       2.60
*Source of stone is outside of U.S. (Bahamas)

-------
1-31

fuels. Although the amounts to be used are far from certain, it is possible that such
pollution control efforts will make a significant new market for the lime industry.15 New
supply and demand relationships within this market could alter F.O.B. and transportation
charges and have a considerable effect on delivered cost.

V. Conclusions
a. Enormous deposits of carbonate rocks occur in the United States and reserves are
more than adequate for the foreseeable future. A very rough approximation of surface
carbonate deposits indicates a minimum of 3.6 x 1012 tons, sufficient to satisfy national
requirements for more than 500 years at the present rate of consumption (and assuming a
10 percent availability of these reserves). Availability of high purity stone may become a
problem several decades hence, but, with the probability that the required quality will
depend on other process and economic factors, no shortage of suitable stone is foreseen.
b. The major deposits of carbonate rocks occur in the eastern half of the United
States where the vast majority of fossil fuel-fired power plants are located. Large reserves in
these eastern areas provide a nearby source of stone for most power plants. Roughly
two-thirds of all surface deposits of carbonate rock are found in the eastern half of the
country.
c. Relative to the potential demand for carbonate rocks by power plants, production
of these materials is quite large in most states. However, current production is inadequate to
supply the potential needs of power plants in several Atlantic coastal regions, notably New
England.
d. Limestone is the only type of carbonate rock which is produced in large enough
quantities to merit consideration for wide-spread application in the removal of SO2 from
stack gases. In many areas ample amounts of other carbonate rocks are produced,
particularly dolomite.
e. Most of the power plants in the eastern half of the United States could be
supplied with high calcium limestone at less than $6.00/ton, many at less than $4.00/ton.
Costs for power plants located in western states generally would be higher, owing to the lack
of suitable, nearby deposits and other factors.
The preceding costs are based on an unsized, nominally 2"-6" x 0 stone (this
indicates stone with a maximum size of 2"-6" and no minimum size), which is typical of the
product from the primary crusher at most quarries. If a sized or fine material is desired, the
cost may increase. Most quarries have little or no capacity for fine grinding, particularly in
the amounts possibly required by the larger power plants.
f. Based on projections of material cost and transportation charges to 1975, the
delivered price of limestone to most power plants is not expected to increase by more than
$1.00-$2.00/ton.

-------
                                          1-32
VI. Recommendations for Application to Dry Limestone Injection and
    Other Limestone-Based Processes
       The data and material contained herein and the referenced reports should be used to
obtain a first approximation of the occurrence, characteristics, and cost of carbonate rocks
in  a particular case, thereby enabling a  power company to assess the desirability of installing
a limestone-based  process for SO2  removal.  If further investigation is warranted, the state
geological surveys, a list of  which  is included in the reference 14 report,  individual  stone
producers, and local carriers should  be consulted for more detailed and specific information.

-------
1-33

Section C
Definitions14

To avoid some of the confusion which frequently results from the inexact and
qualitative definitions applied to limestone and related materials in the United States, and
from the multitude of overlapping names used, some of the terms as used in this section are
defined below.
Limestone is a general term applied to sedimentary rocks composed chiefly of
calcium carbonate, CaCO3, calcium-magnesium carbonate, CaMg(CO3)2, or mixtures of the
two. The term is also used, in a more restricted way, to denote rocks composed mainly of
calcium carbonate, in order to differentiate them from dolomites. Dolomite is a name used
to describe a limestone primarily composed of the mineral dolomite, calcium-magnesium
carbonate CaMg(CO3)2. It is generally applied to carbonate rocks which contain
approximately 20 percent or more magnesium carbonate, MgC03. Pure dolomite would
contain 54.3 percent CaCO3 and 45.7 percent MgCO3. A point of contention, which is
sometimes noted in the literature, is whether the calcium and magnesium carbonates are
chemically combined, or whether they occur merely as a physical mixture. Limestone and
dolomite occur with varying quantities of impurities, the most common of which are silica,
alumina, iron oxides, and carbonaceous matter.
Lime can be defined as the product which results from calcination of a limestone or
dolomite. Calcination is a process of heating the stone to a temperature at which carbon
dioxide, CO2 is released, thereby converting the carbonates to oxides. A calcium carbonate
stone will produce a lime containing calcium oxide, CaO. Dolomite will produce a lime
containing both calcium oxide and magnesium oxide, MgO, commonly called magnesia. In
practice, commercial limes are usually derived from high purity stones containing a
minimum of about 95 percent total carbonates.
The following list defines the more important terms used in this report:
Aragonite is a mineral composed of calcium carbonate, and having an orthorhombic
crystalline structure.
Argillaceous limestone contains clay as a major impurity.
Bituminous (carbonaceous) limestone contains organic compounds as a major
impurity.
Calcareous is a term used to describe any material containing calcium carbonate.
Calcite is a mineral composed of calcium carbonate, and having a rhombohedral
crystalline structure. It is the predominant mineral in most limestones.
Chalk is a soft, friable, fine-grained limestone consisting primarily of the remains of
minute marine organisms.
Coral limestone is a fossiliferous limestone consisting primarily of coral.
Dolomitic limestone refers to a limestone which contains more than approximately
20 percent magnesium carbonate. The term is usually interchangeable with "dolomite."
Ferruginous limestone contains iron oxides as a major impurity.

-------
                                          1-34

       Flux stone is a  high-purity limestone or dolomite used as a flux in metallurgical
processes. It contains 95 percent or more minimum total carbonate.
       Fossiliferous  limestone is a stone in which the shells or shell fragments (fossils) are
readily discernible.
       High  calcium  limestone refers  to a  limestone  which  contains a  minimum  of
approximately 95 percent calcium carbonate.
       Magnesian  limestone refers to a  limestone  which contains magensium  carbonate
within the approximate range of 5-20 percent.
       Marble  is a  metamorphic  rock consisting of  crystallized grains  of  calcite  and/or
dolomite. Commercially, the definition includes any calcareous rock that can be polished.
       Marl is an indefinite term used to describe a loose,  soft, impure  material which
contains fine-grained fragments of shell and marine organisms intermixed with sand and
clay.
        Oolitic limestone contains small, rounded  pellets (oolites), having  a  center  of
calcium carbonate or sand grains around which are deposited concentric layers of calcite.
        Shell limestone  is a term used to describe limestone derived from clam and oyster
shells.
        Siliceous (cherty) limestone contains silica as a major impurity.
        Travertine consists  of calcium  carbonate  that  is  chemically precipitated  from hot
springs.

-------
1-35

Section D
References

Reports identified by numbers prefixed "PB" are currently available prepaid from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Others will be available approximately one
month after receipt by NTIS.
1. Illinois State Geological Survey, Final Report, PB 206-487, "Petrographic and
Mineralogical Characteristics of Carbonate Rocks Related to Sulfur Dioxide
Sorption in Flue Gases," July 1971, EPA Contract CPA 22-69-65.
2. Tennessee Valley Authority, Final Report, PB 202-407, "Sulfur Oxide Removal
from Power Plant Stack Gas—Investigation of the Reactivities of Limestone to
Remove Sulfur Dioxide from Flue Gas," 1971.
3. Babcock & Wilcox, Final Report, PB 184-059, "Additive Injection for Sulfur
Dioxide Control—A Pilot Plant Study." March 1970, EPA Contract PH 86-67-127.
4. Peabody Coal Company, Final Report, PB 184-944, "Pilot Plant Moving Grate
Furnace Study of Limestone-Dolomite for Control of Sulfur Oxide in Combustion
Flue Gases," August 1970, EPA Contract PH 22-68-68.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Technical Report, APTD
0737, "Alkaline Additives for Sulfur Dioxide Control," March 29, 1971.
6. Borgwardt, R. M., and Harvey, R. D., "Properties of Carbonate Rocks Related to
S02 Reactivity," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp 350-9,
(April 1972).
7. Zentgraf, Karl Martin, "A Contribution to the Determination of Sulfur Dioxide in
Flue Gases and Desulfurization of Flue Gas with Earth Alkali Metal Compounds,"
Fortschrittsberichte VDI Zeitschrift, Germany, October 1967.
8. Ishihara, Yoshimi, "Kinetics of the Reaction of Calcined Limestone with Sulfur
Dioxide in Combustion Gases," Technical Laboratory No. 1 Central Research
Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan, presented at the Dry Limestone
Injection Process Symposium, June 22-26, 1970.
9. Tanaka, K., et al., "Studies on Removal of Sulfur Oxides from Flue Gas by Dry
Limestone Process," Japan, 1969.
10. Goldschmidt, K., "Experiments in the Use of White Lime Hydrate and Dolomite
Lime Hydrate to Desulfurize Flue Gases from Oil and Pulverized Coal-Fired
Furnaces," Fortschrittsberichte VDI Zeitschrift, August 1968.
11. Ishihara, Y., "Removal of SO2 from Flue Gases by Lime Injection Method," report
of Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Komae, Kaitatama, Tokyo,
Japan, presented at Public Health Service Limestone Conference, December 4-8,
1967.
12. Brocke, W., Report for Third Limestone Symposium, Clearwater, Florida, December
4-8, 1967.

-------
                                     1-36

13. O'Donnell, J., and Sliger, A.,  "Availability of Limestones and Dolomites,"presented
   at the  Second  International   Lime/Limestone Wet Scrubbing  Symposium, New
   Orleans, Louisiana, November  8-12, 1971.
14. Kellogg,  M.  W.,  Final   Report,  PB  206-963, "Availability of Limestones  and
   Dolomites," February 1972, EPA Contract CPA 70-68, Task 1.
15. Environmental Protection Agency, "The Economics of Clean Air," Annual Report
   to the Congress of the United States, February 1972.

-------
       APPENDIX J
Mathematical Modeling of the
 Limestone Injection Process

-------
                                        J-l
                                    APPENDIX J
      MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE LIMESTONE INJECTION PROCESS

       In this  appendix  the  author discusses the modeling  activities which  proceeded
concurrently  with  the  experimental work on which it is based. "The ultimate goal of this
modeling was to establish a sound basis upon which the extensive data obtained at Shawnee
could be used to predict performance and  adapt the process to other  boilers of different
design."
       His summary includes work by:
   1. Professor  Jack  B.  Howard,  Department  of  Chemical  Engineering, Massachusetts
      Institute of Technology
   2. EPA Isothermal  Kinetic Studies
   3. Dr. Yoshimi Ishihara, Central  Research Institute of Electric Power  Industry, Japan
   4. Dr. Robert W. Coutant, Battelle Memorial Institute
   5. Professor Robert L. Pigford, University of California
   6. Professor C. Y. Wen, West Virginia University

-------
                                         J-3

                            I.   Introduction and Objectives

       The unique adaptability of the dry limestone injection process to existing power
plants—especially small and  older  units—together with its economic  advantages  in both
capital and operating costs, made it imperative that a thorough evaluation of the process be
made.  At the time when this evaluation was undertaken (1967) by CSD in cooperation with
TVA,  there was strong evidence that good  SO2  removal efficiencies and high additive
utilizations could  be obtained  by this process. A fundamental study made for EPA at  the
Battelle  Memorial   Institute  in  1966  showed  that  high  removal  efficiencies  were
thermodynamically  possible,  but  kinetic data  and mass transfer  correlations  were  not
available  by which  limits  of  efficiency could  be  predicted a  priori.  An experimental
program,  involving both boiler testing and  fundamental research  was necessary and  many
such investigations were carried  out  over the  period 1967-70, both  in the U.S. and  other
countries.
       With the publication  of reliable experimental data in 1969 on the  reaction  kinetics
of CaO with SO2  in both laboratory isothermal and dispersed-phase reactor systems, several
efforts were begun to develop mathematical  models which could be used to  interpret  the
experimental data from various sources and guide optimization of performance in full scale
tests. The ultimate goal of this modeling  activity was to establish a sound basis upon which
the extensive data obtained at Shawnee could  be  used to predict performance and adapt  the
process to other boilers of different design. Statistical correlations of data do not permit
extrapolation with any degree of confidence to boilers different in design from that used to
develop the correlation. A model useful for engineering design must account quantitatively
for the effects of injection temperature, residence time, initial SO2  concentration, sulfation,
time-temperature profile,  excess oxygen and other boiler characteristics which influence  the
kinetics of the reaction of SO2 with the limestone particles injected into it.
       Clearly,  the  development  of  a  satisfactory model  required  that  the primary
rate-limiting  mechanism  (Battelle had  already  shown  that there was no  equilibrium
limitation) be  established.  Although  this is generally  the first step in development of a
comprehensive  model, it  is also the most critical, and was found  to  be the most difficult.
Several  possible  and  equally  plausible  assumptions were  made as  a  basis for  model
development, but unfortunately, a: the lirne  when  most of these modeling activities were
begun, experimental research had not yet estaolished the facts regarding the effects of all of
the primary variables (temp., time, SO2 concentration, particle size and physical properties
of the calcine)  upon  the  reaction characteristics with S02.  Consequently, models  based
upon different  assumptions were developed, and only by comparing the responses predicted
by the model with those observed experimentally can a judgement be reached regarding the
most valid and useful model of the limestone injection process.
       In the summary following, somewhat of a historical  presentation  is provided since
the modeling activities proceeded concurrently with the experimental work on which  it is
based.  The development of information  identifying  the importance of key parameters is
emphasized and integrated, via  discussion, into the most general basis for interpretation  and
definite conclusions.

-------
J-5

II. Summary of Modeling Activities

Professor Jack B. Howard, Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
At the request of EPA, a project was undertaken in August 1969 to identify the
rate-limiting mechanism controlling the sorption of SO2 by calcined limestone. On the basis
of the known physical properties of such calcines the rate of diffusion of SO2 into the
pore structure of individual particles was to be estimated by means of the well-developed
theory of heterogeneous catalysis. By calculation of the pure diffusional resistances and
comparison with experimental data, the importance of chemical reaction, pore diffusion and
other SO2 sorption resistances were inferred.
The model1 describes the reaction behavior of a porous limestone particle in terms
of the reaction of clusters of microscopic nonporous CaO grains that comprise the larger
particle. It accounts for the effects of pore size, porosity, internal surface area and CaO
content. The pore spaces between grains permit access of SO2 to the grain surfaces for
reaction while larger pores between grain clusters provide the main path of diffusion into
the particle. Four resistances are considered: (1) transport of SO2 from the ambient gas to
the particle surface, (2) diffusion of SO2 within the pores, (3) chemical reaction at the grain
surface and (4) diffusion of CaSO4 reaction product into the solid CaO grains.
The resistance due to mass transfer to the particle surface was eliminated as a
possible limitation by comparison of experimental data from Battelle's dispersed reactor
with the calculated rate of mass transfer through the gas film. The results (Figure 1, Curves
A and B) showed that the quantity of SO2 that can be transferred to 90 jj particles would
permit 25% CaO conversion in 2 seconds at 1800° F. Actual data at these conditions show
only 9% conversion, consequently Howard concluded that the major resistance is within the
particle itself, resulting from either pore diffusion or chemical reaction.* Ishihara2 reached
the same conclusion on the basis of calculations of the decrease in SO2 concentration
through the gas film surrounding dispersed particles.
Two versions of the model were tested against experimental data on the isothermal
sorption of SO2 by calcines prepared in the laboratory. One version holds the pore structure
constant except for surface area, which decreases in proportion to conversion. The second
version of the model allows the pore structure to change as the reaction progresses, thus
accounting for the expansion of the CaO grains as they are converted to the more
voluminous CaSO4. Calculations with the two versions show that the sorption
characteristics are relatively insensitive to porosity in comparison with the effects of grain
size or surface area. Detailed analysis of experimental data with the model indicated that the
*Although the Battelle data are at low particle to gas concentrations, it has been shown that
the reported rates are in good agreement with Ishihara's pilot plant data for similar sized
particles, which were obtained at particle-to-gas stoichiometries up to 2.5 x (3).

-------
                                  J-6
FIGURE 1
   0.4
                                       CURVE A:  GAS PHASE MASS TRANSFER
         (S02)
                   = 1-BS
         (SO?) INITIAL
                                      t = (-7.3 sec/S  In (1-6S
                                  DIFFERENCE  ATTRIBUTED  TO INTRAPARTICLE
                                             RATE LIMITATIONS
                                   CURVE B:  BATTELLE DISPERSED-PHASE
                                              REACTOR DATA
                                       CURVE C:. EPA LABORATORY CALCINES
                              2           3
                                TIME (t), SECONDS

       PREDICTED BEHAVIOR  OF PARTICLES  REACTING WITH SULFUR  DIOXIDE
       UNDER  EXTERNAL DIFFUSION CONTROLLED CONDITIONS COMPARED WITH
       EXPERIMENTAL DATA  (1,000°C; PARTICLE SIZE  96w j 3000  PPM S02;
       S =  INITIAL MOLES   SOLID/STOICHIOMETRIC MOLAR SOLID

-------
                                         J-7

overall rate is controlled jointly by the pore diffusion and chemical reaction rates, with pore
diffusion being the stronger.  The estimated Thiele modulus of the smallest particles was
about 30 indicating r\ < 0.1,  consequently  the reaction profiles predicted by the mode for
particle cross sections in all cases showed only the external surface zone to be participating.
       A unique feature of this model is its allowance for solid diffusion.  Howard's analysis
showed that without  diffusion of  the  CaS04  into the CaO  grains, the maximum  solid
conversion could not exceed  8%. It is interesting to note that  the  data analyzed with the
model indicates that diffusion through the solid grain was rapid enough to contribute little
to the overall resistance.
       The most significant conclusion from the MIT analysis was that the internal surface
area available for  reaction was the primary  factor  limiting  SO2  sorption  rate and that the
reaction  behavior  could be approximated with  knowledge only of the effective CaO grain
radius. A comparison between the reaction rates obtained with the EPA laboratory calcines
examined in  this study and the rate  obtained  when limestones are injected into and
dispersed in  flue gas (Figure  1, curves B  and C)  showed a  significantly  higher rate in the
latter case. No explanation for this difference could  be  offered  on the basis of information
available at that time.

    EPA Isothermal Kinetics Studies
       The extreme discrepancy between reaction  rates measured in the laboratory and the
rates observed for limestone particles of the same size injected  at the same temperature in
dispersed systems had  been  known since  the  publication  of  isothermal kinetics data in
19594,5 _ y^jj discrepancy, and the lack of an adequate  explanation for it, was the  primary
limitation upon the  development of a fundamental  model which could be  applied to predict
performance on the basis of reaction kinetics.
       Research  continued  at EPA concentrating  upon the  physical  properties of the
calcines  affecting  reaction  rate,  i.e., pore structure of the calcine and  properties of the
original rock. The results of  these additional experimental  studies, reported at the 1970
symposium,  established  the relationship between reaction rate  and  the surface  area of the
calcine.  Dr.  Dennis  Drehmel5 showed that the  reactivity of calcines prepared in the
laboratory were  strongly correlated to the BET surface area,  which varied according to
calcination temperature. Borgwardt7  verified these  findings by quantitative measurement of
the reaction  rate of  calcines prepared from different types of rock (which yielded different
pore  structures and surface areas) and showed that the initial  reaction  rate was  a  linear
function of the BET surface area of the calcine.
       A simple model based on chemical  reaction control was shown to correlate the
initial  rates  of SO2  sorption of  calcines of different  types of rock prepared at a given
calcination  temperature,  and  the  rates  of  a given  rock type calcined at  different
temperatures:

                       ro =  ks Sg  CS02  1                                          (1>

-------
J-8

where rQ is the rate per unit mass of CaO extrapolated to zero sulfation, and Sg is the B.E.T.
surface area of the calcine.
The reaction rate constant, ks = Ae '
The activation energy for different calcines averages about 17 k cal/g mole. The intrinsic
reaction rate constant was accurately measured at 900°C at 0.22 cm/sec, essentially
independent of stone type.
The effect of sulfation was shown to result in an exponential decrease in isothermal reaction
rate with conversion, X according to:
r = r0 e "^ (2)
The coefficient (3 is a strong function of particle size, since it includes the effectiveness
factor, n- and is a weak function of stone type, probably due to the differences in solid
diffusion rates within CaO grains postulated by Howard. This effect was quite small
however, compared to the effect of surface area upon the overall rate of SO2 sorption.
The maximum limit of CaO conversion (total SO2-sorption capacity) was defined
by the available pore volume for product accumulation. This was determined by
measurement of grain expansion and decrease in pore volume with conversion, which
showed that calcines of maximum theoretical pore volume can achieve no more than 49%
CaO conversion. At that point the entire pore volume is filled with reaction product, and
greater conversions can be achieved only by solid diffusion through the exterior particle
surface, which is extremely slow.

Dr. Yoshimi Ishihara - Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry. Japan
Establishment of the direct relationship between BET surface area and initial SO2
reaction rate provided the first insight into the mechanism of SO2 capture by the limestone
injection process. At the same symposium where those data were presented, Dr. Ishihara
reported2 the results of an extensive investigation of the reaction kinetics in a pilot-scale
limestone injection furnace. As a part of his experimental study, measurements of the BET
surface areas were obtained for calcines prepared by rapid (less than 5 seconds) calcination
in the dispersed system. Ishihara's data clearly showed that the surface areas developed in
these short exposure times are considerably greater than the surface areas of calcines
prepared in the laboratory at the same temperature (which require longer periods of
calcination to achieve complete conversion of CaCO3 to CaO). The surface areas produced
by calcination in the dispersed phase were 20-30 m2/g, an order of magnitude greater than
that of laboratory calcines. This difference in surface areas* provided the basis for
reconciling the discrepancies between reaction rates measured in isothermal laboratory
experiments and the observed reaction rates in dispersed systems. Good correlation of the
two independent sets of data was in fact later achieved.
~k
The existence of large surface areas immediately following dissociation of CaCO3 had been
previously postulated by Mayer & Stowe8 from consideration of molecular rearrangements
that must occur when unit crystal cells are altered to the CaO configuration. Absolute
surfaces as great as 103 m2/g were estimated.

-------
                                          J-9

       Although Ishihara's objective was not specifically that of modeling the reaction, he
did quantitatively evaluate the effect  of each  process variable—in  much  greater detail than
was done in any other  pilot plant study. He  correlated his data according to the simplest
possible model for chemical reaction control,
                 r = d(CaO conversion) = k C<~r\
                    	dt	     S°2                                     (3)
                 where k = Ae "E/RT
                 and    T = f(t)
Comparison of this  model with equations (1)  and (2) shows that it is the same as that used
successfully to correlate the initial isothermal rate data for precalcined stones,  where k =
kssg.
        Ishihara determined the value  of  k  as a function of  each  of  the  major process
variables: temperature  (time), particle size, SO2 concentration, limestone type and injection
temperature.  He analyzed his data on the basis of instantaneous rates measured at a given
value of temperature (time) in the reactor. This approach assumes that the rate is a function
only  of  temperature and  SO2 concentration,  i e., that  the rate at t > 0 is independent of
sulfation and  surface area. It should be noted that surface and sulfation effects are, therefore,
reflected in the factor  A in  equation  (4), which will also be a function of temperature and
time if these effects  are significant.
        This simple  model  proved  to be an  extremely effective tool for the qualitative
analysis  of limestone injection data.  Figure 2 shows a plot of the reaction rate constant as a
function of the instantaneous temperature and injection  temperature.  Several  important
responses are  revealed by this plot. The slope  of each line  reflects the activation energy of
the reaction and also any  effect of sulfation  and/or surface area. Considering the straight
line representing injection at the lowest temperature (910°C) it is clear that the rates are a
linear function of temperature  over the full  (order of magnitude) range of reaction rates
observed. One may thus conclude that sulfation alone  has a minor effect on the apparent
activation  energy.  Otherwise the  slope of this  line would change  with  1/T (and  time),
reflecting the  effect  of accumulated sulfate. The observed independence of activation energy
from sulfation effects  is in accord with Howard's conclusion regarding the  constancy of
activation energy over a broad range of conversion for  the isothermal reaction of CaO with
SO2.
        Comparing  the 910°C curve with  the  other curves in  Figure  2, representing  higher
injection temperatures, it is clear that the slope increases with temperature. Since sulfation
has  a negligible effect  on  apparent  activation  energy (slope) it  is clear that the  rapid
deactivation indicated  by  the  change  in slope  with  injection temperature  is a result of
factors  other  than  sulfation. Ishihara  attributed this change  to the loss of surface area at
high temperature and to internal diffusion resistances as sulfation progressed.  In view of the
above discussion regarding the effect of sulfation on activation energy, surface area is clearly

-------
FIGURE 2
       2200°F
2000°F
 1000
                                J-10

                          INJECTION TEMPERATURE
  1800°F
                0.5   1.0   1.5   2.0  2.5
        7.0
7.5
8.0      .8.5
1/T x 104 ? ct
9.0
10.0
             ARRHENIUS PLOT FOR  THE REACTION OF CAO WITH S02
          SHOWING  THE EFFECT OF  GAS TEMPERATURE AT  INJECTION POINT

-------
                                         J-ll

the primary factor responsible for the observed change in reaction rate with temperature. As
additional evidence of this fact it should be noted that the apparent activation energy in the
final stage (about 25  K cal), where the effect of temperature no longer influences surface
area, is the same magnitude as the activation energies measured in the laboratory for calcines
of fixed pore structure.
       It is informative to  put  Ishihara's model in integrated form for comparison with the
other models. Equations (3) and (4) are not directly integrable, however, as shown in Figure
2, a plot of Ishihara's  data  for the time-temperature profile of his reactor2 shows that 1/T
can be approximated accurately over the short time periods used in  his experiments by
                                    1  'v
                                    T  =  Ct
               so that               dx  ^   Ae"Ect
                                    dt  ~

where E is  the apparent  activation  energy,  or  slope, of  the  lines shown in  Figure 2.
Integrating,
                             X ^  - £•   e -Ect   + c
                                     '-c
                        since x = 0 at t = 0, C =  A/Ec and
                            x  2  A    (1_e -Ect}                                 (5)
                                  ^-\~f
As is evident from the  previous discussion,
                              A = f (Sg-cs02)
A comparison of equation  (5)  with that derived  independently by Coutant using emperical
curve-fitting techniques will be made in the next section.

    Dr. Robert W. Coutant - Battelle Memorial Institute
       Fundamental experimental studies9  of reaction kinetics in a dispersed phase reactor
were begun at Battelle in  1967 under CSD sponsorship and continued through 1971. The
reactor used  in this investigation was designed specifically to permit  close control  over the
reaction  variables and to   permit  independent study of  each  variable upon the  reaction
kinetics.   Its  unique  features  were  (1)  particles  could be  reacted  at  constant  SO2
concentration and (2) particles  could be injected and collected over varying residence times
from 0.2 seconds to over 2 seconds thus  both calcination and sulfation could be followed
directly by particle analysis.
       Following  Ishihara's report in 1970, the Battelle research  was directed specifically
toward verification of  the  effects  of surface area  on S02  reaction suggested by Ishihara's
data. A series of experiments in  which limestone particles were "flash  calcined" over varying
ranges of time  and injection  temperature (with  no SO2 present in the flue  gas)  soon
confirmed  the  existence of large  BET surface areas immediately following calcination and

-------
J-12

further showed that the surface decreased rapidly with residence time. For example, 90 y
particles injected at 1950° F yielded surface areas of 60 m2/gCaO jn 0.2 second residence
time, which decreased to 30 m2 /gCaO after one second.
The BET surface areas and corresponding SO2 reaction rates obtained in the Battelle
reactor were compared with the isothermal reaction rate-surface area data obtained from the
EPA differential reactor experiments. The results of this comparison, shown in Figure 3,
demonstrate excellent correlation between the two sets of data. The agreement confirmed
that the high reaction rates observed in the non-isothermal dispersed system is predicable
from its surface area and the intrinsic chemical reaction rate constant (0.22 cm/sec at
980°C) measured in the laboratory. The agreement also indicates that chemical reaction is
the primary limitation on the initial rate of SO2 absorption by the dispersed particles,
verifying the absence of gas-phase mass transfer limitations as inferred by Howard and
Ishihara from independent consideration. Clearly, the maximum rate is determined by
chemical reaction rate, and consequently, also by surface area.
The development of mathematical models of both the sulfation and calcination
reactions was an objective of the Battelle project. The approach used in modeling the
sulfation step did not presuppose any specific reaction controlling mechanism. The observed
responses of sulfation, S, vs. time were fitted empirically to obtain the best correlation with
time and temperature. Unfortunately, only one particle size, 90jj, was modeled. Coutant
expressed the results in the form1 ° :
s = b(l-e'kt) (6)
where k = exp (14.563 - 18734/Tm) (7)
b = exp (-2.982 + 10139/Tm) (8)
It should be noted that Coutant's model expresses the coefficients in terms of mean reactor
temperature, Tm, rather than the instantaneous temperature at time t.
Comparison of equation (6) with the integrated form of Ishihara's chemical-reaction
control model Equation 5 shows that they are identical if b = A/Ec and k = EC. The
injection-temperature dependence of the slope of Ishihara's curves, EC, is confirmed in
Coutant's equation (7). Likewise the dependence of Ishihara's coefficient A/Ec on
temperature in an inverse manner from EC is reflected by equation (8). The primary features
of both sets of data are summarized by the same basic model which requires no assumption
more complex than chemical-reaction control to explain all observed effects.
The coefficient b was identified by Coutant as the maximum (terminal) conversion
achievable under given injection conditions. The value b decreased with increased injection
temperature and since A = bk, Ishihari's factor A also decreases with increasing injection
temperature, thus reflecting the effect of loss of surface area on the overall reactivity. Thus,
for 90jJ particles,
A = f (Sg) - 2.45 e -8595/Tm

-------
                       J-13
                                                FIGURES
 5
  CT>
 o
 m
 o:
 UJ
 ti-
  ro
 O
 c/o
  CO
      18

      16

      14

      12

      10

       8

       6
      2

      0
           CALCINATION TEMPERATURE
            •  790°C
            A  890°C
            V  980°C
            • 1100°C
                            Sg=7.3X104cm2/g
              Sg=5.0xl04cm2/g

              ^^
              Sg=2.4xl04cm2/g
              ^  •
              Sg=0.95xl04cm2/g
I  i  i  I   i   I  i   I  I   I  I   I
             20    40    60    80   100   120  140
                   TIME, SECONDS
ISOTHERMAL SORPTION OF SO? BY TYPE 4 LIMESTONE AS A
FUNCTION OF SURFACE AREA OF ITS CALCINE.
REACTION TEMP=760°C;PARTICLE SIZE=0.0096 cm;S02=3000 ppm

     300,	
                    SLOPE= 1
in
 o
O
 to
 CD
 O)
'o
 E
 en
     100
       10
       1
     0.5
                      DISPERSED  PHASE
                      REACTOR TEMPERATURE
                            Q1008°C
                            «1060°C
UJ
o:
        103
     104         105
      Sg,cm2/g
106
  COMPARISON OF INITIAL SQ2 REACTION RATES IN
  DIFFERENTIAL  REACTOR,ISOTHERMAL (980°C,Dp =0.0096 cm)
  AND  DISPERSED-PHASE REACTOR
                  S02 = 3000 ppm

-------
                                         J-14

This loss of surface area at high temperatures is brought about by the growth of the CaO
sub-grains that comprise a  lime particle, which has long been  known to be an activated
process11,  i.e., the rate of grain  growth increases with  temperature.  The resulting loss of
surface areas (which is  inversely proportional to grain size) of calcines  prepared at different
temperatures has been demonstrated by Drehmel12 and  Chan etal.13  for calcines prepared
in the  laboratory.
       The Battelle model  thus shows that for a given particle  size, surface area decreases
with time and that the rate of change increases with injection temperature. Examination of
the Battelle data also shows  that the rate of change is  dependent upon particle size. The
comparison of terminal BET surface areas of 90u particles and 48u particles calcined in the
dispersed phase reactor show a marked reduction in surface of the smaller particles:

                                        Table I
                      Effect of Particle Size on Terminal  Surface Area
Particle Size, Injection Temp.
Microns °F
90
48
90
90
48
48
FW
FW
FW
1336
1336
IGS4
2224
2243
2224
2155
2140
2140
Residence
Time, Sec.
1.27
0.99
2.86
1.17
2.08
2.08
Terminal BET
Surface, m2/g
21.5
7.6
21.3
23.7
14.2
8.6
Run No.
925-B
106-F
675-A
317-C
226-B
32-A
        That the small particles would calcine more rapidly than large ones is in accord with
 the  established unreacted-shrinking  core  mechanism by which calcination  proceeds,  i.e.,
 calcines from the outer particle surface inward toward the particle center. Consequently, the
 small  particles  which have  greater particle surface  per unit  mass,  generate greater BET
 surfaces per unit  time during  calcination and of course, complete calcination sooner. This
 fact is clearly shown by the Battelle calcination rate data reproduced in Figure 4.
        The  overall  effect  of this  dependence  of calcination  rate  on  particle  size  is
 dramatically demonstrated by  comparing the Battelle data with Isjiihara's data for the S02
 reaction,  which together  covers  a particle  size  range from 90ju to  3.4 u.  Figure  4
 demonstrates the  remarkably  good agreement between the two sets  of data when directly
 compared.  Remember  that  these  data  were obtained  from  completely  different  reactor
 designs, operating at  vastly different  injection stoichiometries, and that one  set  of data was
 obtained  by  gas  analysis while  the other set  was obtained by  particle analysis. This
 comparison should be particularly  noted by those who have despaired over apparent lack of
 consistency among results of various investigators  of the limestone injection process. All of
 the essential features of the  dispersed reaction are reflected in these  curves: the increase  in
 initial  rate as particle size is reduced, resulting from higher rates of surface  generation, the
 flagging of the reaction  in smaller  particles when calcination is completed and everburning

-------
                                           PERCENT CALCINATION


                                                     75
                                        90p PARTICLES
  0.140
                                                                                            10.5p  >ISHIHARA
                                                                                                      DATA
                                                                                            20.5p
C\J
o
   0.070 -
o
o
T)
CJ>
                                                    COMPARISON OF  ISHIHARA AND  COUTANT  DATA

                                                    FOR  DISPERSED  PHASE REACTION OF CAC03 WITH  SOo
                                                                                                              (Jl
                   0.2
0.6          0.8          1.0


    RESIDENCE TIME, SECONDS

-------
J-16

occurs. The rate of flagging clearly increases as particle size is reduced, reflecting the rapid
loss of surface area and reaction rate by the small particles. The overall result is a very small
gain in terminal conversion despite a 30 fold decrease in particle size.
The flagging of the reaction when particle size is reduced is the most critical feature
of the limestone injection process, as it determines the ultimate limit of CaO conversion
(and SO2 removal efficiency) that can be obtained by injection into the boiler furnace. The
fact that the dispersed phase reaction ceases after a fraction of the total residence time
available has been reported in the pilot injection studies of, Juntgen1 4 , Peabody Coal15,
Florida Power/EPA16, Babcock & Wilcox17 as well as the data discussed here. Previous
attempts to account for this flagging have generally assumed that product shell formation
was responsible. This assumption is not consistent, however, with the small gain in terminal
conversion. If shell diffusion were limiting SO2 sorption at the terminal point, the total
conversion would increase in direct proportion to the reduction in particle size. The
assumption of shell diffusion is also inconsistent with the activation energies observed by
both Coutant and Ishihara, which exceed that of diffusion by an order of magnitude.
The effect of S02 concentration has been shown by both Coutant and Ishihara to
have only a slight effect on terminal CaO conversion in the dispersed system. Each
investigator showed that CaO conversion increased approximately with the 1/2 power of
initial SO2 concentration. Ishihara concluded that the instantaneous reaction rate follows a
first order response to S02 concentration, in agreement with isothermal kinetic
measurements4'18 'l 9. The effect of SO2 concentration cannot be evaluated independently
of the other factors in the Battelle model, in which it appears as part of the factor b, which
includes surface area. Ishihara, by measuring instantaneous rates at different SO2 levels, was
able to separate out the surface area effect. The evidence, therefore, suggests that the
reduced overall effect of SO2 results from the change in surface area with time and its
cumulative effect upon the chemical reaction rate.

Professor Robert L. Pigford, University of California
This model20 is based upon fundamental descriptions of processes occurring within
a lime particle during S02 sorption. Like the MIT model it considers the particle as an
assemblage of nonporous CaO grains surrounded by interstices through which SO2 diffuses
prior to reaction at the grain surface. The model assumes the overall rate to be controlled by
diffusion through this pore structure coupled with diffusion through a product layer which
forms on the CaO grains as the reaction proceeds. Chemical reaction at the grain/shell
interface is assumed to be so rapid that it contributes no resistance to SO2 sorption. The
model, like the MIT model, considers grain size and pore structure to be a function only of
conversion and independent of temperature or time.
The model accounts for variation in the extent of participation of the interior grains
depending on pore structure and position within the particle. In the extreme cases where
pore diffusion controls or grain product-layer diffusion controls, the model reduces to two
basic forms that correspond to a particle surface reaction or a particle volume reaction.

-------
J-17

Case 1 - Superficial surface reaction:
S02 sorption rate = 13.6 (a1/2 D!/2 r^l/4 s 1/2 r 1/2 R2 CQ 3/4 / l/2tl/4)
per particle
or, Rate per
-------
J-18
FIGURE 5

l.Or
0.1
o
o
CJ>

o
3.4
48
90 y
QjQll I I I I I
J L
.05 0.1
1.0
9 SECONDS
TEST OF PIGFORD MEL WITH 3,4 AND 48 MICRON PARTICLES
-------
J-19

Professor C. Y. Wen, West Virginia University
After extensive review of isothermal reaction rate data, including experiments
conducted in the Chemical Engineering Laboratory of West Virginia University. Ishida and
Wen formulated a model based upon the zone reaction concept2 1 . The lime particle is again
visualized as an assemblage of CaO grain to which SO2 diffuses through the pores between
grains. Whereas Pigford coupled pore diffusion with diffusion through a product shell on the
grain surface, Wen coupled it with chemical reaction at the interface between the product
layer and the unreacted grain core. Wen's model is unique in that it has been applied to the
correlation of both isothermal laboratory data, and non-isothermal data from dispersed
systems, including full scale boiler injection. It has successfully correlated the observed
reaction rates from all of these sources.22
The chemical reaction rate is expressed in terms of the reaction rate constant per
unit surface and the surface area per unit volume of lime. The latter is determined by the
radius of the unreacted core, rc, within the CaO grain at time t. Thus, when the original
grain radius is FT, and the particle size is small enough for S02 concentration to equalize
throughout the particle volume,
rate per unit mass CaO =-^-3 ks CSO2 r^ (9)
(FV)
Since rc= R' at t = 0, the initial rate is inversely proportional to BET surface area. At low
conversions and small particle size the model thus reduces to the same form used by EPA to
correlate isothermal data.
A more complex form of the model can be applied to large particles in which
diffusion effects are also important. The theory of gas-solids reactions in which diffusion
and reaction occur simultaneously was rigorously developed by Prof. Wen over the period
1967-71. By comparing observed reaction rates with the theoretical curve for particles of
different diameter, Wen was able to estimate the diffusion modulus for the isothermal
reaction of SO2 with calcined limestones. The model also enabled him to separate out the
intrinsic reaction rate free from diffusional effects. The reaction rate constant was thus
evaluated for data from varying sources over a wide range of temperatures as shown in
Figure 6. The value of the reaction rate constant and activation energy is established by this
correlation and can be directly applied to the modeling of non-isothermal systems.
A complete simulation of the limestone injection in process was carried out22 on
the basis of the above model, using data from the Shawnee full scale boiler tests. Simulation
inputs included the time-temperature profile of the Shawnee boiler, the average particle size
of the limestone, the kinetic parameters established in isothermal studies and an assumed
mean CaO grain size of 0.02 p. A comparison of the results predicted by the simulation and
the results obtained at Shawnee are shown in Figure 7. It is evident that the model is
capable of predicting boiler test results within about 30 percent at the current level of
refinement of model and assumptions.
-------
J-20
0.005
0.6
0.8 1.0
1/T x 103
1.2 1.4
RATE CONSTANT FOR THE GRAIN REACTION (WEN)
(KEY TO FIGURE SHOWN ON TABLE II)
-------
J-21
Table II
List of Types of Limestone Particles Examined
and Corresponding Keys Used in Figure 6
(C: calcined stone, R: raw stone)

Investigator

Borgwardt4

Borgwardt7

Coutant, et al.9

TVA24

This Study

Key
(3
Q
©
©
©
w
3
€
O
(j)

B
A
0
O
O

Form
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
C
C
C

Type Stone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Calcite spar
Limestone
Limestone
Dolomite
Aragonite
Marl
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Pelletized
CaO

CaO
(wt% in calcine)
55
54
94
81
98
95
96
58
97
88
90
90
90

100

-------
J-22
FIGURE?
Q
UJ
Q.

I/O
CO
LlJ
Q
LU

-------
J-23
III. Discussion

As a result of the combined efforts of the modeling activities and extensive
experimental investigation, considerable progress has been made toward an understanding of
the phenomena on which the limestone injection process is based. A thorough and objective
evaluation of the complete data available reveals considerable consistency and agreement on
the effects of each of the major process variables on the effectiveness for SO2 removal. The
summary outlined here has focused upon the most critical of these variables—those which
directly bear upon the ultimate potential of the process for pollution control purposes.
The first fact that can be regarded as established is that mass transfer of SO2 to
particle surfaces does not limit the rate of SO2 capture in dispersed systems. This has been
shown by the calculations performed by Howard and Ishihara and independently confirmed
by the correlation of measurements of the initial reaction rates measured under isothermal
conditions in the laboratory. Further experimental proof is provided by the high sensitivity
of the dispersed phase reaction to temperature as shown by the activation energies
determined by Coutant and Ishihara, and the lack of any effect of stoichiometry upon CaO
conversion, shown by Ishihara.
It follows from this fact that the ultimate limitation to SO2 capture by injection of
limestone into a boiler is associated with intraparticle effects—either diffusional or chemical.
It is further established that the initial rate of SO2 sorption, i.e., the highest possible rate
achievable, is determined by the intrinsic chemical reaction rate of CaO with SO2. The rate
of decay of this high initial rate determining the efficiency of the process can be attributed
to three possible causes: (1) formation of a product shell on the particle surface, (2)
formation of product shell on individual CaO grains within the particles or (3) reduction in
chemical reaction rate due to loss of surface area as a result of grain growth. The effect of
the process variables on the anticipated rate are different in each case and comparison of
models with the established characteristics of the reaction permits this question to be
decisively answered.
In the summary of Pigford's model it was shown that severe discrepancies exist
between the observed effects of temperature and particle size and the responses predicted
by the model. The model is likewise in conflict with the effect of SO2 concentration and
the established activation energy of the isothermal reaction. Although the postulation of
diffusional resistances as the rate limiting factor is intuitively appealing, particularly for the
final stage of reaction, it is not consistent with the observed characteristics of the reaction.
The assumption of a combination of diffusional and chemical resistances to be
controlling, as exemplified by the MIT model, is also in serious conflict with experiment.
The failure of the model to properly predict reaction profiles as determined by microprobe
analysis, was later pointed up when Wen evaluated the diffusion modulus at 1/30 the value
estimated by the MIT model. Likewise, the effective diffusivity was determined to be about
0.07 cm2/sec. rather than the 0.2 cm2/sec initially estimated by MIT. The variation of
surface area with particle size was disproven by BET measurement and the predicted effect
of temperature on surface area also failed: after calcination at high temperature, the surface
-------
J-24

area is independent of particle size or reaction temperature. In view of the fact that Wen s
model also assumes diffusion to be a major resistance under certain conditions, and is
entirely consistent with experiment, one can only conclude that the MIT model contains
mathematical errors, or that the equations have solutions that were not recognized.
The attached table summarizes the principal experimental results with which any
useful model must be in substantial agreement. Each model discussed here is qualitatively
compared with these results. Also included in this comparison are the predicted responses
for pure shell diffusion, since this mechanism had long been regarded as the most probable
limitation of the process. It is clear from this table that shell diffusion is inconsistent with
nearly every one of the observed responses,* and need not be further considered.
The best general agreement with experiment is, of course, obtained with the
empirical models. The Ishihara and Coutant models are combined for this comparison since
it was shown that they are both representative of homogeneous chemical reaction,
influenced by strong surface area effects. It is assumed in this comparison that the effects of
time, temperature and particle size that have been established are taken into account when
applying the model.
The Wen model is again the same homogeneous representation as that of
Ishihara-Coutant, except that it specifically identifies the surface area with the CaO grains
within the calcine particle. It therefore lends itself to quantitative treatment of the surface
area effect independent of the other parameters and will ultimately be the most generally
applicable form of the model for predictive purposes. The Wen model is the only form
which can be applied to the complete range of homogeneous, zone and shell reactions for
both isothermal and nonisothermal reaction conditions. The primary limitation in accuracy
of the Wen model is that there is no way to predict grain size a priori from given process
conditions. Thus, in applying his model to simulate the Shawnee boiler, a constant grain
radius is assumed, i.e., surface area does not change with time and is independent of particle
size or injection temperature. The data of Ishihara and Coutant clearly show that this
assumption is not correct, but it does permit one to formulate a first approximation. As
shown by Figure 5, this approximation is limited in accuracy to ± 30% of the observed
efficiency. The predictive accuracy of Wen's model would no doubt be greatly improved if
Ishihara's data on the effects of particle size and injection temperature were incorporated to
account for changes in grain radius with residence time. This modification would probably
also bring the model into agreement with the first order kinetics established for the
isothermal reaction (fixed grain size).
The preponderence of evidence resulting from the work of Ishihara, Coutant and
Wen overwhelmingly favors chemical reaction as the controlling mechanism of the process.
This mechanism is the only one consistent with all of the facts, and the ultimate

*Microprobe analysis of the cross sections of particles reacted in the Shawnee boiler23 show
homogeneous distributions of reaction product within particles smaller than about 40)J.
Particles larger than 40u show distributions similar to those proposed by Wen for zone-type
reactions.
-------
Table III

Comparison of Model Predictions With Experimental Results
Experimental Results
Particle size effect
Temperature effect
Surface area-initial rate
Surface area - particle size
Terminal Conversion - particle size
Isothermal reaction rates
SO2 concentration
Act. energy-conversion
Isothermal reaction profiles
Nonisothermal reaction profile
Overburning - SO2 reactivity
CaO content of lime
Sulfation effect
Conversion time profile
Total residence time
Terminal conversion -total residence
Homog. chem
reaction
(Ishihara-
Coutant)
V
V
V
V
V
V
(a)
V
V
V
V
V
X
V

time
Chem. react.
shrink, grain
core
(Wen)
V
V
V
X
X
V
(a)
V
V
V
V
V
V
7
V

Pore
diffusion-
surface react.
solid diff.
(MIT)
X
X
V
X
X
V
V
V
X
X
X
V
V
X

Grain shell
diffusion-
pore diffusion
(Pigford)
X
X
V
X
X
V
X
X
V
V
V
X
X
X

Product
layer
diffusion
(Shell)
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

ro
en
(a) Expected to agree when model is modified to account for change in surface area with time.
-------
J-26

self-limitation of SO2 capture by the lime particles after injection necessarily follows from
the known changes in surface area that occur with everburning. The low final rate, like the
high initial rate, can indeed be calculated from the chemical reaction rate constant and
surface area.

IV. Conclusions
The limestone injection process is limited by the rate of chemical reaction which is,
in turn, limited by the rapid loss of surface area (due to grain growth) immediately
following calcination.
This self-limiting aspect of the reaction necessarily defeats any attempt to improve
performance by manipulation of process variables, e.g., particle size, injection temperature,
particle/gas distribution.
The efficiency of SO2 removed, within these limitations, can be successfully
simulated by homogeneous reaction models, such as that of Wen. As a first approximation,
assuming constant grain size, such a model will predict results within 30%. Improved
accuracy must rely on empirical correlation of particle size and temperature effects. Data
for such correlations are already available.
The limit of efficiency for the process, as determined from experiment, is 20 percent
per stoichiometric injection.
Regardless of kinetic limitation, CaO utilization cannot exceed 50% due to physical
limitations of the reaction.
-------
J-27

V. References

1. Howard, J. B., Williams, G. C., and Ghazal, F.P.H.: "Mathematical Model of the
Reaction Between Sulfur Dioxide and Calcine Particles," Final Report on Task No. 2
of HEW-NAPCA Services Contract NA. CPA-22-69-44, September 23, 1971, prepared
at the Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2. Ishihara, Y.: "Kinetics of the Reaction of Calcined Limestone with Sulfur Dioxide in
Combustion Gases," paper presented at the Dry Limestone Injection Process
Symposium, Gilbertsville, Kentucky, June 22-26, 1970, sponsored by Control Systems
Division, EPA.
3. Ishihara, Y.: "Removal of Sulfur Dioxide from Flue Gases by the Lime Injection
Method," paper presented at CSD LimestoneSymposium.Clearwater, Florida. December
4-8, 1967, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan.
4. Borgwardt, R. H.: Environmental Science & Technology 4 (1) 59 (1970).
5. Borgwardt, R. H.: J. Eng. Power 92 (2) 121 (1970).
6. Drehmel, D. C.: "Tests for Overburning of Calcined Limestone," paper presented at
the Dry Limestone Injection Process Symposium, June 22-26, 1970.
7. Borgwardt, R. H.: "Isothermal Reactivity of Selected Calcined Limestones with SO2 "
paper presented at the Dry Injection Process Symposium, June 22-26, 1970.
8. Mayer, R. P., Stowe, R. A., "Physical Characterization of Limestone and Lime,"
Report to National Lime Assoc., Washington, D.C. (1964).
9. Coutant, R. W.: "Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for
Capturing SO2 from Flue Gas," Final Report for Contract No. PH86-67-115,
November 20, 1970, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.
10. Coutant, R. W.: "Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for
Capturing SO2 from Flue Gas," Final Report for Contract No. CPA 70-111, October
1, 1971, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.
11. Fischer, H. C., "Calcination of Calcite: Size and Growth Rate of Calcium Oxide
Crystallites," J. Amer. Ceramic Society 38(8) 284-88 (1955).
12. Drehmel, D. C., Ceramic Bulletin 50 (8) 666-70 (1971).
13. Chan, R. K., Murthi, K. S., Harrison, D., Canadian J. Chem. 48 2979-82 (1970).
14. Jungen, M. and Juntgen, H.: "On the Reaction of Calcined Dolomite and Other
Alkaline Earth Compounds with SO2 of Combustion Gases as carried out in a Cloud of
Suspended Dust." Report presented at CSD Limestone Symposium, Clearwater,
Florida. December 4-8, 1967 Bergbau - Forschung GmbH, Germany.
15. Whitten, C. M. and Hagstrom, R. G., J. Engineering for Power 2 (Jan. 1970).
16. Borgwardt, R. H. and Kittleman, T. A., paper No. 69-141 presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New York. June 22-26, 1969.
Control Systems Division, EPA.
-------
J-28

17. Attig, R. C. and Sedor, "Additive Injection for SO2 Control," Final Report for
Contract No. DH 86-67-127, March 27, 1970, Babcock & Wilcox Research Center,
Alliance, Ohio.
18. Hatfield, et al., "Investigation of the Reactivities of Limestone to Remove SO2 from
Flue Gas;" Final Report for Contract Nos. TV-29232F and TV-30530A (1971)
prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Chemical Development, Muscle
Shoals, Alabama.
19. Coutant, Contract No. PH 86-67-115, Quart. Report for Dec. 12, 1967, p. 6.
20. Pigford, R. L., "The Rate of a Diffusion-Controlled Reaction Between a Gas and a
Porous, Solid Sphere - The Reaction of SO2 with CaCO3," June 1971, University of
California.
21. Ishida, M., Wen, C. Y., AlChE Journal, 14 (2) 311 (1968).
22. Ishida, M., Wen, C. Y., "Analysis of SO2-Limestone Reaction-System, Part I: Reaction
Rate of SO2 with Particles Containing CaO, Part II: Simulation of SO2 - Limestone
Reaction System." Report prepared for Control Systems Division, 1972 at Department
of Chemical Engineering, West Virginia University.
23. Shell Development Company. Personal communication to R. D. Stern, March 3 and
April 16, 1971.
24. McClellan, G. H., 4th Dry Limestone Process Symposium, Gilbertsville, Kentucky,
June 22-26, 1970.
-------
APPENDIX K

Utilization of Limestone-Modified Fly Ash
-------
K-l
APPENDIX K
UTILIZATION OF LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH

Although the utilization of limestone modified fly ash (hereafter as LMF) is not
directly related to the dry limestone injection process and demonstration of optimum SO2
removal, this section provides an overview of the activities in this area of the overall EPA
program. Additional information may be found in the references.
-------
K-3

Utilization of Limestone-Modified Fly Ash

I. Introduction and Objectives
The Dry Limestone Injection Process is a "throw-away" process and does not
depend on the recovery of a salable chemical byproduct. Aware of the increased solid waste
generated by the process and attempting to avoid aggravating one pollution problem while
solving another, EPA initiated an extensive research effort in the early planning stage of the
overall program. The objective of this part of the overall program was to determine and
demonstrate the utilization of pulverized coal fly ash modified by limestone. A secondary
consideration was the potential for reducing costs of the process through potential re-use of
sorbent or byproduct credit.

II. Approach
The general approach taken was to determine current and potential utilization of
unmodified fly ash, assess applicability of LMF to these utilizations and, based on its
properties, assess its potential for new applications. Although there are a large number and
variety of industries and individuals involved in the production and use of fly ash, the
program was directed toward coal-burning power utilities, since this is the major source of
fly ash in the U.S. The specific approach was to: (a) perform literature searches for
utilization of unmodified and LMF; (b) correlate reported uses with analyses of chemical
and physical properties; (c) prepare products by simulating current production processes as
closely as possible; and (d) compare product properties and characteristics with their
commercially available counterparts. Based on technical potential, economic analyses and
more extensive utilization research were then performed or recommended for follow-on
projects. Because of the relationship between the LMF from dry processes and wet
scrubbing processes regarding waste disposal and beneficiation, samples for analysis and
small scale product preparation were obtained from dry limestone injection programs
conducted by TVA, Babcock and Wilcox, Chevrolet, and Detroit Edison, and from wet
scrubbing programs conducted at Kansas Power and Light, Union Electric and Detroit
Edison. Samples of normally produced fly ash were also obtained from these sources.

III. Results and Conclusions
A. Unmodified Fly Ash Utilization'
Although fly ash is used in various applications, current utilizations consume only a
small portion of the total amount of fly ash available: of the 26.5 million tons of fly ash
produced annually by coal-burning power plants, only about 1.6 to 2.0 million tons are
utilized.
All known specifications for fly ash used as a material for product manufacture or
application, and for fly ash products were examined for the purpose of assessing the extent
-------
K-4

to which they inhibit the utilization of fly ash. Except for the specifications on fly ash as an
admixture in portland cement concrete, specifications do not inhibit the use of fly ash. The
amount of fly ash that could be technically utilized in various applications used today,
regardless of supply and economic factors, was estimated to identify those areas that would
benefit most from the increased mass utilization of fly ash; this indicated where effort
should be applied to improve the market. Maximum technically feasible uses of at least 1
million tons per year are listed in Table 1, column 1, based on ash composition and possible
product utilization alone. The 1970 actual utilization values for each use, listed in column 2,
total 1.6 million tons per year. As a result of this survey, it is estimated that if fly ash were
used in the applications listed in Table 1 such that the maximum practical potential would
be utilized under current technology and associated market conditions, approximately 7
million tons would be utilized, as shown in column 3. The significance of this list is that it
indicates approximately 75 percent of the fly ash produced in the United States is not
marketable without significant changes being made to reduce or eliminate the following
limitations: (a) inadequate technology and knowledge dissemination related to known uses,
(b) geographic limitations on transportation economics, (c) insufficient marketing efforts,
(d) lack of control of fly ash production and supply, (e) cost effects of other materials or
processes, and (f) insufficient development of new technologies.
The values in column 4 are estimates of the fly ash that would be consumed if all the
limitations just cited were removed, except some geographic limitations on transportation.
These values are estimates but they indicate areas where it is believed fly ash can be used in
large quantities if appropriate steps are taken. This approach limits the area of concern to:
fly ash concrete, lightweight aggregate, road base courses, control of mine subsidence and
fires and, such new uses or developments as gas concrete building construction, ceramic
products, and mineral recovery.
The following paragraphs discuss the uses shown in Table 1:

Structural Concrete
Fly ash is used in portland cement concrete for the improved properties it imparts to
the concrete. Among these improvements are pumpability, compressive strength, long-term
strength, workability, finishability, resistance to sulfates and alkali-aggregate reaction, and
decreases in heat of hydration, drying shrinkage, particle segregation, bleeding, permeability,
and leaching. These improvements are well-documented and have been demonstrated
repeatedly in actual practice. The net effect is a stronger and more durable product which
requires less cost to put in place and finish. For properly proportioned fly ash concrete,
early strength, form removal periods, and curing requirements are not use inhibitions.
Principal inhibitions to the use of fly ash in concrete are the lack of a dependable
supply of usable quality ash, and nonrecognition of the technological gains and potential
improvements which would allow the use of various qualities (or classes) of fly ash and
greater than 28-day design strength criteria.
-------
K-5
Table 1
Estimated Fly Ash Utilization Potential
(Million Tons Per Year)
Use
1
Maximum Utilization
Technically Feasible
1970
Utilization
3 4*

Estimated Utilization
Potential
Current Improved
Conditions Utilization
Fly Ash Concrete (Structural,
Mass and Concrete Products)

Lightweight Aggregate

Raw Material for Cement

Bricks

Filler in Bituminous Products

Base Stabilized for Roads

Agriculture and Land
Reclamation

Control of Mine Subsidence
and Fires

Structural Fill for Roads,
Construction Sites, Land
Reclamation, etc.

Others (mineral, wool, gas,
concrete, misc.)

Total
10-15

1-2

> Annual Production

> 1

> Annual Production
0.54

0.21

0.16

0.13

0.11
3.5
6.0'
0.01
0.32
0.16
1.64
0.5 >3.0***

0.25 ****

0.75 ****

0.3 >10.0
0.75
0.6
0.25
6.9
*Values in Column 4 are scaled against the current market, but may take as much as 5 to 10
years for realization with maximum efforts.
**Value can be increased considerably with use of fly ash gas concrete in building construction.
***Has potential for accelerated future growth well beyond the proportions shown here.
****No appreciable increase.
*****SJgnjfjcant increases are possible through new developments such as ceramic products and
mineral recovery.
-------
K-6

The choice of concrete cure time should be based on the economics involved with
construction. Since the cost impact on materials by using fly ash is often small relative to
the cost of placing and finishing the concrete, the design conditions should be dependent
upon the construction requirements. However, the state-of-the-art in concrete construction
requires design compressive strengths of 28 days and does not include an optimal cure time
in the total economics. A cure time of 28 days represents the point at which portland
cement concrete attains up to 90 percent of its ultimate strength and is considered
representative of the true strength of the concrete. However, in concrete containing fly ash,
28-day cure times are arbitrary and meaningless since the strength tested at that time does
not represent the ultimate strength of the concrete when fully cured, which occurs after 28
days. Using a 90-day cure, for example, allows more fly ash and less cement, provides higher
strength, and affords advantages in pouring, pumping, and finishing. While the concept of
28-day design strengths largely dominates the concrete construction industry, there are few
examples that can be cited in which structures under construction experience their design
loads in 28 days. Until the concrete construction industry becomes aware of the increased
latitude in concrete mix design that is offered by a technology using fly ash in an effective,
economical manner, an inhibition to the use of fly ash in concrete will persist.
Significant deterrents to the massive use of fly ash in concrete, assuming an adequate
supply and improved technology, are the requirements for additional storage and handling
equipment at the ready-mix plants, and hauling costs. The economics of fly ash concrete
related to the ready-mix operation was investigated to determine if storage, handling, and
hauling costs are inhibitory factors since the literature is weak in this respect. The
investigation could not include a detailed, comprehensive cost analysis within the scope of
the project funds because of: (a) the numerous variables involved, plus the variation in costs
from region to region; (b) the use or nonuse of beneficiation of the fly ash, brokerage fees,
and financial assistance to ready-mix dealers for new equipment; and (c) sliding costs related
to local competition. The analysis was therefore limited to estimates of the more significant
factors, i.e., costs of fly ash F.O.B. utility, cement, truck hauling, new equipment, and
chemical admixtures.
Strict conclusions cannot be drawn from this analysis because of the many cost
variations involved for each case; however, indications are that a dealer can increase his
profit before taxes by approximately 50 cents per cubic yard if high quality fly ash concrete
is delivered within 10 miles of the fly ash source, or he can break-even at about 150 miles.
On the other extreme, there is the possibility of a combination of circumstances, including
the use of low-grade fly ash, which indicates that the user will not be able to match portland
cement air-entrained concrete on an equal production economics basis. In most cases,
however, the dealer should be able to produce fly ash concrete to compete with portland
cement concrete for haul distances of approximately 50 to 150 miles, depending on the
many cost factors involved. Since the profit, before taxes, on portland cement concrete is in
the range of $2 to $3 per cubic yard (according to various personal contacts), a potential
-------
K-7

increase of 20 to 50 cents per cubic yard would be appreciable to the dealer. If
circumstances, as noted above, increase the cost to the dealer, that increase is generally small
enough to be absorbed by the contractor who stands to benefit from the economic and
technical advantages of using fly ash concrete. Production costs of fly ash concrete can be
reduced rather dramatically in consideration of the utilization of greater-than-28-day design
strengths described earlier. Using this technology where applicable can reduce cost for any
type of concrete, and for some, the reduction can be well in excess of one dollar per cubic
yard.
Barge or rail transport provides a less expensive means of hauling fly ash than truck,
but is applicable to only certain geographic situations. Since the development and
acceptance of a standardized fly ash concrete technology by the concrete industry would
expand the market and bring a large percentage of the power companies into the supply
market, any transportation inhibition would be significantly decreased in most of the
eastern half of the country.
In summary, current specifications on fly ash as an admixture in Portland cement
concrete inhibit the use of fly ash. There are individuals and organizations who, by
combining the production or procurement of quality fly ash, appropriate concrete
technology, and dissemination of the knowledge, have marketed fly ash readily within the
limits of existing specifications (ASTM or Federal Bureau Specifications) or have written
their own (e.g., TVA). Since the general fly ash user and producers have not done this the
use of fly ash concrete is not widespread. The lack of understanding of fly ash concrete by
the general public and isolated cases of fly ash misuse and the dissemination of inaccurate or
misleading information concerning fly ash (e.g., broadcast of the term "waste product,"
intolerable low early strength, and bad color) have inhibited involvement by potential
dealers, contractors, architects, and engineers. Power companies (with few exceptions) have
not taken the initiative to improve the quality of fly ash or to maintain a consistent quality.
Improvement in that area would undoubtedly relax the inhibitions to the use of fly ash by
giving potential users the assurance of having a readily available supply of a quality grade of
fly ash. It is believed that a considerable portion of the fly ash produced today is usable as
an admixture in portland cement concrete.
The continued development and acceptance of properly proportioned fly ash in
concrete is likely to provide the basis for renewed interest in fly ash as a concrete ingredient.
Intensive sales campaigns, although beneficial, have been effective only locally. When
concrete users become fully aware of the range of advantages and properties that properly
proportioned fly ash concrete offers, their reluctance to use fly ash in concrete should
diminish; this should create an increase in demand.

Mass Concrete and Concrete Products
Fly ash is used in much of the mass concrete construction (e.g., dams and spillways)
undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
K-8

Specifications exist for this use and fly ash is proportioned accordingly, principally to lower
the heat of hydration and also for its pumpability feature. Technically, a larger percentage
of fly ash could be used in these structures; however, the present proportioning is adequate.
The bulk of this work is being performed in the western United States where fly ash must be
transported for long distances, thus reducing economic incentive. Fly ash may become more
economically desirable with construction of new coal-burning power stations opening in the
West. Usage may increase but the small number of such projects makes this potential use a
small percentage of the national fly ash supply.
Concrete products such as building blocks, pipe, and precast units represent a very
attractive field for fly ash usage. Fly ash is used for this application and is well accepted; its
principal drawbacks are the lack of guaranteed quality ash and transportation cost limits. If
this industry were exploited to its fullest extent, it would consume an estimated maximum
of 5 percent of fly ash production.

Lightweight Aggregate
The predicted high future demand for lightweight aggregate is based on dwindling
supplies of natural aggregates plus the increasing recognition by architects and engineers of a
future demand for large-scale usage of lightweight concrete. Present developments of fly ash
lightweight aggregate production technology in the United States, Canada, and Germany
were reviewed. All are still in various phases of development and are attempting to solve
technical production problems. Lightweight fly ash aggregate in the U.S. is not yet
considered to be economically competitive product.
This is a relatively undeveloped industry, and solutions to its problems are being
sought and incorporated in the process. Although a quality product can be manufactured,
whether the manufacturing process and market can be sufficiently developed to
economically compete with other lightweight aggregates remains to be seen. A significant
increase in the utilization of fly ash for this application appears possible, but not probable in
the near future.

Portland Cement Manufacturing
Fly ash lends itself economically to the production of portland cement only under
certain special situations where the manufacturing plant is not located adjacent to the major
raw material source or where possibly the required mineral deposits are located close to a
utility. However, in most cases such special situations do not exist. This, coupled with the
fact that there is no need for new cement plants since the present market demands
considerably less than production capacity, indicates that the potential for utilizing fly ash
in large quantities for the manufacture of portland cement is relatively low.

Bricks
Although fly ash can technically be used for making bricks, there is no shortage of
clay deposits for brick making. The principal sources of fly ash in the United States are all
-------
K-9

close to ample sources of natural raw materials for brick manufacturing. The coincidence of
a depleting source of natural raw materials, a dependable local source of high quality fly ash,
and a knowledgeable entrepreneur may determine whether fly ash will eventually find local
application as a brick ingredient. Additional factors indicating that this utilization potential
will not materialize appreciably include: (a) fly ash brick manufacturing requires new
handling equipment and production machinery, (b) fly ash bricks are not significantly
cheaper than ordinary bricks, and (c) the present United States brick production capacity
exceeds demand.

Bituminous Filler
There are numerous uses for fly ash in bituminous products, however, its use as a
mineral filler in asphalt concrete (black top) pavement is the major application for large
tonnage usage. Low quality fly ash can be used and current technology is sufficient. The
competition to fly ash includes an array of low cost, abundant materials, all of which are
adequate as a mineral filler. Although this is a good use for fly ash, particularly considering
the mileage of new asphalt roads (2 to 4 in. thick) or resurfacing of old roads (1 in. thick),
the potential usage is not large, probably much less than 1 million tons per year. This
limitation, caused by competition, is aggravated by the special problems of storage and
handling.

Road Construction
Except for use as a mineral filler in asphalt or occasional use as a structural land fill,
road base course applications appear to be the only practical large-scale use for fly ash in
road building. Although this application has an extremely large potential—technology is
developed and a technical superiority over competing materials has been
demonstrated—certain inhibitions prevent its substantial growth. Fly ash is not widely used
in road contracts even though its cost is less than or equal to competing materials of equal
strength for urban construction. Proven applications are classified as lime-pozzolan-aggregate
base courses (pozzolan base), which involve patent rights. Factual data which would
substantiate the inhibition of the use of this material because of royalty payments were not
found; however, such an excuse was occasionally given for nonuse.
The pozzolan base course is used mostly for urban applications. Portable mixers are
not widely used, and hauling costs are often limited by the use of materials available at or
near the construction site. However, the amount of paving urban roadways, subdivision
streets, parking lots, and airports represents an extremely large market. Present usage
appears to extend as far as 40 to 50 miles from the mixing plant. Almost any fly ash
produced today is adequate for this application, and it can be stored outdoors during the
winter months and, with minimal processing, can be used during the construction season.
Valid inhibitions to the use of pozzolan bases were not uncovered even after
contacting more than two dozen state highway departments. Most states are aware of its
benefits but have chosen not to use it. The reasons were almost always vague. The principal
-------
K-10

inhibition may be that most potential users have not had experience with it and are
reluctant to make a change. A thorough, detailed marketing analysis of road construction
would be required for the various regions of the country within range of potential pozzolan
base course supplies to determine the justification and advisability of action by government
road contracting agencies relating to the use of fly ash for this purpose.

Agriculture and Land Reclamation
Although this application appears to be a method for utilizing large amounts of fly
ash, it is not economically attractive when compared to the use of lime or other additives to
adjust soil pH. Transportation and handling costs appear to be prohibitive for the large
amounts of fly ash that would be required. Generally, the ratio of fly ash to limestone
required to achieve an equivalent soil condition or crop yield is sufficiently high (as much as
30 to 1) to be beyond consideration. Moreover, the presence of certain trace elements often
found in fly ash would be detrimental to the growth of many common types of vegetation.
Although it may be useful in certain local areas, it is not expected to be useful on a wide
scale.

Remote Filling of Mine Cavities
Mine subsidence damage to homes, bridges, and roads is an increasing problem. The
increase, due only partially to additional mining, can also be attributed to the growing need
for urban and suburban land which has resulted in building over old mines; deterioration of
supporting conditions results in surface subsidence many years after mining has occurred. In
addition to the subsidence, fires have also become a serious problem in abandoned coal
mines. The technology has been developed for remote filling of mines and the cost is
estimated at $2.00 to $4.00 per ton within 30 miles of the source if the fly ash is provided
free of charge by the utility. Since many large coal-burning power plants are located near
coal mining areas, the filling of abandoned mines appears to be an excellent means for
utilizing/disposing of the entire amount of fly ash produced by these utilities. Many utilities
are currently incurring costs of up to $2.00 per ton to dump fly ash and as much as $4.00
per ton where local regulations require the utility to landscape the land fill area. This factor
plus the economic considerations of land value improvement resulting from the elimination
of mine subsidence could possibly justify the economics of this form of utilization,
particularly when more profitable uses cannot be employed.

Land Fill
Where structural land fill is required and hauling distances are short, fly ash can
often be used more economically than other fill materials and can provide technical
advantages. Among these advantages are ease of handling and spreading, low compaction
density, and shear strength that continues to increase with time (a consequence of
pozzolanic reaction with residual lime content in the ash). Fly ash covered with soil provides
excellent drainage for vegetation. Also, any grade of fly ash is adequate and does not have to
-------
K-ll

be stored, handled, or hauled in an enclosed and dry condition. However, the use of fly ash
for land fill (excluding fly ash disposal) is not widely applied in this country. It has
demonstrated its usefulness in the United States in embankments and abutment backing in
highway construction, but it is not widely used for these purposes because of the availability
of natural fill materials. Except for such special circumstances as extremely high fill
embankments for roadways built over weak subsoils or unavailability of local fill materials,
little use of fly ash as a land fill is expected except for disposal purposes.

Mineral Wool
The use of fly ash as the raw material for mineral wool manufacture requires no
deviation from the state-of-the-art commercial manufacture of mineral wool; there appear to
be no technical inhibitions to the use of fly ash in this application.
However, inhibitions are apparent in the comparative economics of manufacture and
in the likelihood of overcapacity in competition with current mineral wool and fiberglass
insulation materials. To date, there is no market for fly ash mineral wool.

Gas Concrete
Gas concrete is a porous concrete building material. It is approximately one-fourth
to one-third the density of ordinary concrete and utilizes fly ash up to 80 percent of the
solid constituent weight. Gas concrete is made in patented European processes and,
although widely used in many foreign countries, is not used in the United States.
European utilization of gas concrete proves to be a highly desirable form of building
material from the standpoint of construction economy and structural qualities. It is used in
at least 20 countries. It is used on a wide scale in Denmark. Gas concrete is used in West
Germany in the construction of 80 percent of all new factory buildings. In Sweden, its use
approaches 100 percent, and in the Philippine Islands, it is now being used for the
construction of low-cost housing projects. In England, it is estimated in 1971,
approximately 1 million tons of fly ash was consumed in gas concrete. Since fly ash
improves the quality (higher strength per unit volume) of gas concrete, reduces capital and
production costs, and is available in abundance in urban areas, it could conceivably find a
large market throughout the United States as a constituent of gas concrete. Additionally, fly
ash used for this purpose does not have to be fine quality; that it can be hauled and applied
in a wet state simplifies handling.
The future of gas concrete in this country is not readily assessable. As a new
technology, it would have to compete with numerous well-established building techniques
using conventional materials. To establish fly ash concrete as a building construction
material on a wide scale would require substantial technical and economic surveys, coupled
with dissemination of the technology and proven results.
-------
K-12

Miscellaneous and Potential New Uses
Such other uses as in foundries, grouting, pipe coating, and oil well cementing are
considered to have a low potential for the consumption of large quantities of fly ash. A large
potential exists for such possible new uses such as sewage filtration/soil supplement
applications, ceramics and mineral recovery, none of which has been developed.

B. Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Utilization
Limestone injection and/or scrubbing processes for the control of sulfur oxides can
increase the amount of fly ash produced by as much as 1-1/2 to 3 times. These processes, if
widely used, could have an appreciable impact on the existing and potential unmodified fly
ash market.
Dry collected (LMF) was analyzed as collected and also after separation by mineral
dressing techniques such as sizing, specific gravity, magnetic, electrostatic, and surface
chemical (flotation) properties. Results of the whole sample analysis indicated that levels of
silica, alumina and iron oxide, the major constituents of normal fly ash, are decreased while
the lime and magnesia content is greatly increased with dolomite injection and the lime
content is greatly increased with limestone injections. Based on extensive physical
separations attempting to concentrate usable minerals, and utilization tests on the whole
and sized fractions of modified fly ash, feasibility of utilizing modified fly ash in the
manufacture of salable products was evaluated. This effort resulted in the classification of a
number of possible uses for the material into the following technically potential
categories.2'3

1. High Potential
a. Mineral wool
b. Sulfur dioxide recovery
2. Medium Potential
a. Acid mine drainage neutralization
b. Concrete admixture
c. Cement kiln raw material
d. Soil stabilizer and amendment
3. Low Potential
a. Mineral recovery
b. Fluxing agent
c. Lightweight aggregate
d. Fired structural products
e. Unreacted calcium recovery
Following this effort the chemical and physical properties of wet-collected LMF
were analyzed in addition to more intensive analysis of dry-collected LMF. Chemical
-------
K-13

analyses were performed using wet chemical, atomic absorption and atomic emission
spectroscopic methods; physical analyses, employed mineral dressing, microscopic and X-ray
techniques. The main constituents of modified fly ash were found to be silicon, calcium
(and magnesium if dolomite is used as the modifying stone), aluminum, iron and sulfur.
Wet-collected modified ashes usually had a higher sulfur content than dry-collected ashes
though the amount of sulfur present in the ash is determined not only by the efficiency of
the sulfur removal system but also by the amount of sulfur found in the coal burned. The
physical melting properties of modified fly ashes were quite similar and all ashes tested
melted within a temperature range of 2150°-2300°F. This similarity of physical
characteristics was substantiated by microscopic analysis. Predominant size fractions of
almost all ashes tested were 325 x 400 or -400 mesh. Sieve analysis of the three ashes most
often used showed little or no beneficiation of elements upon sieving. The possibility of
substituting the modified fly ash for regular fly ash in some of the more prominent current
utilizations and in a limited number of new applications was evaluated by small-scale
production simulating, as closely as possible, commercial production processes. A
comparison of properties and characteristics yielded the following categories of technical
potential.4'5 Specific results and conclusions are included for each high potential
application. Additional data on these as well as details of low potential applications may be
found in the references identified.

1. High Potential of Utilization
a. Mineral wool
A carbon-arc tilting furnace was used to melt a wide variety of modified fly ash
samples and mineral wool was produced by pouring the molten material from the furnace in
a thin stream and into a jet of 90 to 95 psig compressed air. The air imparted a shearing
force to the molten mass, breaking the stream into small droplets which formed fibrous
"tails." Any solid remnants of the original droplets are termed "shot." Characteristics of the
mineral wool produced are shown in Table 2. All pouring temperatures are below those
necessary for wool production from bottom ashes and current commercial raw materials.
A significant difference was observed in the production yields from the individual
samples. A much higher yield was obtained from sample KPL, the only wet-collected
limestone modified fly ash availble, than from the dolomite fly ash. The lowest yield was
obtained from sample CM, dry-collected dolomite modified fly ash, in which the coal and
dolomite were premixed upon entering the combustion area. In comparing the acid/base
ratios (percent silica plus percent alumina)/(percent lime plus percent magnesia) sample KPL
at 1.30 falls closest to the generally accepted mineral wool production range of 0.85 to
1.25. SLD and Cl (1.87 and 1.58 respectively) had lower yields than KPL.
Although samples CM and Cl were produced from the same coal and the same
dolomite, a difference in their yields of mineral wool was noted, possibly due to the
different methods of introducing the dolomite at the boiler. Sample CM was formed by
-------
Table 2

Production Characteristics of Mineral Wool
Sample
KPL
SLD
Cl
CM
CU
Type
Wet Collected Limestone Modified
Wet Collected Dolomite Modified 1.87
Dry Collected Dolomite, Injected 1.58
Dry Collected Dolomite, Mixed
Unmodified
Acid
Base
Ratio
1.30
1.87
1.58
1.52
9.79
Pouring
Temp.
°F
2700
2800
2700
2700
3000
Blowing
Pressure
psig
92
90
93
95
95
Yield
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
None
Comments

Light brown, short fluffy
fiber, very little shot

Gray, some brittle fiber,
moderate shot

Gray, resilient fiber,
moderate shot

Gray, fluffy fiber, heavy
shot

No fiber formed
-------
K-15

premixing the dolomite and coal before pulverization and entry into the boiler while sample
Cl was formed by injection of the dolomite above the flame envelope.
Unmodified ash sample CU was utilized as a control. As shown in Table 2, no fiber
could be produced even at temperatures as high as 3000° F.
Quality tests performed in accordance with the Department of Commerce,
Commodity Standards Division: Commercial Standard CS 131-146 yielded the results
shown in Table 3. Loose shot was removed from the samples which included a commercial
mineral wool for comparison.
Although high quality mineral wool (accompanied by sulfur regeneration)—equal to
or better than commercial mineral wool—was produced from both dry-collected and
wet-collected limestone-modified fly ash, there is no market potential for the product since
it is being replaced by glass wool.

b. Calcium-silicate brick
Calcium-silicate (CS) bricks of superior quality (compressive strengths in excess of
7000 psi) were produced from limestone and dolomite modified fly ashes. Experimental
work proceeded in three phases with pellets (1" diameter by 3/8" thickness) being made
initially to determine basic composition mixtures, forming pressures and autoclaving
conditions for each individual modified fly ash examined. Dry-collected modified ash, and
wet-collected ash, were selected for the second phase of research—the production of 2" x 4"
x 1-3/8" bench-scale brick. This phase of the research dealt primarily with such processing
variables as forming pressure, mixing, humidity curing, etc. In the final phase, full size brick
was produced using common commercial equipment to determine whether the process
could actually be scaled up.
Data obtained from the pellet tests indicated that CS brick could be produced from
modified fly ash. When using dry-collected modified fly ash, the brick mix consisted of 50
percent'(on a dry basis) modified fly ash, 50 percent silica sand and approximately 20
percent water; when wet-collected modified fly ash was used, CS brick could be produced
containing 50 percent (on a dry basis) modified fly ash, 39 percent sand and 11 percent
calcium oxide. Using wet-collected KPL fly ash, the process involved a dewatering of the
slurry to 34 percent water before mixing. Such a composition provides sufficient water for
mixing and forming of the green brick.
In the final phase of the testing program, 2" x 4" x 8" full size brick samples were
prepared using a hydraulic-toggle dry-press. The final products met or surpassed ASTM
(73-51 and 73-67) specifications of 4500 psi compressive strengths and less than 1 percent
shrinkage for grade SW, severe weathering, calcium-silicate brick. An average batch of brick
made from dry-collected ash displayed characteristics of 4600 psi compressive strength, 20
percent absorption and no measurable shrinkage; wet-collected ash produced brick with an
average 4500 psi compressive strength, 28 percent absorption and no measurable shrinkage.
High technical potential was demonstrated for calcium-silicate brick made from
modified fly ash. Although this type of brick is used in Europe it has no current market in
the United States.
-------
Table 3

Quality Tests on Mineral Wool
Sample
KPL
SLD
Cl
CM
Commercial
Average
Fiber
Diameter
2.5u
3.0u
5.6u
5.4u
8.4u
Attached
Shot
wt. %
14.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
N/A
Moisture
Adsorption
St. %
0.001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Odor
Emissions
No Apparent Difference
No Apparent Difference
No Apparent Difference
No Apparent Difference
No Apparent Difference
Fire
Resistance
Incombustible
Incombustible
Incombustible
Incombustible
Incombustible
Corrosion
Retardance
Noncorrosive,
no etching
Noncorrosive,
no etching
Noncorrosive,
no etching
Noncorrosive,
no etching
Minor Corrosic
no etching
-------
K-17

c. Aerated (gas) concrete
Aerated or foamed cellular concrete is a lightweight structural material consisting of
small noncommunicating gas cells entrained in a calcium-silicate matrix. It is produced by
inducing gas bubbles within a cementitious paste normally composed of cement and/or lime
and a fine grained siliceous material.
The bubbles of gas are produced by one of two general methods:
1. By the formation of gas by chemical reaction within the mix during the liquid or
plastic stage, for example:
2A1 +3Ca(OH)2 +6H2O »- 3CaO • A12O3 • 6H2O + 3\-\2 ^ •
or
2. By introducing air from without, either by adding a preformed foam or by
incorporating air by whipping.
When the first method is used, the hydrogen in the cells is replaced by air in a short
time and no fire hazard exists. The gas-cement mixture is allowed to set in air and is then
steam cured at high pressure. Aerated concrete made in Europe using normal coal fly ash as
the siliceous component is high in strength and light in weight—their best products having
compressive strengths of 200-800 psi for concrete with a density range of 30-45 Ib/cu ft.
Aerated concrete also exhibits advantageous thermal insulation and acoustic properties.
Aerated concrete was produced from dry-collected limestone modified fly ash using
the technology employed by European manufacturers with one basic exception. Utilizing
the "free" lime content in dry-collected modified ash, the addition of lime is not required—a
significant cost reduction. Aluminum powder is used to generate gas bubbles and portland
cement is added to provide strength.
Dry-collected limestone modified fly ash from the Shawnee Steam Plant at Paducah,
Kentucky (TVA), was selected for the bench-scale production of aerated concrete because
of its high reactive or "free" lime content and its large siliceous component. It was found
that aerated concrete could be prepared from this ash without the use of any additional
material except water and aluminum powder—the aerating agent. The cured concrete had a
compressive strength of 400 psi at a density of approximately 50 Ibs/ft3. Portland cement
was then added to the mix to increase the compressive strength of the product. The density
increased to 56.3 Ibs/ft3 when using cement and the compressive strength was increased to
more than 855 psi. The addition of portland cement also stabilized the aerated mix prior to
autoclaving. This is a critical factor because setting must occur after aeration is completed
and before the entrained bubbles collapse.
Although these early results indicated high technical potential worthy of additional
research—comparable compressive strengths at somewhat higher densities—there is no
current market for aerated concrete in the United States.
-------
K-18

d. Formed concrete block
Research on calcium-silicate brick production showed that autoclaving increased
calcium-silicate bond formation. As a result, the feasibility of using modified ash as the
cementing agent for the production of concrete block was investigated.
The composition of the cement block was the same as for calcium-silicate brick with
the exception that less dewatering was required. The composition consisted, on a dry basis,
of 50 percent wet-collected modified fly ash, 39 percent silica sand (30 x 100 mesh) and 11
percent lime (95 percent CaO). Also, the material was poured into molds instead of pressed.
No prior grinding or crushing of the modified ash raw material was required. The resulting
poured concrete, which was similar to concrete block, had a bulk density of 90 Ib/ft3 as
compared to 150 Ibs/ft3 for conventional concrete block and a compressive strength of
approximately 900 psi as compared to 1000 psi for conventional block. Although addition
of the necessary aggregate could raise the bulk density to 100 Ib/ft3 , this would still be only
2/3 the bulk density of standard block. The blocks produced out of the autoclave were full
strength, nonshrinking products which do not require the 3-4 weeks air curing time before
sale as does the conventional concrete block. On this basis, storage requirements could be
reduced. However, as in the case of calcium-silicate brick, implementaion would require new
techniques of production such as dewatering and autoclaving. As a result, there is no current
U.S. market for formed concrete material made from modified fly ash.

2. Low Potential of Utilization
a. Soil amendment
b. Ceramic materials
c. Recovery of SO2 (thermal)
d. High-pressure alumina leaching
e. Flotation as a means of producing separate fractions
Techniques for dewatering the wet-collected limestone-modified fly ash were
evaluated in a follow-on project with the following resultant classifications of technical
potential.5
1. High Potential
a. Settling
b. Pressure filtration
c. Centrifugation
2. Medium Potential
a. Flocculants
Details of the results are currently unavailable, however, settling is considered the optimum
technique based on both economical and technical considerations. Pressure filtration and
centrifugation, while having high technical potential, are not expected to be economical
because the large volumetric capacities required could result in large equipment multiples.
-------
K-19

IV. Summary
Limestone-modified fly ash differs considerably, both chemically and physically,
from unmodified ash and does not lend itself to direct substitution for regular ash, as it is
used today. In addition, the chemical and physical properties of modified ash vary to a large
degree based upon the sulfur and ash content of the coal and subsequent removals during
flue gas treatment.
There are, however, potential uses for the modified ash: some, the same as for
regular ash; others not yet developed. Such miscellaneous factors as quality variation, water
content, sulfur (sulfite, sulfate, gypsum) content, pozzolanic properties, quantities available,
trace element content and toxicity and unreacted lime content need to be thoroughly
evaluated for specific applications before applicability can be finally assessed. Research and
development programs are necessary to determine and subsequently demonstrate the
technical and economic feasibility of utilizations of this material.
General areas of potential technical utilization include autoclave products, structural
or land fill, bituminous filler, pozzolanic materials, cement manufacture, pressure-sintered
products, gypsum products, and mineral recovery. Immediately promising areas are
autoclave products (sulfur would not be released), gypsum products (LMF contains large
amounts of gypsum), road base course material (it contains lime, has pozzolanic properties
and the potential market is large), and sulfur recovery (although the economics are not
promising, it could supplement a sintering process).
Since the modified ash cannot currently replace regular ash in its utilization, its
immediate impact on the regular ash market would be negative. It is possible, however, that
processes can be developed that would make it usable by the time it is produced in
appreciable quantity.

V. Recommendations
Although not the main thrust of the current program, recommendations are
presented for unmodified, as well as for modified fly ash, because use of the former would
contribute to the economic solution of the solid waste problem. Additionally, its use is
expected to precede (and pave the way for) the use of modified fly ash since the former is
more familiar, well characterized, and in current abundance. Recommendations are
presented for wet-collected limestone-modified fly ash since dry-collected
limestone-modified fly ash is not expected to be nationally abundant because of the limited
application of the dry limestone injection process. However, the dry process may be utilized
in a particular geographic area or localities which would make the dry-collected modified
material locally available. The properties and characteristics of the dry-collected material are
not expected to be sufficiently different from the dewatered wet-collected material to
preclude its use for certain applications.
-------
K-20

All recommendations have been submitted for review to appropriate agencies; e.g.
the Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

A. Unmodified Fly Ash
Existing inhibitions to the utilization of regular fly ash are of such magnitude that
only a small percentage of the ash produced today is utilized. These restraints will continue
to prevent an appreciable growth of the fly ash market unless appropriate research,
development, and survey programs are carried out. These programs may reduce inhibitions
that retard fly ash sale on a profitable basis.
Major areas of interest for new efforts are structural concrete, road base course
materials, and such new products as gas concrete, ceramics, and mineral recovery. Sufficient
effort is already being applied to the advancement of the fly ash lightweight aggregate
technology. An effort should also be directed toward the extended use of fly ash as a mine
void fill, particularly since it could be an interim measure until the efforts requiring more
lead time are completed and put into practice.
The recommendations are:
1. Expeditiously develop a new set of specifications or a handbook for the use of fly
ash in portland cement concrete which would provide a standard utilization to
produce predictable results. This would include the application of various grades of
fly ash (pertinent parameters such as residual carbon, fineness, and pozzolanic
activity) to concrete usage and encompass cure times beyond 28 days. These
documents could be modeled after TVA specifications G-2 and G-30. A testing
program will be required to provide statistical data to support this program.
2. Conduct a marketing survey for various regions within the fly ash supply areas to
determine the economic feasibility of fly ash gas concrete in various forms of
building construction in the United States.
3. Conduct a technical and marketing survey in various regions of fly ash producing
areas to determine the justification for an advisability of action by government
road contracting agencies regarding the use of fly ash in the base course section of
Federal, state, and local paving program contracts.
4. Investigate the possibility of recovering minerals from fly ash.
5. Evaluate the net economic effects of coal-washing or gasification on the fly ash
market and on the cost of ash disposal.
6. Conduct a technical and economic survey relating to land reclamation and to the
remote filling of mine voids for control of mine subsidence and fires. This would
include the economics of fly ash usage and land reclamation values; and the effects
of fly ash on ground waters. Consider the use of empty returning coal cars or a fly
ash slurry for transportation.
7. Conduct research to develop or improve such fly ash uses as ceramic products,
optimized fly ash gas concrete.
-------
K-21

8. Conduct fundamental research to identify the intrinsic characteristics and properties
of fly ash to provide the basis for subsequent research into new uses of fly ash.
Although this has been performed in part at various organizations, results of
complete characterization are not published.

B. Wet-Collected Limestone-Modified Fly Ash
Determining the potential use of modified ash depends on research and development
programs and marketing surveys to establish the potential marketability of developed
products in terms of public acceptance and ability to compete with other products,
including those produced from regular fly ash. The following programs are recommended:
1. The most critical research need for wet-limestone-modified ash is the fundamental
characterization of its chemical and physical properties. This characterization will
provide the basis for the subsequent utilization and toxicology research
recommendations.
2. Conduct research and development programs on potential mass uses of modified fly
ash including filler material, autocalve products, pozzolanic materials,
pressure-sintered products, and gypsum products. These programs should be broad
enough to allow the possible emergence of uses not yet identified. These programs
should also consider the mass usage of modified ash in situ and beneficiated in
processes in which sulfur is not released and recovered.
3. Investigate the recovery of mineral ore from the modified fly ash.
4. Determine the physical state of toxic elements within the modified fly ash, the
source of these elements (coal ash or limestone), the role of wet collection in
preventing mass contamination via particulate and gaseous effluents, and potential
hazards that may exist (particularly through leaching) in the ash disposal and
utilization.
5. Conduct an economics survey of the phase of electric power production involving:
the effects of fuel preparation and delivery, pollutant removal, residue disposal, and
product credits. Examples of trade-offs which should be made include: (a) scrubbing
of fly ash and gases resulting from the combustion of untreated coal, (b) scrubbing
of fly ash and gases resulting from the combustion of cleaned coal, (c) gasification of
coal, and (d) liquefaction of coal.
6. Conduct surveys to determine the potential for marketing recovered sulfur and
products to be developed for the use of modified fly ash. Also, consider the
development of products which are already partially developed; e.g., mineral
aggregate and road base course materials.
-------
K-22

VI. References
Reports identified by numbers prefixed "PB" are currently available prepaid from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Others will be available approximately one month
after receipt by NTIS.
1. Aerospace Corporation Report No. TOR-0059(6781)-1. PB 209-480, Final Report
on "Technical and Economic Factors Associated with Fly Ash Utilization," July 26,
1971, EPA Contract FO4701-70-C-0059.
2. Coal Research Bureau, West Virginia University, PB 185-802, Final Report on
"Study of the Potential for Profitable Utilization of Pulverized Coal Fly Ash
Modified by the Addition of Limestone - Dolomite SO2 Removal Additives," April
1969, EPA Contract PH86-67-122.
3. Ibid., PB 196-779, Final Report on "Study of the Potential for Recovering
Unreacted Lime from Limestone Modified Fly Ash by Agglomerate Flotation," May
1970, EPA Contract PH22-68-18.
4. Ibid., Final Report, "Pilot Scaleup of Processes to Demonstrate Utilization of
Pulverized Coal Fly Ash Modified by the Addition of Limestone-Dolomite SO2
Removal Additives," March 1972, EPA Contract CPA70-66. Submitted to NTIS
December 11, 1972.
5. Ibid., Final Report Draft, "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Dewatering,
Production of Structural Materials, and Recovery of Alumina from the
Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Produced by a Limestone Wet Scrubbing Process,"
Final Report anticipated early 1973, EPA Contract EHSD71-11.
-------
APPENDIX L

Process Economics
-------
L-l
PROCESS ECONOMICS
I. Introduction
One of the primary goals of the EPA-TVA dry limestone injection test program is to
better define the process economics for potential users. The economics given in the 1968
EPA-TVA conceptual design and cost study (12) of the process were based on limited
background and performance data; therefore, refinement of the earlier cost estimates is
highly desirable and is now possible using the results of the Shawnee test demonstration.
Investment requirements estimated in 1968 were based mostly on discussions with
solids handling equipment suppliers with some guidance from the TVA Office of
Engineering Design and Construction in Knoxville, Tennessee, plus the use of indirect cost
and installation factors derived from actual projects and from published estimating material.
At that time, the most desirable limestone particle size and point of injection were
unknown, predrying was not deemed necessary, solids disposal was assumed to be simple
with water quality unaffected, and the full effect of injected calcium material on dust
removal efficiency of electrostatic precipitators was speculative. All of these requirements
have been given careful attention and definition by the Shawnee test program.
One factor of concern in 1968, which calcium base material should be utilized, is no
longer of major importance since dried limestone serves as well as calcined limestone (CaO)
or hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2 ], both of which are two to three times more expensive. In the
earlier cost study, only a few limestone suppliers across the United States were contacted
for price data. Since then, the M. W. Kellogg Company has completed for EPA a much more
comprehensive survey (8) of limestone supply and price data, and the information is utilized
in this process cost evaluation.
In the earlier operating cost estimates, utilities usages were calculated and capital
charges were based on nonregulated economics; that is, no provisions were assumed for
maintaining the utility's rate of return on investment for the additional investment. As a
result, an impractical, low rate of capital charges was assessed. In addition, a chemical plant
operating stream time (8,000 hrs/yr) was used instead of a power plant's historical declining
load factor and effort was not made to predict the lifetime operating costs of the system.
In the evaluation to follow, the actual cost of the Shawnee injection system,
improved definition of raw material costs and desired particle size of injection material,
actual utilities usage rates, more realistic capital charges and operating periods, recent air
pollution emission requirements, refined dust removal technology, and equipment estimates
by a precipitator manufacturer permit a far more accurate cost appraisal than was possible
in 1968. However, it should be recognized that the accuracy of the newer estimates can be
affected greatly by the difficulty of retrofit to a power unit, labor costs in the particular
unit location, the closeness to a limestone source, the need and convenience of additional
disposal area for the waste solids produced, local air and water pollution regulations, and the
moisture content of purchased stone.
-------
L-2
At this stage of development, the major factors affecting process economics include
(1) power unit size, (2) sulfur content of fuel, (3) stoichiometric rate of limestone injection,
(4) particle size of injected limestone, (5) particulate removal requirements, (6) solids
disposal needs, (7) raw material costs, (8) annual operating time, and (9) remaining life of
the power unit. Items (1) through (3) are the most significant factors in establishing costs
since they determine the amount of limestone to be processed and, therefore, the required
capacity of the equipment. However, item (4), particle size of injected limestone, has some
effect on absorption efficiency, thereby influencing design of the grinding system and
affecting both investment and operating costs. Particulate removal requirements, item (5),
are, in part, fixed by the level of injection and emission laws prevailing in the plant location.
However, the investment and operating costs associated with particulate collection vary
depending on existing collection facilities and the type of additional facilities installed. The
method and costs for disposing solids may also differ for various power plant installations.
Raw material costs, annual operating time, and remaining life of the power unit do not
influence investment; however, these items directly influence operating costs.

II. Approach
To evaluate the major factors, a variety of unit sizes, fuel sulfur levels, and limestone
injection stoichiometries are chosen for case projections of fixed investment requirements,
annual operating costs, and lifetime operating costs. Using selected cases, other key factors
are also varied to analyze their sensitivity on process economics. The projections made are
based on applicable design premises resulting from the Shawnee test program, plus the
actual cost of the test facility and the actual utilities usage rates. A flow diagram of the
proposed process and detailed material balances were prepared to serve as guides in
determining equipment sizes and requirements for the various cases. Operating experience
for TVA coal-fired power units is also utilized in the evaluation technique. For convenience,
all projections are based on 1972 costs for the midwestern United States.
Results of the Shawnee tests indicate that, within limits, SO2 removal efficiencies
increase with the addition of greater amounts of limestone to the boiler. However, the
associated costs and operating difficulties also increase. To determine the effect of limestone
addition rate on process economics, a 52-case parametric study is used to cover the various
unit sizes, sulfur levels, and injection stoichiometries. Cases were selected to expand the
applicability of the Shawnee results over a broad range. Table 1 gives a detailed accounting
of the chosen case combinations.
Design Premises—For the 52 cases, applicable design premises were established for
the power unit, fuel, absorbent, combustion, reactions, SO2 emission reduction, reaction
products, and particulate collection and disposal method. A detailed listing of these
premises follows:
A. Power unit
1. Size-50, 150, 250, or 350 MW.
2. Location - midwestern region.
3. Type plant - existing, pulverized coal, frontal-fired unit.
4. Years remaining life - 15.
-------
L-3

Table 1 - Dry Limestone Injection Case Combinations
Existing Coal-Fired Units

Injection stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole sulfur in coal

0.8% Sin coal 3.0% S in coal 5.0% S in coal
50 MW power units

150

250

350

3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
MW power units
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
MW power units
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
MW power units
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0

1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0

B. Coal
1. Heat value-12,000 BTU/lb.
2. Ash content - 16.0%.
3. Sulfur content - 0.8, 3.0, and 5.0%.
C. Limestone characteristics and preparation
1. Type - calcite.
2. Composition - 95.0% CaCO3 and 5.0% impurities (dry basis).
3. Purchased moisture content - 5.0% H20.
4. Purchased size - minus 1-1/2 in.
5. Moisture reduction - dried to approximately 0.5% H2 0 prior to grinding.
6. Drying source - off-gas from combustion of No. 2 fuel oil with 20% excess air.
7. Size reduction - dry ground to 80% minus 400 mesh prior to injection.
-------
L-4

8. Transport ainlimestone injection ratio - 1:10.
9. Injection stoichiometry variations -
0.8% S coal, 3.0 to 7.0 moles CaO: mole S in fuel.
3.0 and 5.0% S coal, 1.0 to 4.0 moles CaO: mole S in fuel.
D. Combustion
1. Coal consumption prior to dry limestone injection - 0.780 Ibs/kWh.
2. Excess air to boiler for combustion of coal - 25%.
3. Air inleak at air preheater - 13%.
4. Particulate emission - 75% of ash is emitted as particulates and is present in the
off-gas.
5. Sulfur emission - 92% of sulfur is emitted as SO2; remainder is chemically bound
with the ash.
E. Boiler reactions, S02 emission reductions, and reaction products
1. Dried CaCO3 decomposes to CaO and CO2 within boiler.
2. Heat required for decomposition is supplied by combustion of additional coal.
3. For 0.8% S fuel, 5% of S02 in the gas combines with CaO per unit of stoichiometric
limestone injected.
4. For 3.0 and 5.0% S fuel, 10% of SO2 in the gas combines with CaO per unit of
stoichiometric limestone injected.
5. All CaS03 formed by reaction of CaO and SO2 is oxidized to CaSO4 within the
boiler.
6. All of the solid products resulting from limestone injection are present in the boiler
off-gas as particulates.
F. Particulate collection
One of the drawbacks of dry limestone injection is the introduction of additional
solids into the boiler, which requires additional particulate collection and disposal
facilities. Figure 1 shows the effect of injection stoichiometry on the inlet particulate
loading to the dust collectors for the three levels of sulfur evaluated. Design of the
particulate collection facilities is based on the following premises:
1. Existing particulate collection facilities - mechanical collector followed by
electrostatic precipitator.
2. Overall particulate collection efficiency of existing facilities - 99%, equivalent to a
particulate emission of 0.03 grains/acf.
3. Additional electrostatic precipitator capacity is installed to maintain a dust emission
level after dry limestone injection equivalent to the emission level prior to injection.
Reflecting the limestone injection case variations, Table 2 shows the calculated
particulate rates at the entrance to the dust collectors for a 150 MW unit, and the overall
collection efficiency required to maintain the base emission level defined above. These
collection efficiencies are shown graphically in Figure 2.
G. Particulate disposal
Additional disposal facilities for handling the incremental solids are provided for
each installation. Figures 3, 4, and 5 indicate the incremental disposal requirements
-------
20
15
o
Cfl
10
at
!H
00

f\
60

-S
*a
eg
o
en c
3 5
13

4J
-------
Table 2
Dust Removal Requirements for
Dry Limestone Injection Case Study - 1 50 MW Plant
(To Maintain Base Emission Level)
Case
0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sulfur
content
of coal,
%
3.0

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Injection
stoichiometry,
moles CaO/mole
S in fuel
no dry
limestone
injection
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0

Gas rate,
acfm @310° F.
507,700

503,800
505,200
506,900
508,100
509,600
512,500
517,800
522,700
528,000
519,000
527,900
537,000
547,000
Inlet to
Dust
Fly ash
14,040

14,100
14,120
14,150
14,160
14,1.80
14,100
14,180
14,240
14,310
14,150
14,270
14,390
14,540
dust collector
rate, Ibs/hr
Injection
products
-

5,740
7,660
9,590
11,530
13,480
7,580
15,240
22,990
30,810
12,670
25,580
38,750
52,250

Dust loading,
grains/acf
3.23

4.59
5.03
5.46
5.90
6.33
4.94
6.63
8.31
9.97
6.03
8.81
11.55
14.25
Allowable
emission,
lbs/hra
140

141
141
141
142
142
141
142
142
143
141
143
144
145
Overall dust
collection
efficiency
required, %
99.00

99.29
99.35
99.41
99.45
99.49
99.35
99.52
99.62
99.68
99.47
99.64
99.73
99.78
Outlet dust
loading
grains/acf
.03

.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
a. Equivalent to 99% removal of fly ash emitted from combustion of coal containing 16% ash
-------
,100.0
•u
<0
1-1
•rl

I
99.8
•1-1
o
>i-i
M-l
<4-l
0)

g 99.6

•H
4J
O
t-l

O
U
§ 99.4
I
99.2
0
I I I I

Inlet fly ash loading prior to injections* 3.23 gr/acf

Outlet loading after dust collection - O.OJ gr/acf
24 68
Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal
Figure
Effect of Injection Stoichiometry on Overall Dust
Collection Efficiency to Maintain Emission Rate
Equivalent to 9956 Fly Ash Collection Prior to
Dry Limestone Injection
-------
00
Figure
50

5
100 150 200
Power unit size,
250
300
350
Incremental Solids Disposal Requirements for Power Units Utilizing
Dry Limestone Injection Process; 0.8$ S Coal
-------
0
50
150 200
Power unit size, MW
250
300
350
Figure
Incremental Solids Disposal Requirements for Power Units Utilizing
Dry Limestone Injection Process: 3»°# S Coal
-------
50
100
150 200
Power unit size, NW
250
300
350
Figure
Incremental Solids Disposal Requirements for Power Units Utilizing
Dry Limestone Injection Process: 5.0$ 3 Coal
-------
L-ll

attributable to dry limestone injection for each variation in.sulfur content as a function
of power unit size and injection stoichiometry. The following method for disposal is
used (11):
1. Fly ash and injection solids are disposed on-site in a common, existing settling pond.
Additional pond facilities are not provided for the incremental injection solids.
2. Distribution facilities are included for supplying raw water to the solids disposal
area. Pipeline distance between the disposal area and the raw water supply point is
estimated as 2,500 ft.
3. Slurry concentration to the disposal pond is designed not to exceed 15% solids.
4. Fresh sluice water is used for disposing the incremental solids, with no provisions for
recycling. Pipeline distance between disposal pond and the solids collection facilities
is estimated as 6,000 ft.
5. A separate disposal line is included for each case, regardless of the magnitude of the
incremental solids disposal burden.
6. Based on vendor recommendations, an 8 in. line is the smallest size which is
practical. Disposal systems are sized with either 8, 10, or 12 in. lines, with a design
fluid velocity of approximately 6 ft/sec and capability of disposing the daily load of
solids over a period of 12 hrs. Based on TVA operating experience, the load factor
for an existing ash sluice line is about 40% or less.
7. Spare incremental solids disposal lines are not provided. It is assumed that the
existing spare sluice lines or the existing operating lines (with relatively low load
factors) can be utilized as spares when required.
8. Based on TVA sluicing practices, sluice water flow through each operating line is
continuous while the power unit is in operation (sluice water and electrical
requirements for pumping are based on continuous flow.)
Using the Shawnee design and operating experience and the design premises
presented above, a projected process flow diagram including provision for dust collection
and disposal was prepared. This flow diagram identifies the major equipment required for
the process and is presented in Figure 6.
Base Case—For convenience in preparing material and energy balances, a separate
base case for each level of sulfur in coal was established. Power unit size was selected to
conform to that of Shawnee Unit 10. Injection stoichiometry for each case was based on the
most probable applications as determined in the Shawnee tests for the various levels of
sulfur in coal. These case combinations are shown below:

Dry Limestone Injection Process Base Case Combinations

Injection stoichiometry,
Power unit size, Sulfur in coal, moles CaO injected/
MW % mole 5 in coal

150 0.8 5.0
150 3.0 2.0
150 5.0 2.0
-------
CYCLONE EXHAUST
TO MECHANICAL
A NO/OR
ELECTROSTATIC
DUST COLLECTOR
SLIDE GATE VALVE
ROTARY VALVE

VACUUM RELIEF VALVE
Figure 6- Proposed Flow Diagram of Dry Limestone Injection Process
-------
L-13
A detailed material balance for each of the base case combinations is shown in
Figure 7

Actual investment—The actual fixed investment for the Shawnee test facilities was
analyzed to provide an equipment, labor, and material cost breakdown for the major process
functions. The results are presented in Table 3 (1). A nine-month construction period during
1969-1970 and a total investment cost of $1,477,581 were required for the test facilities.
The facilities were designed with a 20 ton/hr injection capability equivalent to a 350
MW plant burning 2.0% S coal with an injection stoichiometry of 2.0. Although oversized
for a 150 MW plant, a broad capacity range was necessary because of the research and
development nature of the installation. The actual investment requirements discussed above
include facilities for receiving, storing, drying, grinding, and injection and sampling test
probes for the boiler. Both rail and truck unloading equipment are included. Boiler
modifications such as wall port openings are included along with utilities distribution from
the powerhouse area. Not included are capability for continuous fine grinding, additional
particulate removal facilities, and solids disposal pond for the incremental dust burden. Also
not included are additional soot blowers for removal of deposits which tend to form in the
convection passes of the boiler. The number of required sootblowers may vary for different
installations as a function of boiler tube spacing, temperature regime, and length of
convection pass; however, each is estimated to cost $20-30,000. Since the Shawnee tests did
not indicate the actual number of additional sootblowers required as a result of dry
limestone injection, additional costs are excluded from the investment projections; however,
the sensitivity of total investment as a function of sootblower requirements is discussed in
Section 11.

Investment projections—Based on the dry limestone injection process flow diagram,
the process equipment was subdivided into several areas according to function. For most
process areas, actual 1969 investment costs for the test facilities were updated to 1972
utilizing a Chemical Engineering plant cost index ratio of 138/119 (4). Instead of treating as
separate areas, costs for painting, stairways, handrails, inspection, and testing were
distributed to the appropriate major areas. For the limestone grinding system, updated costs
were obtained from vendors to reflect the capability for continuous fine grind, not available
with the Shawnee facilities.
Costs for facilities at other limestone capacities were projected by scaling the
updated investment according to limestone throughput using appropriate scaling exponents.
Values of these exponents were factored from the literature (6, 9) and from cost quotations
obtained from vendors. Table 4 shows the major equipment areas which were established,
the base 1972 investment corresponding to the updated Shawnee costs, and the scaling
exponent used for projecting costs as a function of capacity ratios.
Costs for the incremental electrostatic precipitator and solids disposal systems were
not scaled according to limestone throughput. Incremental electrostatic precipitator system
-------
ISO MW UNIT, 0.8% S IN COAL, 5.0 CoO:S INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY
STREAM NO.
DESCRIPTION
SCFM
GPM
PARTICULATES, LBS./HR
TEMPERATURE, 'F
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
JNOISSOLVED SOUDS, %
1
LIMESTONE
TO
DRYER

-
AMBIENT
2.7

2
AIR
TO
DRYER
1,200

—
AMBIENT

3
FUEL OIL
TO
DRYER
310
7
—
AMBIENT
.865

4
- CYCLUNlT"
EXHAUST TO
1,530

20
250

5
DRIED
LIMESTONETO
SURGE TANK

_
_
230

6
CIRCULATION
AIR TO
CONVEYOR
8,800

2,750
200

7
CONVEYING
AIR TO
CYCLONE
8,800

18,350
200

a
PULVERIZED
LIMESTONE TO
FEED TANK

_
_
200

9
AIR
TO
COMPRESSOR
1,500
330

_
AMBIENT

10
LIMESTONE-
AIR TO
DISTRIBUTOR
1, 500
330

15,600
110

II
PULVERIZED
COAL TO
BOILER

-
-
AMBIENT

12
COMBUSTION
AIR TO
AIR HEATER
322,000
_
-
no

13
COMBUSTION
AIR TO
BOILER
292,000
_
-
610

14
FLUE GAS
TO DUST
COLLECTOR
34 O.OOO
-
23,720
310

15
FLUE GAS
TO
STACK
341,530
-
141
310

16
SOLIDS TO
SLUICE
EQUIPMENT
-
-
-
310

IT
SLUICE
WATER

267

AMBIENT

18
SLURRY TO
DISPOSAL
POND

286

AMBIENT
1.10
IS
COAL ANALYSIS, % BY WT (AS FIRED BASIS)
H 4.17 ASH 16.00
N 1.23 H20 9.70
C 66.39 0 1.71
S 0.80
COAL CONSUMPTION, .786 LBS./KWH WITH INJECTION
25 % OVERALL SOj REMOVAL FROM GAS (5% /UNIT STOICHIOMETRY)
PARTICULATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 99.41%
ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF SAS TO STACK EXCLUDING NO,,
% BY VOLUME
COg
12.36
SOj
.04
Oz
5.43
HjO

7.62
150 MW UNIT, 3.0% S IN COAL, 2.0 CaO: S INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY
STREAM NO.
DESCRIPTION
RATE, LBS. /HR.
SCFM
GPM
PARTICULATES, LBS /HR
TEMPERATURE, *F
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNWSSOLVED SOUDS, %
1
LIMESTONE
TO
DRYER
24,600
—
-
-
AMBIENT
2.7

2
AIR
TO
DRYER
8,260
1,800
-
-
AMBIENT

3
FUEL OIL
TO
DRYER
470
-
I.I
-
AMBIENT
.863

4
CYCLONE
EXHAUST TO
COLLECTOR
9,850
2,300
-
30
250

5
DRIED
LIMESTONETO
SURGE TANK
23,450
-
-
-
250

«
CIRCULATION
AIR TO
CONVEYOR
60,600
1 3, 200
-
4,140
ZOO

7
CONVEYING
AIR TO
CYCLONE
60,600
1 3,200
-
27,590
200

8
PULVERIZED
LIMESTONETO
FEED TANK
23,450
-
-
-
ZOO

9
AIR
TO
COMPRESSOR
2,300
500
-
-
AMBIENT

10
LIMESTONE-
DISTRIBUTOR
2,300
500
-
23,450
110

II
PULVERIZED
COAL TO
BOILER
118,130
-
-
-
AMBIENT

12
COMBUSTION
AIR TO
AIR HEATER
1,509,640
329,000
-
-
no

13
COMBUSTION
AIR TO
BOILER
1,367,400
298,000
-
-
610

14
FLUE QAS
TO OUST
COLLECTOR
1,619,400
347,000
-
29,390
310

15
FLUE GAS
TO
STACK
1,629,250
349,300
-
142
310

16
SOLIDS TO
SLUICE
EQUIPMENT
29,278
-
-
-
310

17
SLUICE
WATER
165,922
-
332
-
AMBIENT

IB
SLURRY TO
DISPOSAL
POND
195,200
-
355
-
AMBIENT
1.10
15
COAL ANALYSIS,
H ........ 4.17
N ........ 1.23
C ...... 66.39
S ....... 3.00
BY WT. (AS FIRED BASIS)
ASH ____ 16.00
H20 ____ 9.21
0 ....... —
COAL CONSUMPTION, .788 LBS./KWH WITH INJECTION
20% OVERALL SOj REMOVAL FROM GAS HOT./UNIT STOICHIOMETRY)
PARTICULATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 99.52%
ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF GAS TO STACK EXCLUDING NO,,
% BY VOLUME
COj
12.28
SOg
.15
HjO
7.71
TOTAL

100.00
150 MW UNIT, 5.0% S IN COAL, 2.0 CaO: S INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY
STREAM NO.
DESCRIPTION
RATE, LBS./HR.
SCFM
GPM
PARTICULATES, LBS./HR.
TEMPERATURE, • F
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNDISSOLVED SOLIDS, %
1
LIMESTONE
TO
DRYER
41,290
-
-
-
AMBIENT
2.T

2
AIR
TO
DRYER
13,860
3,020
-
-
AMBIENT

3
FUEL OIL
TO
DRYER
790
-
1.8
-
AMBIENT
.865

4
EXHAUST TO
COLLECTOR
16,520
3,860
-
50
250

5
DRIED
LIMESTONETO
SURGE TANK
39,370
-
-
-
250

6
CIRCULATION
AIR TO
CONVEYOR
101,500
22,100
-
6,950
ZOO

7
CONVEYING
AIR TO
CYCLONE
101,500
22,100
-
46,320
2CO

8
PULVERIZED
LIMESTONE TO
FEEDTANK
39,370
-
-
-
2OO

9
AIR
TO
COMPRESSOR
3,900
850
-
-
AMBIENT

10
LIMESTONE-
AIR TO
DISTRIBUTOR
3,900
850
-
39, 370
no

II
PULVERIZED
COAL TO
BOILER
1 1 8.90O
-
-
-
AMBIENT

12
COMBUSTION
AIR TO
AIR HEATER
1.531,590
334,000
-
-
no

13
COMBUSTION
AIR TO
BOILER
1,387,300
302.500
-
-
610

14
FLUE GAS
TO DUST
COLLECTOR
1, 649,200
352,000
-
39,800
310

15
FLUE SAS
TO
STACK
1,665,720
355,800
-
143
310

16
SOLIDS TO
SLUICE
EQUIPMENT
39,707
-
_
-
310

17
SLUICE
WATER
224.993
_
450
-
AMBIENT

IB
SLURRY TO
DISPOSAL
POND
264,700
_
481

AMBIENT
1.10
15
WT. (AS FIRED BASIS)
ASH 16.00
H20 7.21
0 -
COAL ANALYSIS, %
H 4.17
N...' 1.23
C 66.39
S-- 5.0O

& BASIS
HEAT VALUE OF COAL, I2.00O BTU/LB. (AS FIRED BASIS)
75% OF ASH IN COAL EVOLVES AS FLY ASH
LIMESTONE TO SYSTEM CONTAINS 95.0% CoCO3(DRY BASIS) AND 5% HjO
LIMESTONE DRIED TO 0.5% H20 PRIOR TO GRINDING
PARTICULATE RATES IN LBS./HR. SHOULD BE ADDED TO GAS RATES TO OBTAIN THE TOTAL STREAM RATE
HEAT FOR DRYING SUPPLIED BY COMBUSTION OF NO. 2 FUEL OIL WITH 20% EXCESS AIR
MATERIAL LOSSES ARE EXCLUDED FROM MATERIAL BALANCE
COAL CONSUMPTION, .793 LBS./KWH WITH INJECTION
20% OVERALL SOZ REMOVAL FROM GAS (10%/UNIT STOICHIOMETRY)
PARTICULATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 99.64%
ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF GAS TO STACK EXCLUDING NO*.
% BY VOLUME
COa
12.43
SO;
.24
Oz_
5.39
Nz
74.42
H20
FIGURE 7 DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION PROCESS MATERIAL BALANCES9'
-------
L-15

Tables

Actual Fixed Investment for 20 Ton/Hour
Dry Limestone Injection Facilities
on Shawnee Power Plant Unit No. 10
1969-70 Construction
Direct Cost

General Yard Work
Landscaping
Guard Rails
Relocate access road
Yard lighting
Storage area
Raw water piping
Drains
Subtotal

Limestone Storage and Feed Systems
Truck hopper
Railroad car unloader
Truck hopper unloader
Limestone receiving hopper
Truck unloading conveyor
Limestone storage conveyor
Limestone feed to dryer conveyor
Subtotal

Limestone Drying System
Limestone dryer, drive and combustion
chamber with combustion equipment
Cyclone dust collector-6500 cfm
Trickle valve
Chutes & duct

Dust collecting fan
Dust duct to precipitator
Bucket elevator and drive
Dryer shed
Subtotal

Limestone Grinding System
Surge bin - 1000 cu.ft.
Structural supports
Rotary valve with drive
Volumetric feeder

Ball mill, drive and oiling system
Recirculation fan & drive - 23,000 cfm
Ducts and chutes
Classifier and drive
Structural supports

Storage silo - 6600 cu.ft.
Structural supports
Cyclone - 25,000 cfm
Trickle valve
Bag filter - 595 sq.ft. filter area
Exhaust fan with drive
Rotary valve with drive
Subtotal
Equipment Labor
Materials
$

$
$ 905
5,180
5,180
No cost ,
12,000
17,212
1,591
$ 42,068
$ 46, 522 1
1,876
85
700,
4,300

4,010

$ 57,693
$ 1,748
5,360
1,304
1,705
91,326
3,836
3,410
4,600 1
$
82
121
9,128
1,468
362
401
$ 11,562
) $
( 12,305
(
)
> 12,112
$ 24,417
)
(. $ 6,989
(
)
677
10,910
1,550
9,464
$ 29,590
)
! $ 8,807
f
)

16,656
}
> 2,872
$ 1,600
218
230
2,515
3,023
25
166
$ 7,777

4,463

6,029
$ 10,492

$ 3,193

258
2,348
450
3,843
$ 10,092

$ 3,436

4,730

1,196
5,360j
7,360
11,731
3,836
85
5,968
1,130
1,304

27,120

12,829

Direct
Subtotal
$ 1,600
300
351
11,643
4,491
387
567
$ 19,339
28,033
48,944
$ 76,977
$ 59,365
5,435
13,258
6,010
13,307
$ 97,375
$ 22,360

119,958

14,028
71,363
$150,063 $ 55,455 $ 22,191 $ 227,709
-------
L-16
Table 3 (continued)
Limestone Injection System
Rotary valve with drive
Transport pump with drive
Transport air compressor

Cyclone - 630 cfm
Feed tank - 300 cu.ft.
Bag filter - 530 cfm
Rotary valve with drive

Screw conveyors with drive (2)
Air locks with drives (2)

Air receiving tank
Injection air compressor with drive
Transport air compressor with drive
Limestone distributors
Subtotal

Equipment Foundations

Instrumentation
Control panel and shed
Subtotal

Piping
Drying system
Grinding system
Injection system
Equipment Labor
Direct
Materials Subtotal
Subtotal

Electrical Power Supply
4160 volt board
480 volt board
Limestone injection board
Power and control wiring
Conduit
Cable trays
Grounding
1 elephone
Subtotal

Revision & Addition to Power House & Boiler
Structural steel
Floor grating
Miscellaneous metal work
Conduit, wiring and fixtures
Cooling water supply
Steam lines
Insulation
Ash disposal piping
Boiler additions (injection ports)
Subtotal

Painting

Misc. Stairs, Grating and Handrails

Test Probes - Installation

Inspection and Testing

Direct Total All Catagories
1,304-v
4,936 >
5,968)
5m
1,748 I
1,611 (
1.304/
1,705^
2,608)
4,186}
7,5Q2l
7,502(
256/
$ 41,142
$
6,373

$ 6,373

6,089
24,877
$ 30,966

9,490

$ 9,490

$337,795

1,658

14,179

5,414

6,737

$ 27,988
$ 37,951
23,820
1,369
$ 25,189
2,953
12,852
52,245
$ 68,050
1,714
70
190
27,206
28,301
4,205
2,172
870
$ 64,728
$ 1,327
416
6,679
1,236
30,765
5,967
(Contract)
6,216
39,379
$ 91,985
$ 28,008
$ 20,244
$ 46,262
29,054
$560,483

320

3,358

184

771

$ 4,633
$ 27,096
10,172
356
$ 10,528
1,606
2,626
5,336
$ 9,568
9,042
77
325
11,775
3,398
648
245
395
$ 25,905
$ 1,540
1,348
864
644
5,709
223

13,408
4,552
$ 28,288
$ 1,885
$ 7,225
$ 5,678
2,835
$174,193

14,186

22,712

9,911

26,954

$ 73,763
$ 65,047
40,365
1,725
$ 42,090
4,559
21,567
82,458
$ 108,584
10,756
147
515
38,981
31,699
4,853
2,417
1,265
$ 90,633
$ 2,867
1,764
7,543
1,880
36,474
6,190
9,490
19,624
43,931
$ 129,763
$ 29,893
$ 27,469
$ 51,940
31,889
$1,072,471
-------
L-17
Table 3 (continued)
Equipment Labor Materials
Indirect Cost
Construction General Expense

Contractor's Engineering and Fee

TVA Engineering and Overhead

Indirect Total

TOTAL PROJECT FIXED INVESTMENT
Direct
Subtotal
$ 106,365

169,687

129,058

405,110

$1,477,581
Table 4
Major Area Investment Requirements and Exponential
Scale Factors for Dry Limestone Injection Facilities3
Major process equipment
area

General yard work
Limestone storage and feed
system
Limestone drying system
Limestone grinding system
Limestone injection system
Equipment foundations
Instrumentation
Piping
Electrical power supply
Revisions & additions to
powerhouse and boiler
Incremental electrostatic
precipitator system
Incremental solids disposal
system for collecting and
sluicing limestone solids
to pond
a. Capacity = 20 tons limestone/hr.
b. Based on updated vendor proposals
c. Not scaled according to limestone throughput
Base 1972 investment,
$

22,400

111,100
137,600
309,500b
160,100
75,500
51,400
126,000
105,100

150,500
Exponential scaling factor
based on limestone throughput

.50

.80
.50
b
.40
.60
.25
.50
.45

.50
-------
L-18

costs for a 150 MW plant were estimated by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Incorporated
(3) for each combination of sulfur content and injection stoichiometry, based on the change
in properties of the particulates and the additional amount to be removed as a result of dry
limestone injection. Costs were then scaled according to power unit size using an exponent
of 0.85.
The design for incremental solids disposal systems was based on minimum
requirements as indicated by vendors. These investment costs were projected for each
individual installation taking into consideration the quantity of injection solids to be
disposed and the minimum recommended pipeline size.
The sum of the investment requirements for each major process area is called direct
investment. The indirect costs for the project, including engineering design and project
supervision, construction expense, contractor fees, and contingency are added to the direct
investment to obtain the total fixed capital investment. Indirect investment is estimated as a
percentage of direct investment (10) and is based on power unit size as follo.Ws:

Indirect investment costs,
percentage of direct investment
existing power units
50 MW 1&

Engineering design and
supervision
Construction expense
Contractors' fees
Contingency
Total indirects 45 42 41 39

Annual operating cost—On-stream time and power plant load are key factors in
establishing annual operating costs for any process. For power systems, these factors may
vary for different plants within the overall system due to electricity demand and
maintenance. For purposes of projection, annual operating costs are estimated on the basis
of 5,000 hrs operation/yr at full load.
The following is a listing of the breakdown established for projecting annual
operating costs:
A. Direct costs
1. Delivered raw material
a. Limestone
2. Conversion costs
a. Operating labor and supervision including payroll overhead
b. Utilities
(1) Fuel oil (drying)
(2) Sluice water
(3) Electricity
50 MW
9
14
9
13
150 MW
8
13
8
13
250 MW
8
12
8
13
350 MW
8
12
7
13
-------
L-19

c. Maintenance
(1) Labor and material
d. Analyses
B. Indirect costs
1. Capital charges
2. Overhead
a. Plant
b. Administrative
C. Annual operating cost (A and B)
D. Thermal effect of dry limestone injection on operating cost of power plant
E. Total annual cost (C and D)
Each of the above cost components accounts for a portion of the total annual
operating cost, and is discussed below in order of relative importance.

1. Raw material - Limestone is the only raw material required for dry limestone
injection. As indicated in a recent report prepared for EPA by the M. W. Kellogg Company
(8), there are enormous deposits of carbonate rocks in the United States, and reserves are
more than adequate for the foreseeable future. The major deposits, including two-thirds of
all sulfur deposits, are located in the eastern half of the country where the vast majority of
fossil fuel-fired power plants are located. Numerous reserves in these areas provide a nearby
source of stone for most power plants.
Relative to the potential demand for limestone by power plants, production of these
materials is quite large in most states; however, current production is inadequate to supply
the potential needs of power plants in several Atlantic coastal regions, notably New
England.
For a large majority of the power plants in the eastern half of the United States,
high calcium limestone could be delivered for less than $6.00/ton. About half could obtain
stone at less than $4.00/ton. Costs for power plants located in western states generally would
be higher, because of the lack of suitable nearby deposits.
During the injection tests, the delivered cost of limestone at the Shawnee steam
plant averaged $4.05/ton which is compatible with costs reported by Kellogg; therefore, a
delivered cost of $4.05/ton of limestone is utilized for the case projections. For additional
coverage, however, the sensitivity of other limestone prices on process operating costs will
be shown in Section II.
2. Capital charges - The method for financing sulfur dioxide control processes is
likely to depend upon the type of industry providing the investment capital and the nature
of the control process, nonrecovery or product recovery type. In the past, it has been
assumed that nonrecovery pollution control processes installed on power plants are financed
on a regulated utility basis similar to the financing method for the initial power plant. This
method of financing is also assumed for the nonrecovery dry limestone injection process in
the projection of operating costs.
-------
L-20
For the power industry (regulated utility economics), the usual practice of including
in the capital charges a regulated return on investment and the state and Federal income
taxes was followed (5). A breakdown of the capital charges is given in Table 5. The
depreciation rate is straight line, based on the remaining life of the power plant after the
pollution control process is installed, and is a percentage of initial fixed investment.
Property insurance is also based on original fixed investment. However, because most
regulatory commissions base the annual permissible return on investment on the remaining
depreciation base (that portion of the original investment yet to be recovered or "written
off"), the portion of annual capital charge to be applied to the operating cost declines
uniformly over the life of the investment.
Tables

Annual Capital Charges for Power Industry Financing
(Existing Power Unit with 15-Yr. Remaining Life)

As percentage of
original investment
Depreciation (based on 15-yr. remaining
life for an existing power unit) 6.7

Insurance 0.5
Total rate applied to original
investment 7.2

As percentage
of outstanding
depreciation base3
Cost of capital (capital structure
assumed to be 50% debt and 50% equity)
Bonds at 8% interest 40
Equity at 12% return to stockholder 6.0
Taxes

Federal (50% of gross return or same
as return on equity) § Q
State (national average for states
in relation to Federal rates) 4 g
Total rate applied to depreciation
base

a. Original investment yet to be recovered or "written off
base 20.8
-------
L-21
Annual return on equity, interest on outstanding debt, and income taxes are
established in the same manner. The cost of money to the power industry is assumed to be
8% interest on borrowed funds and 12% return on equity money to attract investors.
Assuming a capital structure of 50% debt and 50% equity, the overall cost of money under
regulated economics comes to 10%. Federal income taxes are assumed to be 50% of gross
income and state tax is assumed to be 80% of the national tax; the resulting state tax is
higher than for nonregulated industry, but it is about the nationwide average for power
companies.
The fairly well defined return on investment for the power company makes a low
rate of depreciation acceptable, and return on investment can be logically included in
production cost because it is a fixed charge usually passed on to the power customer.
For convenience in presenting annual operating cost results, average capital charges
based on initial fixed investment are utilized since it is not practical to present the variable
declining balance portion of the charge. For presentation in this manner, capital charges
which normally account for depreciation and insurance are unchanged at 7.2% of original
investment. Charges associated with the cost of capital and taxes are applied as an average
charge equivalent to 10.4% of initial investment. (10.4% x original investment = 20.8% x
average undepreciated investment). When assessed in this manner, the overall rate is
equivalent to 17.6% of the original investment.
The average capital charge multiplied by the number of years of operation gives the
same actual outlay of dollars as the declining balance calculation; however, the present
worth of the two methods is different (discounted to 1972 dollars). There is, of course,
another method (sinking fund depreciation plus interest, or capital recovery factor) of
presenting a single annual percentage of initial investment which gives the same present
worth of the lifetime capital charges as the declining balance calculation approach, but the
actual dollar outlay is different. Of the two procedures, the average capital charge method
has been chosen for annual operating cost tables because it can incorporate straight line
depreciation, thus permitting simpler adjustment of the percentage of initial investment for
power units with various remaining lives.
3. Utilities - During the dry limestone injection test program, utility usages were
measured for the following three processing functions:
a. Limestone receiving, drying and conveying
b. Limestone grinding, classifying, and transport to feed tank
c. Limestone injection into boiler
In addition, utility requirements peripheral to the process such as additional water and
electricity for solids disposal were estimated. The following utility usage rates are projected:
-------
L-22
Utility projections
Process area
a. Limestone receiving, drying and
conveying
b. Limestone grinding, classifying,
and transport to feed tank
c. Limestone injection into boiler

Peripheral area

d. Participate collection
e. Additional solids disposal
Fuel oil
Sluice
water
5.3 gal/
ton limestone
Electricity
6.0 kWh/ton limestone
53.4 kWh/ton limestone
9.6 kWh/ton limestone
Credit3
1.925 kWh/thousand
gal of sluice water
Electricity usage rates for particulate collection varies for each case as indicated by
Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc. However, CES indicates that the total amount of
electricity required for dust collection is less due to dry limestone injection than is normally
required for collecting fly ash alone; therefore, an operating cost credit is claimed equivalent
to the electricity saved. Unit costs which areincorporated in the case projections for utilities
are shown below:
Utility
No. 2 fuel oil (drying)
Sluice water
Electricity
Unit cost

$0.11/gal.
.03/Mgal.
.007/kWh
Fuel oil cost is based on an acutal 1972 published price for Chicago, Illinois (7). Costs for
sluice water and electricity are also 1972 prices; however, they are somewhat higher than
typical power plant costs to compensate for the additional generation demand placed on the
power unit and to account for the more rapid capital recovery for the additional facilities
than required for new plants.
4. Operating labor and supervision - Operating labor requirements for the dry
limestone injection tests at Shawnee were somewhat high due to the extensive amount of
monitoring required for the numerous sampling probes which were utilized. Consequently,
a. Electricity requirements are reduced as a result of different resistivities of the solids.
Amount of reduction depends upon sulfur content and injection stoichiometry.

b. Sluice water is dependent upon disposal system design rather than total solids disposal.
-------
L-23
projections of operating labor are somewhat lower than incurred during the tests. Since
labor requirements are primarily a function of limestone throughput and on-stream time,
annual labor requirements at 8,760 hours/year (365 days) were estimated for four levels of
injection at full load. These base labor requirements were then adjusted according to
on-stream ratio using a 0.5 scaling exponent. The estimated labor breakdown at 8,760
hours/year and the adjusted total labor requirement for operation at 5,000 hours/year are
shown in table 6.
Tables
Estimated Labor Requirements
for Dry Limestone Injection Process
Estimated annual operating labor requirement,
man-hrs. at 8,760 hours operation/year
Limestone
throughput,
tons(dry)/hour
0-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
Heavy equipment
operator
(unloading)
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
Conveying,
feeding
and disposal
2,080
4,160
6,240
8,760
Plant
operation
8,760
8,760
8,760
8,760
Super-
vision
400
500
600
700
Adjusted total
operating labor
required man hours
at 5,000 hours
Total operation/year
13,320
15,500
17,680
20,300
10,070
11,720
13,370
15,350
Based on 1972 TVA labor rates (13), a composite operating rate of $6.00/hr
including overhead and supervisory expense is utilized for the evaluation. For the 52-case
study, labor costs are not escalated over the life of the project. However, the effect of
escalation at rates up to 10%/year is presented in Section II.
5. Maintenance - Solids drying and grinding usually are maintenance prone
operations. Although actual operating data over an extended period of time is the best
source of information for defining maintenance requirements, insufficient data was
generated during the Shawnee program to accurately define these costs. Maintenance costs
chargeable to the process are, therefore, estimates based on actual recorded data. For
purposes of this study, precipitator maintenance is estimated as two percent of the
precipitator fixed capital investment for 5,000 hours annual operation. A slightly higher
maintenance charge ranging from 3.1 - 3.5% is projected for the combined drying grinding,
injection, and solids disposal facilities. Specific areas which were maintenance prone, such as
the hydroveyors in the sluice system, were recognized in arriving at these figures.
Maintenance costs usually increase over the life of a project; however, in the case of
a power plant related system where on-stream time declines over the remaining life,
estimating maintenance as a percentage of investment for a given on-stream time will
probably suffice. Estimates for other on-stream times are scaled exponentially according to
on-stream ratio using a 0.6 scaling exponent. Using this method, the maintenance per unit
time increases over the project life as on-stream time decreases.
6. Overhead - Overheads are usually a complex function of plant and company size,
and product research and marketing staff, and are likely to vary slightly from installation to
installation. However, for consistency in the cost projections, a common method for
-------
L-24

estimating overheads was established. In all of the cost projections plant overhead is
estimated as 20% of conversion costs, and administrative overhead is estimated as 10% of
operating labor. Although-costs may vary widely for an actual installation, these projections
are representative of the expected values.
7. Thermal effect of dry limestone injection - When limestone is injected into a
boiler, the required coal-firing rate for the power unit is adversely affected by the level of
injection stoichiometry for each sulfur content and must be adjusted to maintain the same
power generating capacity prior to dry limestone injection. Based on operating data for
Shawnee unit 10, a coal-firing rate of 0.780 Ibs/kWh prior to injection is assumed for each
power plant size considered. This firing rate is adjusted upward to compensate for the
thermal effect of dry limestone injection as discussed in Appendix H, Additional Heat
Requirement Calculations. Costs for the additional coal are estimated and displayed on the
annual operating cost projections as the thermal effect of dry limestone injection on
operating cost of power plant. This charge is equivalent to a coal cost of $6.00/ton and a
processing cost of $0.30/ton, including incremental costs for grinding and conveying.
8. Analyses - Purchased limestone and waste solids are the only materials which
require analyses in the dry limestone injection process. Since both of these materials are
proportional, projections of analyses requirements are estimated on the basis of limestone
throughput. Based on Shawnee experience, approximately 1 hour/day or 208 hours/year at
an annual on-stream time of 5,000 hours is required for analyses at a limestone throughput
of 20 tons/hour. Requirements for other limestone rates are proportional to the relative
limestone usage. A rate of $10.00/hour including overhead, supplies, and supervisory
expense is projected for laboratory work.
9. Working capital - For projection purposes, working capital for the dry limestone
injection process may be estimated as the equivalent cost of a four weeks supply of raw
material (limestone). Although the magnitude of the estimated working capital required for
5,000 hours annual operation varies from $2,600 for a 50 MW, 0.8% S coal, 3.0 injection
stoichiometry installation to $153,000 for a 350 MW, 5.0% S coal, 4.0 injection
stoichiometry installation, the effect on annual and lifetime operating costs at a cost of
money of 10% is relatively small.
Lifetime Operating Costs—Under regulated economics, annual operating costs vary
each year as the rate base declines due to depreciation "write-off" (the cost of money and
income taxes are applied to undepreciated portion of investment); in addition, any changes
in on-stream time of the power unit must be recognized. For any given case it is desirable,
therefore, to have a year-to-year tabulation of operating costs. Furthermore, recognizing the
time value of money, these annual operating costs should be discounted at the cost of
money (10% for this study) to the initial year of operation for ready comparison of present
worth to other pollution control means such as the annual costs required for low sulfur
fuels.
The total life of a coal-fired power unit is about 30 years (5). For the 52 case
parametric study, lifetime operating costs are based on 15 years remaining life of the power
plant after installation of the dry limestone injection process; however, the effect of various
-------
L-25

other remaining lives is also studied. Historically, the operating usage of most power plants
declines toward the end of their life. To reflect this experience, the following declining load
operating profile is assumed during the remaining years of operation.:

Annual operation,
(on-stream time)
Plant age, Plant remaining hours at full
years life, years generating capacity

16-20 15-11 5,000
21-25 10-6 3,500
26-30 5-1 1,500
Lifetime operating cost analyses are extremely valuable in evaluation of regulated
investments. They are an accumulation of each year's cost and, therefore, are more
representative of actual outlays for process operation.
Since rate of investment profitability is prescribed under regulated economics, the
data generated by the tabulation of lifetime operating costs indicates the total effect of
pollution abatement on the cost of power to the consumer. Actual and present worth
lifetime costs are, therefore, projected for each of the cases as overall measures of process
economics. In addition, equivalent lifetime unit operating costs expressed as $/ton coal
burned, mills/kWh, and $/ton sulfur removed are presented.
-------
L-27

II. Summary of Results and Conclusions

Results of the 52 Case Parametric Study

Investment—The estimated total fixed investment requirements for the dry
limestone injection process are summarized in table 7 for each of the 52 cases established.
Abbreviated investment estimates which show the major area investment costs are given in
tables A-l to A-52 of Appendix A in Process Economics Section. It should be mentioned
that the system used in these projections is one of minimum cost, and may not be
compatible to all potential users of the process. The estimated investment requirements
would be higher for power plants which require additional pond facilities for disposal of
solids, or for systems with other combinations of existing dust collection facilities. The
effect of these additional requirements is discussed later.
Table 7
Total Fixed Investment Requirements for Dry Limestone Injection Process
Applied to Existing Power Units Equipped with
Mechanical and Electrostatic Dust Collectors in Series
Sulfur
in coal
%
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per
mole sulfur in coal
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Total fixed
50 MW
$
751,500
834,500
908,300
975,000
1,036,300
817,100
1,070,500
1,271,500
1,442,000
995,300
1,332,900
1,602,600
1,838,700
units
$/kW
15.0
16.7
18.2
19.5
20.7
16.3
21.4
25.4
28.8
19.9
26.7
32.1
36.8
150 MW
$
1,280,100
1,431,500
1,568,800
1,694,400
1,808,000
1,404,600
1,874,200
2,251,400
2,574,200
1,736,200
2,369,500
2,926,600
3,376,200
units
$/kW
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.3
12.1
9.4
12.5
15.0
17.2
11.6
15.8
19.5
22.5
investment
250 MW
$
1,695,100
1,868,100
2,086,100
2,253,600
2,407,700
1,865,600
2,498,900
3,011,400
3,498,000
2,314,500
3,221,100
3,968,400
4,582,000

units
$/kW
6.8
7.5
8.3
9.0
9.6
7.5
10.0
12.0
14.0
9.3
12.9
15.9
18.3

350 MW
$
2,032,300
2,278,800
2,503,200
2,707,700
2,893,300
2,238,600
3,005,900
3,676,800
4,262,100
2,782,700
3,927,000
4,766,400
5,645,500

units
$/kW
5.8
6.5
7.2
7.7
8.3
6.4
8.6
10.5
12.2
8.0
11.2
13.6
16.1
a. Fixed investment includes cost of additional electrostatic precipitator for reducing dust emission to same level obtained
prior to installation of dry limestone injection process. Additional pond disposal area not included.
The total fixed investment for the dry limestone injection process ranges from
$751,500 ($15.0/kW) for a 50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry
of 3.0 to $5,645,500 ($16.1/kW) for a 350 MW - 5.0% S coal-fired unit with an injection
stoichiometry of 4.0; however, unit investment costs vary from $5.8 to $36.8/kW depending
upon power unit size, sulfur in coal, and injection stoichiometry.
The effect of power unit size and injection stoichiometry on total dry limestone
process investment is shown in figures 8, 9, and 10 for the three variations in sulfur content
of coal. The relationship between sulfur content of coal and injection stoichiometry on total
fixed investment for a 150 MW power unit is presented in figure 11.
Relative investment cost distribution—The relative distribution of direct investment
costs for the three base cases is shown in table 8. As indicated, the limestone grinding
system and the incremental electrostatic precipitator system are the major investment items
for the process. Although the distribution of estimated costs varies somewhat for each of
-------
00
0
0
Power unit size, MW
Figure 8 . Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Total Dry
Limestone Process Investment: 0.8% S Coal
-------
2
.
•d
C -3
O J
(0
X
1-1
-------
oo
o
0
100
150 200

Power unit size, MW
350
Figure 10
Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stolen!ometry on Total Dry

Limestone Process Investment: $.0% 3 Coal
-------
I

Existing units
(9
c
O
43
G
V
5
0)

I
•o.
0>
X
i—• i
OS 1
-P
0
I
26.67
20.00 g
to

I
13.33
•8
X
•H

-------
                                         L-32
                                       Table 8

                  Relative Distribution of Projected Direct Investment
                       Costs for Dry Limestone Injection Process

                                           Relative  investment distribution,
                                            % of subtotal direct investment
       Process area
General yard work
Limestone storage and feed
  system
Limestone drying system
Limestone grinding system
Limestone injection system
Equipment foundations
Instrumentation
Piping
Electrical power supply
Revisions and additions to
  powerhouse and boiler
Incremental electrostatic
  precipitator system
Incremental solids disposal
  system
    Total direct investment
150MW-0.8%S
   5.0 stoich.
        1.3

        4.7
        7.7
      15.1
        9.9
        3.9
        3.7
        7.1
        6.2

        8.5

      22.8

        9.1
150 MW-3.0%S
   2.0 stoich.
       1.3

       5.5
       8.0
      16.5
       9.8
       4.1
       3.4
       7.3
       6.2

       8.7

      21.6

       7.6
150 MW - 5.0% S
   2.0 stoich.
      1.3

      6.5
      8.2
     18.3
      9.5
      4.5
      3.1
      7.5
      6.2

      8.9

     20.0

      6.0
     100.0
    100.0
   100.0
the 52 cases, these distributions indicate the relative contribution of each processing area to
the subtotal direct costs.
       Annual operating cost—Based on an annual operation of 5,000 hours/year, projected
operating cost results of the 52-case parametric study are summarized in tables 9, 10, and 11
for each  of the three levels of sulfur in coal. Detailed breakdowns of these projected annual
costs are  presented in tables A-53 through A-104 of Appendix A.
       Average annual operating costs range  from $298,400 ($3.05/ton coal burned) for a
50 MW  - 0.8% S coal-fired  unit  with an injection  stoichiometry of 3.0 to $4,122,700
($5.85/ton  coal  burned)  for  a  350  MW  5.0% S  coal-fired  unit  with  an  injection
stoichiometry of 4.0. Unit operating costs vary from $1.23 to $8.72/ton coal burned, or
from  0.48 to 3.51 mills/kWh.  Operating costs per ton of sulfur removed decrease with
increasing  power unit size and injection stoichiometry.  These  unit  costs  range  from
$316/ton sulfur  removed  for a 350  MW -  5.0% S  coal-fired unit with an  injection
stoichiometry of 4.0 to  $2,664/ton sulfur removed for a 50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit
with an injection stoichiometry of 3.0.
       Based on the results given in the tables, the effects of several variables on operating
costs are  presented graphically.

-------
                                      L-33
                                     Table 9

                  Average Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone
                    Injection Process Under Regulated Economics
                                 0.8% Sulfur Coal3
Power
unit
size, MW
50
50
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
250
350
350
350
350
350
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per mole
sulfur in coal
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Average
annual
cost, $
298,400
331,300
362,800
392,300
420,800
501,600
580,900
656,600
730,100
801,500
681,300
796,000
920,300
1,034,100
1,145,200
843,800
1,006,000
1,162,400
1,315,100
1,477,100
Unit
$/ton
coal
3.05
3.38
3.69
3.99
4.27
1.71
1.97
2.23
2.47
2.71
1.39
1.62
1.87
2.10
2.32
1.23
1.47
1.69
1.91
2.14
operating
mills
/kWh
1.19
1.33
1.45
1.57
1.68
0.67
0.78
0.88
0.97
1.07
0.55
0.64
0.74
0.83
0.92
0.48
0.58
0.66
0.75
0.84
cost
$/ton S
removal
2664
2301
1972
1816
1644
1529
1345
1207
1127
1054
1217
1106
998
958
895
1076
998
902
870
824
a.  Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life
   5000 hrs. operation/yr

-------
                                      L-34

                                     Table 10

                  Average Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone
                     Injection Process Under Regulated Economics
                                 3.0% Sulfur Coal3
Power
unit
size, MW
50
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
350
350
350
350
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per mole
sulfur in coal
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Average
annual
cost, $
323,100
435,100
536,400
631,700
561,800
835,200
1,091,400
1,337,300
773,100
1,197,800
1,612,100
2,018,100
965,900
1,547,400
2,120,500
2,667,100
Unit
$/ton
coal
3.30
4.42
5.42
6.36
1.91
2.83
3.68
4.48
1.58
2.43
3.26
4.06
1.41
2.25
3.06
3.83
operating
mills
/kWh
1.29
1.74
2.15
2.53
0.75
1.11
1.46
1.78
0.62
0.96
1.29
1.61
0.55
0.88
1.21
1.52
cost
$/ton S
removal
1188
800
651
576
695
512
443
406
568
440
391
368
507
406
368
348
a.  Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life
   5000 hrs. operation/yr

-------
                                      L-35

                                     Table 11

                  Average Annual Operating Cost for Dry Limestone
                    Injection Process Under Regulated  Economics
                                 5.0% Sulfur Coal3
Power
unit
size, MW
50
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
350
350
350
350
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per mole
sulfur in coal
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Average
annual
cost, $
399,300
569,300
726,400
878,000
748,000
1,174,500
1,611,000
2,012,800
1,061,200
1,762,000
2,426,800
3,081,500
1,351,200
2,307,000
3,198,800
4,122,700
Unit
$/ton
coal
4.06
5.74
7.27
8.72
2.54
3.95
5.38
6.66
2.16
3.56
4.86
6.12
1.96
3.33
4.57
5.85
operating
mills
/kWh
1.60
2.28
2.91
3.51
1.00
1.57
2.15
2.68
0.85
1.41
1.94
2.47
0.77
1.32
1.83
2.36
cost
$/ton S
removal
876
624
525
471
550
429
389
360
465
386
351
331
412
361
330
316
a.    Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life
     5000 hrs. operation/yr

-------
L-36

The effects of sulfur content of coal and injection stoichiometry on annual and unit
operating costs for a 150 MW installation are shown in figure 12. Figures 13, 14, and 15
indicate the relationship between power unit size, injection stoichiometry, and annual
operating costs for each of the three levels of sulfur. The effects of injection stoichiometry
and power unit size on unit operating cost expressed as both $/ton coal burned and
mills/kWh are indicated in figures 16 and 17 for 0.8 and 3.0% S coals. Although somewhat
higher costs are obtained, the relationship for 5.0% sulfur coal is similar. Unit operating
costs per ton of sulfur removed are shown in figures 18, 19, and 20 for each of the three
levels of sulfur in coal.
Relative operating cost distribution—The relative distribution of projected annual
operating costs for the three base cases at an annual on-stream time of 5,000 hours is shown
in table 12. As shown in the table, limestone cost and capital charges are the two most
prominent cost items. Although the relative cost distribution of each item changes
somewhat with variations in power unit size, sulfur content of fuel, and injection
stoichiometry, the other cost components are of minor importance in relation to the annual
costs for limestone and capital charges.
Lifetime operating cost—Based on the operating profile established for the 52 case
parametric study, lifetime operating costs were projected. Results of these projections are
summarized in tables 13, 14, and 15 for the three levels of sulfur in coal. Computer
print-outs which show the year-to-year operating costs corresponding to these lifetime
projections are presented in tables A-105 to A-156 of Appendix A. In addition to the actual
outlay annual values shown in these printouts, both actual and discounted overall total costs
and unit costs either per ton of coal burned or mills per kilowatt hour are presented.
Lifetime operating costs range from $3,909,400 (present worth = $2,223,900) fora
50 MW - 0.8% S coal-fired unit with an injection stoichiometry of 3:0 to $47,281,000
(present worth = $27,443,100) for a 350 MW - 5.0% S coal-fired unit with arrinjection
stoichiometry of 4.0. Lifetime unit operating costs are somewhat higher than average annual
operating costs due to the pronounced effect of the declining operating profile assumed for
the power plant.
The effect of power unit size and injection stoichiometry on (1) lifetime total
operating cost, (2) lifetime unit operating cost, $/ton coal burned and (3) lifetime unit
operating cost, $/ton sulfur removed, is shown in figures 21, 22, and 23, respectively, for a
0.8% S coal-fired installation. Both present worth and actual costs are indicated over the
complete range of injection stoichiometries utilized for the parametric study. Figures 24,
25, and 26 show similar relationships for a 3.0% S coal-fired installation with an injection
stoichiometry of 2.0. Relationships for a 5.0% S coal-fired installation with an injection
stoichiometry of 2.0 are shown in figures 27, 28, and 29.

-------
o>
O
•a
Ui
C
O
-p
(0
o
o
a
•H
-P
 0)
       Existing  units

       5QOO hrs annual  operation

       Regulated economics
   2.0
   1-5
1.0
   0.5
   0
       o
6.76
                                                                                     1
                                                                                5.07
3.38
                                                                                1.69
                                                                                     -P
                                                                                     CO
                                                                                     O
                                                                                     o
                                                                                         I
                                                                                        -p
                                                                                        •H
                                                                                        a
        Figure   12
                             23            ^5

                                Sulfur in coal, %


                    Effect of Sulfur Content of Coal and Injection Stoichiometry

                    on Annual and  Unit Operating Cost of Dry Limestone

                    Process:  150  MW Units
2.67
          2.00
1.33
          0.67
                                                                                                   (0

                                                                                                   rH
                .p
                s
                o
                &0
                                                                                                   g
                                                                                                o

                                                                                                •p
                                                                                                T-l

                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                    00
                                                                                                                    •vj

-------
        Existing units
        5000 hr. annual operation
        Regulated economics
0
   0
       100          150         200

       Power unit size, MW
                                                                                                               r
                                                                                                               CAJ
                                                                                                               00
    Figure
Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Annual
Operating Coat of Dry Limestone Process:  0.8# S Coal

-------
w
r-t
O
TJ

-------
 10
 fH
 43
 I
 •H
 tn
 o  2
 o
H

I
                   I            I
         Existing units
         5000 hr. annual operation
         Regulated economics
      0
Figure _1*
                      100
   150          200

Power unit size, MW
                      Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Annual
                      Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process:  5.0% S Coal
-------
                I            I
        Existing units
        5000 hr annual operation
        Regulated economics
\
 n)
 o
 u
 4J
 o
 o
 0)
 0.
 o
                I
                              350 tf* units
I
                                                                               5.16
                                                                               2.36
                                                                               1.58
                                                         m
                                                                                     m
                                                                                     O
                                                                                     V
                                                         •H

                                                         0)

                                                         V

                                                         O

                                                         -u
                                                   0.79
               34            5678
                Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal

    Figure  l£  .  Effect of Injection Stoichiometry and Power Unit Size on
                   Unit Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process:  0.8$ S Coal
-------
                             T
         Existing units
         5000 hr annual operation
         Regulated economics
-a
8
 O
 O

 §
4J
•OT-
4J
CO
O
U
v-4
J-l
n)
M
                                                     1
                                                                  I
                                                                                3.16
                                                                                2.36
                                                                                1.58
                                                                                       I
                                                                                       w
                                                                                       •u
                                                                                       oj
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       o

                                                                                       (90
                                                                                       c
                                                                                       co


                                                                                       o
                                                                                       -P
                                                                                 0.79
       Figure
                 12345
              Stoichiometry,  moles CaO injected per mole S  in  coal


               17  .   Effect of Injection Stoichiometry and  power Unit Size on
                      Unit Operating Cost of Dry Limestone Process:   3.0$ S Coal
-------
§  2500
•3
to
   2000
-P
CO
o
o

1
-p
S

I
   1500
   1000
    500
        0
        Figure
                                                                     I             I
                                                                 Existing units
                                                                 5000 hrs annual  operation
                                                                 Regulated economics
                                                                                                                u>
                    50
100          150         200

         Power unit size, MW
250
300
350
                       Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone
                       Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed:  0.8$ S Coal
-------
 §2000
 CO
 §1500
-^
 •%
•p
8
o
glooo
•H
-p
g
•p
B  500
                                                                   Existing units
                                                                   5000 hrs annual operation
                                                                   Regulated economics
   1.0  Injection stoichiometry
0          50
                               100         150          200

                                        Pover unit size, MW
                                             250
300
350
       Figure   19
Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone
Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed:  3.0$ S Coal
-------
I
1 800
DO


g
8
o
bO
C
2
(U
&
  14-00
   200
                                                                 Existing units
                                                                 5000 hrs annual operation
                                                                 Regulated economies
                                                                                                              en
       0
        Figure  20
                              100
                                          150         200         250
                                                 Power Unit size, MW
300
350
                       Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone
                       Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed:  5.0$ S Coal
-------
                                      L-46

                                      Table 12

                   Relative Distribution of Projected Operating Costs
                         for Dry Limestone Injection Process

                                150 MW-0.8%S   150 MW - 3.0% S   150 MW - 5.0%
                                   5-Ostoich.         2.0stoich.        2.0stoich.
DIRECT COSTS
Delivered raw material

  Limestone                            25.2               29.8              35.6

Conversion costs

  Operating labor and
   supervision                            9.2                7.2               5.2

  Utilities
Fuel oil
Sluice water
Electricity
Maintenance
Drying, grinding,
injection & solids
disposal area
Dust collection
Analyses
INDIRECT COSTS
Average capital charges
Overhead
Plant
Administrative
Thermal effect of dry limestone
injection on operating cost of
power plant
Total operating cost
3.6
1.2
3.4

6.1
1.1
0.2
42.1
4.9
0.9
2.1
100.0
4.3
1.0
3.8

5.8
1.0
0.2
39.5
4.6
0.7
2.1
100.0
5.1
0.7
4.5

5.2
0.8
0.1
35.5
4.3
0.5
2.5
100.0
-------
                                                           Table 13
                                           Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone
                                          Injection Process Under Regulated Economics
                                                       0.8% Sulfur Coal3
                                                 Lifetime operating cost
                         Cumulative present worth of net
                            increase in cost of power.
Power
unit
size, MW
50
50
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
250
350
350
350
350
350
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per
mole sulfur in coal
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
(net increase

$
3,909,400
4,326,400
4,715,000
5,081,600
5,428,600
6,489,000
7,438,200
8,337,700
9,200,500
10,030,300
8,715,800
10,038,500
11,505,000
12,818,800
14,087,600
10,696,900
12,562,700
14,358,000
16,096,400
17,930,200
$/ton
coal
3.99
4.41
4.80
5.16
5.51
2.21
2.53
2.83
3.12
3.39
1.78
2.05
2.34
2.61
2.86
1.56
1.83
2.09
2.34
2.60
in cost of Power)

mills/kWh
1.56
1.73
1.89
2.03
2.17
0.87
0.99
1.11
1.23
1.34
0.70
0,80
0.92
1.03
1.13
0.61
0.72
0.82
0.92
1.02
$/ton
S removed
3491
3004
2563
2353
2121
1978
1722
1533
1420
1320
1556
1394
1251
1187
1101
1364
1246
1115
1065
1001
discounted at 10%/yr

$
2,223,900
2,464,300
2,689,400
2,901,100
3,102,100
3,712,400
4,262,400
4,784,000
5,284,900
5,766,600
4,999,800
5,768,300
6,619,100
7,382,400
8,120,000
6,146,600
7,230,600
8,274,100
9,285,400
10,347,900
$/ton
coal
2.27
2.51
2.74
2.95
3.15
1.26
1.45
1.62
1.79
1.95
1.02
1.18
1.35
1.50
1.65
0.90
1.05
1.20
1.35
1.50

mills/kWh
0.89
0.99
1.08
1.16
1.24
0.49
0.57
0.64
0.70
0.77
0.40
0.46
0.53
0.59
0.65
0.35
0.41
0.47
0.53
0.59
$/ton
S removed
1986
1711
1462
1343
1212
1132
987
879
816
759
893
801
719
684
634
784
717
642
614
577
a.  Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile:
5 yr @ 5000 hr/yr
5 yr @ 3500 hr/yr
5yr @ 1500 hr/yr
-------
                                                            Table 14

                                             Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone
                                           Injection Process Under Regulated Economics
                                                        3.0% Sulfur Coal3
                                                  Lifetime operating cost
Cumulative present worth of net
   increase in cost of power,
Power
unit
size, MW
50
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
350
350
350
350
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per
mole sulfur in coal
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
(net

$
4,227,100
5,607,200
6,826,500
7,955,200
7,220,700
10,438,200
13,388,600
16,181,700
9,808,700
14,708,000
19,404,000
23,965,700
12,121,000
18,751,600
25,199,100
31,268,000
increase
$/ton
coal
4.31
5.70
6.90
8.00
2.46
3.53
4.51
5.43
2.00
2.99
3.92
4.82
1.77
2.72
3.64
4.49
in cost of Power)

mills/kWh
1.69
2.24
2.73
3.18
0.96
1.39
1.79
2.16
0.78
1.18
1.55
1.92
0.69
1.07
1.44
1.79
$/ton
S removed
1554
1031
828
726
894
640
543
491
721
541
471
437
637
492
437
408
discounted at 10%/yr

$
2,406,900
3,205,200
3,911,300
4,565,900
4,135,700
6,002,800
7,717,400
9,342,200
5,633,500
8,480,000
11,207,900
13,863,600
6,973,000
10,824,500
14,573,700
18,110,200
$/ton
coal
2.46
3.26
3.95
4.59
1.41
2.03
2.60
3.13
1.15
1.72
2.27
2.79
1.02
1.57
2.10
2.60

mills/kWh
0.96
1.28
1.56
1.83
0.55
0.80
1.03
1.25
0.45
0.68
0.90
1.11
0.40
0.62
0.83
1.03
$/ton
S removed
885
589
475
417
512
368
313
283
414
312
272
253
366
284
253
236
a.  Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile: 5 yr @ 5000 hr/yr
                                                                5 yr @ 3500 hr/yr
                                                                5 yr @ 1500 hr/yr
-------
                                                           Table 15

                                            Lifetime Operating Cost for Dry Limestone
                                          Injection Process Under Regulated Economics
                                                      5.0% Sulfur Coal3
                                                 Lifetime operating cost
                         Cumulative present worth of net
                            increase in cost of power,
Power
unit
size, MW
50
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
350
350
350
350
Injection stoichiometry,
moles CaO injected per
mole sulfur in coal
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
(net

$
5,172,200
7,219,100
9,067,100
10,830,500
9,423,500
14,341,700
19,304,000
23,788,000
13,152,300
21,118,800
28,537,000
35,742,200
16,533,600
27,296,600
37,086,500
47,281,000
increase
$/ton
coal
5.26
7.28
9.08
10.76
3.20
4.82
6.44
7.87
2.68
4.26
5.71
7.10
2.40
3.94
5.30
6.71
in cost of Power)

mills/kWh
2.07
2.89
3.63
4.33
1.26
1.91
2.57
3.17
1.05
1.69
2.28
2.86
0.94
1.56
2.12
2.70
$/ton
S removed
1134
792
655
581
693
524
466
425
577
463
412
384
518
428
383
362
discounted at 10%/yr

$
2,953,500
4,139,200
5,211,300
6,235,100
5,413,800
8,271,800
11,153,800
13,765,400
7,575,100
12,204,500
16,526,400
20,723,500
9,538,500
15,799,300
21,504,200
27,443,100
$/ton
coal
3.00
4.18
5.22
6.19
1.84
2.78
3.72
4.56
1.54
2.46
3.31
4.12
1.39
2.28
3.08
3.89

mills/kWh
1.18
1.66
2.08
2.49
0.72
1.10
1.49
1.84
0.61
0.98
1.32
1.66
0.55
0.90
1.23
1.57
$/ton
S removed
648
454
377
335
398
302
269
246
332
268
239
222
305
247
222
210
                                                                                                                                    (£>
a.  Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life. Assumed operating profile:
5 yr @ 5000 hr/yr
5 yr @ 3500 hr/yr
5yr @ 1500 hr/yr
-------
 CO
 h
 at
 O
•O
 to
 a
 o

    20
    15
3   10
Pi
o
0

-P
     5 —
	 Actual dollars
-— Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr
Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life
Regulated economics
                                                                                                                 tn
                                                                                                                 o
                                        Power unit size, MW

        Figure  21  .  Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection  Stoichiometry on Lifetime
                       Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone  Injection:  0.8$ S Coal
-------
c

I
r-l
8
O
C
o
•p
00
o
o
    8
           	 Actual dollars
           -— Present worth if discounted at 10^6 to initial yr
           Existing  units  -  15 yrs  remaining life
           Regulated economics
o
-p
•U
V
                                 Injection Stoichiometry
    01
                              100         150          200

                                        Power  unit  size,  MW
                                                                  250
300
350
      Figure   22
                     Effect of  Power Unit Size  and Injection Stoichiometry  on  Dry  Limestone
                     Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of  Plant:
                     0.8^ S Coal
-------
 •o
 0)
4>
h
    4000
 eg

 C
 O
(0
O
u
CD
M

&
O
    5000
    2000
    1000
•P

Vi
•H
H3
             	 Actual dollars
             — Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr
             Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life
             Regulated economics
                      3  Injection Stoichiometry
                                100
                                           150
200
250
300
350
                                          Power unit size, MW
          Figure
                        Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone
                        Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed  Over Life of Plant:
                        0.8# S Coal
-------
CO
     20
    HI             I            I
	 Actual dollars
--- Present worth if  discounted at 10% to initial yr
Existing units - 15 yrs  remaining life
Regulated economics
2.0 injection stoichiometry
e
o
•H
+3
(0
 «J
 0)

•H
4->
 V
Vi
     10
                                                                                                                CJI
                                                                                                                CO
                               100
                               150         200


                             Power unit size,  MW
250
300
350
          Figure
           Effect  of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Lifetime
           Increase  in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection:   J.0# S Coal
-------
                 Actual dollars
     8
 a
 o
 v
 c
 o
•P
W
O
o
01
IH
•»
P.
O
§

0>
V

•rl
1-3
— Present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr
Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life
Regulated economics
2.0 injection stoichiotnetry
                                                                                                  en
                              100
                             150
200
250
500
550
                                         Power  unit  size,  MW
        Figure   25 •  Effect of Power Unit Size  and  Injection Stoichiooetry on Dry Limestone
                       Process Operating Cost  Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of Plant-
                       5.0# s Coal
-------
                                 T
                                                          T
?
1
CO

c
O
-P
-P
0>
O
O

8P
•H
-p

2
O

J->
•H
C


-------
 CO
 to

A
<-4
 O
•o
c
O
-p
ea
O
v
-U
«5
V.

&
O
V
4-4
      I             I            I            I

	 Actual dollars
--- Present worth  if discounted  at  lO^t to  initial yr
Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life
Regulated economics
2.0 injection stoichiometry
    20
                                                                                                      cr>
                                                          MW
                         Effect of Power Unit Size and  Injection Stoichiometry on Lifetime
                         Increase in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection:  5.0$ S Coal
-------
 
 4)
 -4J

 V
            	 Actual dollars

            	 Present worth if discounted  at  10# to initial yr

            Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life

            Regulated economics

            2.0 injection stoichiometry
       Figure
                   150         200



                 Power unit size, MW



Effect of Power Unit Size and Injection Stoichiometry on Dry Limestone

Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of  Plant:

5.0$ S Coal
-------
 o
 e
 
-------
                                         L-59
                             Results of Sensitivity Analyses

       Sensitivities of the dry limestone injection process investment and operating costs to
variations in several of the major factors are discussed below.
       1. Sootblowers—The effect  of additional sootblower  requirements on total  fixed
capital investment  for  the  three base case installations is shown in  table 16. For  these
projections, a total installed cost of $40,000 each including indirect costs was  utilized.
These results indicate that total  investment  requirements are increased less than 10% with
installation of up to four additional sooblowers. Although total operating costs were not
established,  capital  charges  account for  an  increase   in  annual  operating  costs  of
approximately $7,000 for each.
       2. Particle size of injected limestone—The dry grinding and classifying equipment at
Shawnee were designed and operated at various  limestone size reduction capabilities so the
effect of particle size on  SO2 removal could be  determined. Two levels of grind, 80% - 400
mesh and  50% - 400 mesh, were given greatest attention. Although  the Shawnee data was
limited  and is not totally conclusive, directional results of these and other investigations
indicate that increased  SO2  removal efficiencies  are obtained with injection of finer ground
limestone.  To determine the sensitivity  of  limestone  particle size on  process economics,
investment and operating cost data for three levels of grind at various throughput capacities
were established (2). Results shown in figure  30 indicate that the investment required  for
grinding to 80% - 400 mesh is about 35-40% greater than that required for grinding to 80% -
200 mesh; however,  the higher grinding  capability  increases  total   process investment
approximately 7-10%.
        Operating cost results shown in figures 31 and 32 indicate that overall grinding costs
are approximately  25-30% higher for the fine  grind facilities.  The effect of higher levels of
grind on overall process costs is  realtively small  because grinding costs are^only 5-6% of  the
total operating cost.
        It should be noted that,  based on the  limited Shawnee data  using stones of varying
hardness, grindability is not a significant cost factor.
        3.  Particulate removal alternatives—The particulate collection facilities on Shawnee
unit  10 consist of  a  65% effective mechanical collector followed  by  a  90%  effective
electrostatic  precipitator. This system which has an overall fly ash collection efficiency of
97% was designed, installed, and placed into  operation  prior to  installation of  the  dry
limestone injection process.
        Additional  solids collection  capacity was not  installed for  the injection  tests;
however, performance data with and without  dry limestone  injection  were derived  for
estimating incremental requirements and costs.
        Although  EPA has  not  promulgated particulate  emission  standards  for  existing
power  units, many  states  and  local governing bodies  have. In many cases, particulate
removal  efficiencies  greater than 97%  are  required.  For  the lack  of a better basis, it  is
assumed that these  regulations  will  require plants utilizing dry  limestone  injection to
maintain particulate emissions at a level equivalent to  that obtained prior  to installation of
-------
                 Table 16

Effect of Additional Sootblower Requirements
     on Total Fixed Capital Investment:
           150 MW Power Units
                   Power unit installation
No. of
additional
sootblowers
required
0
1
2
3
4
0.8 %S
Total
process
investment
1,568,800
1,608,800
1,648,800
1,688,800
1,728,800
- 5.0 stoichiometry
Sootblower cost
sensitivity, % of
total investment
0.0
2.5
4.9
7.1
9.3
3.0% S
Total
process
investment
1,874,200
1,914,200
1,954,200
1,994,200
2,034,200
- 2.0 stoichiometry
Sootblower cost
sensitivity, % of
total investment
0.0
2.1
4.1
6.0
7.9
5.0% S
Total
process
investment
2,369,500
2,409,500
2,449,500
2,489,500
2,529,500
- 2.0 stoichiometry
Sootblower cost
sensitivity, % of
total investment
0.0
1.7
3.3
4.8
6.3
-------
to
*4
0)
o
•o
05
CO
o
JS
4i
c
s

•H
00
O
EH
                    I
              Existing  units
    800
    600
    400
    200
                    10
         Figure
                                15          20           25           30

                               Grinding capacity, tons/hour

                         Effect of Limestone Grinding Capacity  and Fineness of Grind
                         on Total Grinding System Investment:   Dry Limestone Injection
                         Process
-------
              Existing units. • 15 yrs remaining life
              Regulated economics
              5000 hrs/yr operation
£   250

o
CD
as
to
-P
CO
O
O
   200
   150
I
05  100
                  10
       15          20           25

      Grinding capacity, tons/hour
30
        Figure
Effect of Limestone Grinding Capacity and Fineness of  Grind
on Annual Operating Cost for Grinding:  Dry Limestone
Injection Process
-------
           Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life

           Regulated economics

           5000  hrs/yr operation
0)

c
o
4J
«0
c
o  3
-u
to
o
o
*
•H



•H


to


•P
                                                                                                          a>
                                                                                                          oo
                 10
     Figure
        15          20          25           JO



      Grinding capacity, tons/hour



Effect of Limestone Grinding Capacity and Fineness  of Grind

on Unit Grinding Cost:  Dry Limestone Injection  Process
-------
                                         L-64

the process.  For consistency  in the evaluation,  a dust removal efficiency of 99% prior to
injection or an outlet grain emission of 0.03 gr/acf is assumed.
        From their study  of electrostatic precipitator  performance during the Shawnee Dry
Limestone Injection test  program,  Cottrelt  Environmental  Systems,  Inc.1   reported  five
separate alternatives which may  be considered  for  design  of additional dust  collection
facilities, including:
    1.  Size modification  of the presently installed dust collecting system.
    2.  Installation of a "hot" precipitator.
    3.  Gas  cooling ahead  of the  dust  collecting  system  (in  conjunction  with  size
        modification).
    4.  Gas  conditioning  ahead of the dust collecting  system (in conjunction with  size
        modification).
    5.  Electrical energization of the precipitator.
 Based  on  their study, CES  indicates  that  with gas  cooling ahead of the dust collecting
 system (alternative  3), the least additional  precipitator plate area might be required. Their
 results, however,  do  not include costs  for  gas cooling  facilities, nor do they represent
 carefully researched data needed for  design  modifications of  such a  system. Since design
 requirements for the other alternatives are also speculative at this time, size modifications of
 the presently installed  dust collecting system (alternative 1) is considered the most practical
 method for  meeting additional dust removal requirements for existing power plants.  The
 Shawnee  test  data  were used by  Cottrell  Environmental  Systems,   Inc.,  to  estimate
 incremental  precipitator  investment requirements  based on increasing the precipitator plate
 area  for a 150  MW  unit with any one of the following four combinations of dust collectors
 prior to limestone injection:
                                                           Overall fly ash
                                                         collection efficiency
                    Dust collector type                    prior to injection, %
             1. No collection devices                                0
             2. Mechanical collector                                65
             3. Electrostatic collector                               99
             4. Mechanical and electrostatic
                collectors in series                                 99
     1.  Brown,  R.  F. "Report and  Analysis  of Field  Tests at Shawnee  Station of TV A,
 Including a Techno-Economic Evaluation  of  Options for Maintaining the Stack Emission
 Rate with  Limestone Injection Equivalent  to  a  Baseline of No Limestone Injection." Final
 draft  prepared  by Cottrell Environmental  Systems,  Inc., for the Environmental Protection
 Agency,  Contract  No. CPA 22-69-139, Particulates  Collection Study, TVA Dry Limestone
 Tests. October 31, 1972.
-------
                                        L-65
       Assuming a final outlet  grain loading of 0.03 gr/acf after injection for each sulfur
content and stoichiometry, the  estimated fixed investment requirements are tabulated in
table 17 and are shown graphically in figures 33 through 36 for the various combinations of
existing collection  facilities. Depending  on  the dust removal capability existing prior to
injection, incremental dust collection investment could cover a wide range, as much as 2.4
times that  projected in the case study (mechanical and electrostatic in series). Assuming no
collection  devices existing  prior  to   injection,  total   process  investment  could   be
approximately 28% higher than estimated in the parametric evaluation.
       4.  Disposal  costs—In the 52-case parametric  study, additional pond facilities were
not provided since the availability and  cost of additional  space depends upon  the actual
plant location.  In many cases, some additional disposal area will  be necessary, and these
additional  investment  costs  should be added to  the  dry limestone  injection  process
investment.
       Figure 37 shows the relationship between the incremental annual disposal burden
and  the projected pond disposal costs incorporated in the parametric study. As this figure
indicates, the projected disposal expense decreases with increasing solids disposal burden to
a cost  less  than  $0.50/ton  of solids. For the three base cases, these costs range from 4.6 to
5.1% of the total process  operating cost. As an indication  of the effect of higher disposal
costs, a charge of $2.00/ton of solids would result  in overall  disposal costs ranging from 7 to
15% of the projected annual operating costs for these cases.
       5. Raw material costs—Since limestone cost is one of the major operating expenses,
the sensitivity of price on annual operating cost was determined. Figure 38 shows the effect
of injection stoichiometry and delivered limestone price on the annual and unit operating
costs for a 150 MW, 3.0% S coal-fired installation.  At a stoichiometry of 4.0, a $2.00 change
in the price of limestone results in a 20-30% change in annual costs.
       The effect  of  power  unit  size and  delivered limestone  price on  annual and unit
operating costs for the process are shown in figures 39 and 40.
-------
                                                        Table 1 7

                                     Incremental Electrostatic Precipitator Invesetment3
                                     Required to Maintain Outlet Particulate Loading of
                                            0.03 gr/acf on 1 50 MW Power Units
                                             Utilizing Dry Limestone Injection
                   Injection stoichiometry,
 Sulfur in        moles CaO injected per mole
 coal,%         	sulfur in coal	

    0.8                      3.0
    0.8                      4.0
    0.8                      5.0
    0.8                      6.0
    0.8                      7.0
                     None

                      763
                      778
                      794
                      808
                      824
               Incremental electrostatic precipitator costs,
           thousands of dollars, for power units equipped with
              the following existing dust collection facilities3	
                                                      99% Eff.
                                                   Mechancial  and
                                                 electrostatic collectors
                                                       in series
 65% Eff.
Mechanical
 collector

    582
    601
    619
    635
    648
  99% Eff.
Electrostatic
  collector

    408
    423
    439
    453
    469
                                                         321
                                                         339
                                                         358
                                                         373
                                                         386
                                                                                        cr>
                                                                                        CTi
    3.0
    3.0
    3.0
    3.0

    5.0
    5.0
    5.0
    5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0

1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
 790
 843
 886
 924

 831
 905
 967
1021
    606
    666
    716
    753

    653
    734
    797
    852
    435
    488
    531
    569

    476
    550
    612
    666
345
405
454
491

392
473
535
591
a.  Including indirects
b.  Assumes coal with 16% ash
-------
  1.2
to

§
•1-1
   .8
CO
a)
>

•So. 6
"8
  0.4
                                         T
T
           150 MW units

           Fly ash loading:^. 23 gr/acf

           Outlet loading after dust collection  - O.05  gr/acf
                                                                                                 CTl
     02468

      Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal



      Figure  33  .  Investment Requirements for Adding Incremental

                     Electrostatic Precipitator to Power Plant without

                     Collectors:  Dry Limestone Injection Process
-------
  1.0
•§ 0.8


o

en

O
•H
iH
i-l

ll 0.6
•S 0.4
-------
  0.8
en
M
rt
*gO,6
w
o
 .0.4
CO
!
•gO. 2
x
                             T
                    T
          150 MW units
          Ftyash loading - 3.23 gr/acf
          Outlet loading after duet collection - O.OJ gr/acf
                                                                             CD
                                                                             IO
     02468
          Stoichiometry, moles CaO injected per mole S in coal
      Figure   55  .
Investment Requirements for Adding Incremental
Electrostatic Precipitator to Power Plant Having
an Existing 99$ Effective Precipitator:  Dry
Limestone Injection Process
-------
 10
 h
A
r-i
 o
•o
w
8
c
0)
*i
10
I
T3
0>
0.8
                    I            I            I            I

               150 MH units
               fly ash loadings 3.23 gr/acf
               Outlet loading after dust collection - 0.03 gr/acf
0.6
   0.2
                                                                                                    -j
                                                                                                    o
                    2           U           6            8
            Stoichiometry,  moles CaO injected per mole S in coal
         Figure
                    Investment Requirements for Adding Incremental
                    Electrostatic Precipitator to Power  Plant Having
                    an Existing 99$ Effective Combination  of Mechanical
                    and Electrostatic Collectors:  Dry Limestone  Injection
                    Process
-------
     600
                     T
                            T
T
T
r-l
o
•O
CO

•s
ol
m
3
CO
o
o
OS
CO

a
•J
•rt
•O

(O
•O
O
TO
§
c
                    Annual  costs  for solids disposal to pond
                    excluding cost of pond

                    Variable  solids disposal costs
500
400
300
200
     100
         0
          Figure
                50          100         1-50         200         250


                 Incremental solids disposal burden, M tons/year


               _.   Effect of Incremental Solids Disposal Burden on Annual
                    Disposal Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Solids
                                    300
-------
            Existing  150  MW units

            5000 hrs  annual operation

            Regulated economics
   2.0
 o
T>
W
e
o
CO
o
o

oo
Pi
» i.o
0)
CU
O
fl




.§0.5
                                                                                  2.67
                                                                
-------
 Existing units
 2.0 injection stoichiometry
 5000 hrs annual operation
 Regulated economics
                                                                                                       co
         50
Figure  39  »
      100
      150        200
Power unit size,  MW
250
300
350
Effect of Power Unit Size and Delivered Limestone Cost  on Annual
Operating Cost for Dry Limestone Injection Process:   3.0$ S  Coal
-------
•o

8
 a
 o
 -p

-66-
-p
CO
O
D

00
a
•H
-p


2
    5-0
    3-0
B  2.0
    1.0
           Existing units

           2.0 injection stoichiometry

           5000 hrs annual operation

           Regulated economics
         0
         Figure
                               100
150         200         250

       Power unit size, MW
300
                                                —  1.97
                                                                                            _  1.58
                                                                                                      CO
                                                          (0
                                                          O
                                                          o


                                                    1.18  Jf

                                                          -p

                                                          g
                                                          
-------
                                         L-75
       6.  Annual  on-stream time—The  effect of variations in process  on-stream time on
annual operating costs are shown in figure 41 for three plant sizes at various sulfur levels of
fuel. As illustrated, the cost effect is much more pronounced for  large  plants using high
sulfur coal. Figure 42 shows the effect of on-stream time on unit  operating costs per ton of
sulfur removed. These unit operating costs decrease with increased on-stream time and  are
much higher for the low MW and low sulfur applications. This result is partially the effect of
greater economy of scale for operating the larger installations; however, the largest factor is
the reduced SO2 absorption efficiency attained for low sulfur coal.
       7- Operation at half load—In  the dry limestone injection test program, higher sulfur
dioxide removal efficiencies were observed during operation of the power unit at half load.
To determine the  effect of these higher efficiencies on unit operating costs, projections are
made for  a 150 MW unit operating at full and half load assuming various  annual on-stream
hours. The resulting  unit  operating costs  are  shown  in  figures  43  and 44.  Although
approximately 50% lower operating costs per ton of sulfur removed are projected at reduced
load, the  costs per ton of coal burned are about the same. The operational  costs at half load
do not include a charge  for power generating capacity  intentionally idled  to increase
absorption which, if  assessed,  would  make  half-load operation more costly  per unit of
electricity generated.
       8. Remaining life of  plant—figures 45 through 47 show the  effect of remaining  life
of the power plant  on lifetime total and unit operating costs for various megawatt sizes.
Similar relationships indicating the effect of remaining life  of power plant on lifetime total
and unit operating costs for various sulfur levels are given in  figures 48 through 50.
       Although total operating costs increase as a result of greater operation, these results
show  that  unit   operating  costs  for  power  plants  with  10  years  remaining life  are
approximately half of similar unit  costs for plants with 5 years remaining  life. This result is
attributed primarily to the increased annual  capital charge rate resulting from operation for
fewer years plus the difference in tons of coal burned or sulfur  removed.
       9.  Labor  cost  escalation—To  determine the  effect  of  escalating  labor  rates on
lifetime  operating costs for  dry  limestone injection, projections  assuming annual  labor
escalation rates varying from 0 to  10.0%/year were made. The results, presented in table 18
and figure 51, show that lifetime operating costs for dry limestone injection are not greatly
increased as  a result  of  labor  cost  escalation.  Lifetime unit operating  costs range from
$3.53/ton of coal burned  assuming  no escalation  to  $3.95/ton at an escalation rate of
10%/year for the  remaining  15-year life of the plant. At the higher escalation rate, lifetime
costs are approximately 11.8% higher than projected costs excluding escalation.
-------
                                            Table 18

                Effect of Annual Labor Escalation Rates on Lifetime Operating Cost for
                    Dry Limestone Injection Process Under Regulated Economics -
                      1 50 MW Unit, 3.0% S in Coal, 2.0 Injection Stoichiometry a
Annual
labor
escalation
rate
%
0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
Total increase
in lifetime Cumulative present worth of net
operating cost increase in cost of power
Lifetime operating cost resulting from discounted at 10%/yr

$
10,438,
10,669,
10,944,
11,275,
11,670,


200
100
700
500
700
$/ton
coal
3.53
3.61
3.71
3.82
3.95
mills/
kWh
2.03
2.06
2.10
2.15
2.20
$/ton S
removed
640
654
671
691
715
escalation,
%
_
2.2
4.9
8.0
11.8

$
6,002
6,097
6,206
6,335
6,484


,800
,300
,900
,300
,800
$/ton
coal
1.39
1.42
1.46
1.50
1.56
mills/
kWh
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.86
$/ton S
removed
368
374
380
388
397
                                                                                                                              -J
                                                                                                                              en
a.  Existing units - 15 yrs. remaining life.  Assumed operating profile:
5 yr at 5000 hr/yr
5 yr at 3500 hr/yr
5 yr at 1500 hr/yr
-------
a
h
A
r-i
o
•o
w

o
•u
w
o
u
-p
to
fn
V
P<
O
SJ


c
              Existing units - 15 yrs remaining life

              Regulated economics
2.0
     1.5 —
     1.0
0.5
                       50 MW
                       , 0.8* S, 3.0 stolen^
         0
               1000
2000        3000        UOOO


     On-stream time, hrs
5000
           Figure  41  .  Effect of Annual On-Stream Time at Pull Load on Annual

                          Operating Cost for Various Size Dry Limestone Injection

                          Process Installations
-------
                                    Existing  units  -  15 yrs  remaining  life

                                    Regulated economics
8000
•o


I
v
w   6000
c
                           50 MW units,  0.8# S,  J.O  injection stoichiometry
m
O
o

bO
C
1*000
                                                                                                            00
&
o

4J
•H

B
2000
       0
                                               0* S, 2.0 stoich
                    1000
2000        JOCK)         UOOO


     On-stream time, hrs
                                                                 5000
          Figure
                     Effect of Annual On-Stream Time  at Full Load on Unit

                     Operating Cost Per Ton  of Sulfur Removed for Various

                     Size Dry Limestone Injection Process  Installations
-------
                                                                       T
     2000
§
                                       Existing unit - 15 yrs remaining life
                                       ?.O=t S coal
                                       2.0 injection stoichiometry
                                       Regulated economics
 CO

 e
 Q
 «^

^
to
O
o
2
4)
&
     1500
     1000
      500
                                                                      1
                   150,000     300,000     450,000      600,000

                              Annual power generation, MW hours
                                                                    750,000
             Figure
                           Effect of Annual Power Generation at Full and Half Load
                           on Dry Limestone Process Unit Operating Cost Per Ton of
                           Sulfur Removed:  150 MW Unit
-------
•o
s
 oj

 8

 C
 O
 -P

•w-
-P
CO
O
o


bo
c
o

4J
     20
     15
     10
       0
                                           T
                                                        T
                        T
                                    Existing unit - 15 yrs remaining life

                                    3«0# S coal

                                    2.0 injection stoichiometry

                                    Regulated economics
                                              full load
                   I
                               1
I
I
I
                                                                                                        00

                                                                                                        O
                 150,000     300,000     1^50,000     6oo>ooo


                            Annual power generation,  MW hours
                      750,000
         Figure
                        Effect of Annual  Power Generation at Full and Half Load

                        on Dry Limestone  Process  Unit  Operating Cost Per Ton of

                        Coal Burned:   150 MW Unit
-------
CO
(•4
  20  —
o
•o
CO
c
o
   15  —
-p
CO
o
u
g»10
g
P4
o
0)
5
-p
o>
    Actual dollars
— Present worth if discounted  at
Existing units
Regulated economics
2.0 injection stoichiometry
                                                    to  initial yr
      0
                                                                                                                   00
        Figure
                             150          200

                           Power unit size,  MW

           Effect of Power Unit Size and Years Remaining Life on Lifetime Increase
           in Cost of Power Using Dry Limestone Injection:  3«°# S Coal
-------
I

§
,0
 0)
 o
 o

 c
 o
09

O

V
•rl
•P
0)
h



I
§

V

a
4J
0)
4-1
•H
     20
10
               I            I            I            I

         	 Actual dollars
         	 Present worth if discounted  at  10# to  initial yr

         Existing units

         Regulated economics
         2.0 injection stoichiometry
                                                                                                              oo
                                                                                                              ho
         Figure
                                     Power unit size, MW



                   Effect  of Power Unit Size and Years Remaining Life on Dry Limestone

                   Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned Over Life of Plant:

                   3.0% S  Coal
-------
I
    4000
        	1	1	1

	 Actual dollars
	 Present worth if discounted at 10% to initial yr
Existing units
Regulated economics
2.0 injection stoichiometry
3
w

C
o
-p
-p
TO

8
I
§
V
     3000
     2000
     1000
        0
                                                                                                   00
                                                                                                   CO
                                 100
                               150
200
250
300
550
          Figure
                             Power unit  size, MW


          Effect  of Power  Unit Size and Years Remaining Life on Dry Limestone
          Process Operating Cost Per Ton of Sulfur Removed Over Life of Plant:
          3.0* S  Coal
-------
CO
    20
O
•O
V.
O
01

O
a
 •*
43
to
8
g
Q>
    10
     0
	 Actual dollars
	 Present worth if discounted at 10$ to  initial yr
Existing units
Regulated economics
J.O injection stoichiometry
     5  —
                                                                                                        00
                                                                                                        -is.
        Figure
                      Sulfur  in coal,  %

          Effect of Sulfur Content  of  Coal and Years Remaining Life
          on Lifetime Increase  in Cost of Power Using Dry
          Limestone Injection:   150 MW Units
-------
 -g
 a
    20
-- Actual dollars
— Present worth  if  discounted at
Existing units
Regulated economics
3-0 injection stoichiometry
                             to  initial yr
 a
 o
-W-
4J
CO
O
o
•H
-P
0)
Vi
 o
 +>
 •H
 a
43
0)
-------
•o
s
     8000
                	 Actual dollars
                	 Present worth if discounted at 10^ to initial yr
                Existing units
                Regulated economics
                3-0 injection stoichiometry
C
O
-p
ID
O
U
0$
-------


•8
c
Vl
I 5.0

B
£ 2.0
V
CM
•H
<
1.0
1 1 II 1
<• "" Actual dollars
.. >. M. present worth if discounted at 10$ to initial yr

__ Existing unit - 15 yrs remaining life
3.0# S coal
2.0 injection stoichiometry
Regulated economics


_ _r>^. _
^ ^^
^ •—pg*— """^ *^J
ri ^^"""^
"

r ^ 	






— . —


f\ _ ._ „ _/~\«« — « — •— ""Q"~ "~ ~" ^™ "^ ^^^^
rM. M> «M* «•» L/*~ ™" VJ ^
1 I 1 I 1




1.9T JH
^
ra
r-l
r-l
e
1.58 i
o
V
bO
c
0)
1.18 o

^
§
0)
•H
•••^
0.79 ?
^

0.1Q
0          2.0
  Figure   51
      k.O
6.0
8.0
                                                            10.0
                     Annual labor escalation rate,
Effect of Escalating Labor Rate on Dry Limestone Process
Operating Cost Per Ton of Coal Burned and Per Kilowatt-hour
of Electricity Produced Over Life of Plant:   150 MW Unit
                                                                                                        00
-------
                                     L-88
References and Abstracts
 1. Atchison, J. L. (The Babcock and Wilcox Company). Private communication to Robert
   L. Torstrick, May 19, 197-2, giving the contract price breakdown of the dry limestone
   injection process equipment supplied to TVA.
 2. Brown, C. B.,  Jr.  (Koppers Company,  Inc.).  Private  communication  to William H.
   Kennedy. May  23,  1972, giving up-to-date price data on rotary dryers and grinding mills
   for processing limestone prior to injection into a boiler.
 3. Brown, R. F. (Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc.). Private communications to Robert
   L.  Torstrick, June 30 and  July 6, 1972, giving  incremental electrostatic precipitator
   investment and   electricity  requirements  applicable  for installing  and  operating
   precipitators on power units utilizing the dry limestone injection process.
 4. "Economic Indicators." Chemical Engineering 79(21), September 18, 1972.
       C. E.  Plant Cost Index data  was used for obtaining a projected  1972 annual index.
   This  projected index was  compared with  the  annual index for  1969, and  used in
   updating the Shawnee 1969 investment costs.
 5.  Federal Power  Commission.  Hydroelectric Power Evaluation.  FPCP-35 (1968)  and
   Supplement No. 1, FPC P-38  (1969). Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
   Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
       This publication is a guide for the evaluation  of the hydroelectric power aspects of
   water resource developments.  Included  is  information  concerning  investment  and
   operating costs of hydroelectric and thermal-electric power  plants  and transmission
   facilities,  methods  for economic analysis  of projects, and  methods for presenting the
   annual  costs  associated  with  power generation  and transmission  under regulated
   economics.
 6. Guthrie, K. M. "Capital Cost Estimating." Chemical Engineering 76(6), March 24, 1969.
       Data and techniques for preliminary capital cost estimating are presented along with
   a compilation of  costs for a large variety of plant equipment. A "module" technique for
   making fast, accurate, and consistent estimates is introduced. Especially useful for  this
   study are the equipment scale factors given in the data.
 7. "Industry Statistics." Oil and Gas Journal 70(37),  September 11, 1972.
       Published  data giving  refined-products prices  was used to obtain  the price  for
   distillate kerosine  (No. 2 fuel  oil) for use in projecting 1972 operating costs for the dry
   limestone injection process.
 8. The M. W. Kellogg Company.   Availability of Limestones and Dolomites.  Task No. 1
    Final Report, MWKLG-RED-72-1265, Submitted  to  Environmental  Protection Agency,
   Contract No. CPA 706-8, February 1, 1972.
       Several processes which  remove sulfur oxides  from power plant stack gas are based
   on the use of limestone or dolomite as the absorbent. The objective  of this study was to
   determine the  availability and costs of limestone and similar materials throughout the
   contiguous United States to  supplement experimental work.
       Materials covered in this study include limestone, dolomite, chalk, marble, marl, and
   shell. Information is  presented on location  of deposits, production rates, f.o.b. quarry
-------
                                       L-89

   costs, transportation  methods  and  costs, expected  cost increases, uses,  chemical
   composition, and physical properties.
 9. Perry. John H., Chilton,  Cecil  H.p and Kirkpatrick, Sidney D.  Chemical Engineers'
   Handbook.  Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1963.
       "Six-tenths factor" method for scaling  equipment costs as a function of capacity is
   presented along with a set of typical exponents for use with various types of equipment.
10. Peters, Max S. and Timmerhaus, Klaus D.  Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
   Engineers.  Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1968.
       Economic  and design principles, as applied  in chemical engineering processes and
   operations  are discussed. The first  part of the text presents an overall analysis of the
   major factors involved in process design, with  particular emphasis on economics in the
   process industries and in design work. The various costs involved in industrial processes,
   capital investments and  investment returns, cost estimation, cost accounting, optimum
   economic design methods, and other subjects dealing with economics are covered both
   qualitatively and  quantitatively.  The  remainder of the book deals  with  methods and
   important factors in the design of plants and equipment.  Generalized subjects, such as
   waste disposal, structural  design, and equipment fabrication,  are included along  with
   design methods for different types of process equipment.  Basic  cost data  and cost
   correlations are also presented for use in making cost estimates.
11. Purcell, Robert W.  (The Taulman Company). Private communication to W.  H. Kennedy,
   June 28, 1972, describing design  of sluice systems for disposal of waste solids.
12. Tennessee  Valley  Authority.    Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack  Gas:
   Sorption by Limestone  or Lime—Dry Procesi,  -   (1968). Report No.  PB  178-972,
   Clearinghouse   for  Scientific  and  Technical  Information, 5285  Port  Royal Road,
   Springfield, Virginia 22151.
       Injection of dry limestone or  lime  into the  boiler is considered the simplest and least
   costly process for  removing SO2 from power  plant  stack gases.  Product is calcium
   sulfate  which  is  discarded. The process  can  be operated  intermittently. A  detailed
   economic evaluation is presented.
13. Tennessee  Valley Authority. "Wage Schedules." Office Service Branch, Administrative
   Releases (Memorandum  No. 1321), August  1, 1972.
       TVA wage schedules effective during 1972 are given for chemical and power plant
   operators and  laborers.
-------
                                          L-91


_TableA-l Summary of Estimated  Fixed Investment-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                           1.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                                6,300
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders,  and
 conveyors                                                                     14,400
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 38,400
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           58,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump,  air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping  and
 injectors                                                                       57,600
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              16,300
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             27,100
Piping for all areas                                                               35,100
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                33,300
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    42,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    89,000
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                   518,300

Engineering design  and overheads                                                46,600
Construction expense                                                            72,600
Contractors fees                                                                 46,600
Contingency                                                                    67,400

   Total fixed capital investment	751,500
Basis:
      aMidwest location—1972 costs.
      bO" x iy2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-92
  Table A-2 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          2.07 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including  landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                                7,200
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     18,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 44,300
Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                            71,200
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                       64,700
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              19,400
Instrumentation for all areas  including panel and shed                             29,200
Piping for all areas                                                               40,600
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                38,000
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     48,500
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                     94,200
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  575,500

Engineering design and overheads                                                 51,800
Construction expense                                                            80,600
Contractors fees                                                                 51,800
Contingency                                                                    74,800

   Total fixed capital investment	834,500
Basis:
     fMidwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x IVa" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     "incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed t& be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-93
  Table A-3 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          2.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                                8,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     21,800
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                49,700
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          82,000
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
  injectors                                                                      70,800
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             22,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            30,800
Piping for all areas                                                              45,500
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
  trays, groundings, and telephone                                               41,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    54,300
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    99,300
Incremental solids disposal systerrrfor collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                   626,400

Engineering design and overheads                                                56,400
Construction expense                                                           87,700
Contractors fees                                                                56,400
Contingency                                                                   81,400

   Total fixed capital investment	908,300
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IV-i" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-94


  Table A-^ Summary of Estimated  Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process	
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          3.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including  landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                                8,900
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     25,100
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 54,400
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                            92,500
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                       76,200
Equipment foundations for all  areas                                              24,700
Instrumentation for all areas  including panel and shed                             32,200
Piping for all areas                                                               49,800
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                45,500
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     59,500
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   103,600
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  672,400

Engineering design and overheads                                                 60,500
Construction expense                                                            94,100
Contractors fees                                                                 60,500
Contingency                                                                    87,400

   Total fixed capital investment	974,900
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-95

_TableA-5 Summary of Estimated Fixed  Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          3.63 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw  water
 piping and drains                                                                9,600
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    28,400
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                58,800
Limestone grinding system0 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          102,100
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      81,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             27,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            33,500
Piping for all areas                                                              53,800
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               48,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    64,300
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    107,200
Incremental solids disposal system"for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                   714,800

Engineering design  and overheads                                                64,300
Construction expense                                                           100,000
Contractors fees                                                                64,300
Contingency                                                                   92,900

   Total fixed capital  investment	___^_	1,036,300
Basis:
     fMidwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x I'A" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond  located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-96
  Table A-6  Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          4.64 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including  landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               10,800
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     34,600
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 66,300
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           119,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                       89,200
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              31,400
Instrumentation for all areas  including panel and shed                             35,600
Piping for all areas                                                               60,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                54,500
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     72,600
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   226,000
Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  901,500

Engineering design and overheads                                                 72,100
Construction expense                                                          117,200
Contractors fees                                                                 72,100
Contingency                                                                  ] 17,200

   Total fixed capital investment                                              1,280,100
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x W" limestone pound to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     ""Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-97
  Table A-7 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          6.20 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw  water
 piping and drains                                                               12,500
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     43,600
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 76,600
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           144,500
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      100,200
Equipment foundations for  all areas                                             37,400
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            38,300
Piping for all areas                                                              70,200
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                               62,000
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   83,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   239,000
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  1,008,100

Engineering design and overheads                                                80,600
Construction expense                                                          131,100
Contractors fees                                                                80,600
Contingency                                                                    131,100

   Total fixed capital  investment	1,431,500
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond  located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-98
  Table A-8  Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment8-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          7.76 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               14,000
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      52,100
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 85,700
Limestone grinding system13  including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           167,100
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      109,600
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              42,800
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             40,500
Piping for all areas                                                               78,500
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                68,700
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     93,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   252,000
Incremental solids disposal system^  for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Su btota I d i rect i nvestmen t                                                 1,104,800

Engineering design and overheads                                                 88,400
Construction expense                                                          143,600
Contractors fees                                                                 88,400
Contingency                                                                  143,600

_jrota|. fixed capital investment  	1,568,800
Basis:
     fMidwesHocation-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-99
_Tabje A-9 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment8-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          9.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               15,300
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     60,400
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 94,000
Limestone grinding system'3  including feed bin, ball mill  and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          188,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
  injectors                                                                      118,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              47,800
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             42,500
Piping for all areas                                                               86,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
  trays, groundings, and telephone                                                74,600
 Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   102,800
 Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   263,000
 Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,193,200

 Engineering design and overheads                                                95,500
Construction expense                                                          155,100
Contractors fees                                                                 95,500
Contingency                                                                   155,100

   Total fixed capital investment	      1,694,400
Basis:
      ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
      °0" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-100
  Table A-lOSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          10.90 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               16,600
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      68,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               101,600
Limestone grinding system*3  including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          208,600
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     125,500
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              52,400
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                              44,100
Piping for all areas                                                               93,000
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                80,000
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   111,100
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   272,000
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
  Subtotal direct investment                                                1,273,200

Engineering design and overheads                                               101,900
Construction expense                                                          165,500
Contractors fees                                                               101,900
Contingency                                                                  165,500

  Total fixed capital investment	1,808,000
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x iy-2." limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-101
_Table A-llSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in  Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          7.73 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               14,000
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      52,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 85,600
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           167,100
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      109,500
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              42,700
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             40,500
Piping for all areas                                                               78,300
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                68,500
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    93,600
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   350,300
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  1,202,100

Engineering design  and overheads                                                 96,200
Construction expense                                                           144,300
Contractors fees                                                                 96,200
Contingency                                                                   156,300

   Total fixed capital investment	1,695,100

     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-102
  Table A-12Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          10.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           lnvestment,$
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               16,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     65,600
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 99,000
Limestone grinding system13 including  feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          179,500
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     123,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              50,800
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             43,500
Piping for al I areas                                                               90,600
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                78,100
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   108,200
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   370,500
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,324,900

Engineering design and overheads                                               106,000
Construction expense                                                          159,000
Contractors fees                                                               106,000
Contingency                                                                  172,200

   Total fixed capital investment	1,868,100
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-103


__TableA-13Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment9- Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          12.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               18,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      78,600
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                110,800
Limestone grinding system0 including  feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           233,400
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      134,600
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              58,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             46,100
Piping for all areas                                                              101,400
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                86,500
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    121,200
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    390,600
Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,479,500

Engineering design  and overheads                                               118,400
Construction expense                                                           177,500
Contractors fees                                                                118,400
Contingency                                                                   192,300

   Total fixed capital investment            	2,086,100
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus  400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     dSolids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-104
  TableA-1^ Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in  Fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          15.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               19,800
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     90,900
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               121,400
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          262,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     144,700
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              64,900
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                              48,200
Piping for all areas                                                             111,100
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                93,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   132,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   407,700
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                1,598,200

Engineering design and overheads                                               127,900
Construction expense                                                          191,800
Contractors fees                                                               127,900
Contingency                                                                  207,800
  Total fixed capital investment	                                  2,253,600
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission late
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
     .mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-105
JTableA-15 Summary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          18.17 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              21,400
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    103,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               131,100
Limestone grinding systemb including  feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          290,900
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     154,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             71,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            50,100
Piping for all areas                                                             120,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards  and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              100,700
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  143,500
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  421,600
Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal  direct investment                                                  1,707,600

Engineering design  and overheads                                              136,600
Construction expense                                                         204,900
Contractors fees                                                               136,600
Contingency                                                                  222,000

   Total fixed capital  investment	2,407,700
Basis:
      "Midwest location-1972 costs.
      °0" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
      clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-106
  TableA-16Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in  Fuel;
                       3.0'Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          10.83 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               16,500
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      68,100
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               101,300
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          208,000
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     125,300
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              52,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                              44,100
Piping for all areas                                                               92,700
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                79,800
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   110,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   463,300
Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                1,462,100

Engineering design and overheads                                               102,300
Construction expense                                                          175,500
Contractors fees                                                               102,300
Contingency                                                                  190,100

   Total fixed  capital investment	2,032,300
Basis:                                   ~~~~~
     fMidwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-107
  TableA-17Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          14.47 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading,  raw water
 piping and  drains                                                               19,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      85,800
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                117,100
Limestone grinding system'3 including  feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           251,000
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
  injectors                                                                      140,700
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              62,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             47,300
Piping for all areas                                                              107,200
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
  trays, groundings, and  telephone                                                90,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   128,100
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   490,000
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  1,639,400

Engineering design  and overheads                                               114,800
Construction expense                                                          196,700
Contractors fees                                                                114,800
Contingency                                                                   213,100

   Total fixed capital  investment	2,278,800
Basis:
     fMidwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                          L-108
  Table A-l8Siimmary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          18.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               21,400
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     102,700
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                131,000
Limestone grinding system'3 including  feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           290,300
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      153,800
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              71,100
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                              50,100
Piping for all areas                                                              119,900
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               100,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    143,300
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   516,600
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,800,800

Engineering design and overheads                                               126,100
Construction expense                                                          216,100
Co ntracto rs fees                                                                126,100
Contingency                                                                  234,100

   Total fixed capital investment	2,503,200
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-109
  TableA-igSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         21.77 TonsTDry  Limestone per Hour)

                                                                           Investment^
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              23,400
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    119,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               143,700
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          327,200
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
  injectors                                                                     165,700
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             79,400
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            52,500
Piping for all areas                                                             131,500
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
  trays, groundings, and telephone                                              109,200
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and  boiler including injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  157,100
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   539,200
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,947,900

Engineering design and overheads                                              136,400
Construction expense                                                          233,700
Contractors fees                                                               136,400
Contingency                                                                  253,300

   Total fixed capital investment	2,707,700
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-110

  TableA-20Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in Fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          25.43 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               25,300
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     134,700
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                155,200
Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          361,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     176,200
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              87,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             54,500
Piping for all areas                                                             142,100
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              117,100
Revisions and  additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   169,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   557,600
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 2,081,500

Engineering design and overheads                                               145,700
Construction expense                                                          249,800
Contractors fees                                                               145,700
Contingency                                                                  270,600

   Total fixed  capital investment	2,893,300
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x  1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-lll
  TableA-21 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per MoleS in Fuel;
                           1.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                                7,000
Limestone storage and feed  system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      17,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                  42,800
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                            67,800
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                       62,900
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              18,600
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             28,700
Piping for all areas                                                               39,200
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                                36,800
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     46,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                     95,700
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                    563,500

Engineering design and overheads                                                 50,700
Construction expense                                                            78,900
Contractors fees                                                                 50,700
Contingency                                                                    73,300

   Total fixed capital investment	817,100
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitatoi added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15%  slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-112
  TableA-22Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles-CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          3.89 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment,!)?
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                                9,900
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      30,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 60,800
Limestone grinding system^ including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          107,100
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                       83,200
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              28,300
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             34,100
Piping for all areas                                                               55,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                50,400
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     66,500
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   112,300
Incremental solids disposal system1^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  738,300

Engineering design and overheads                                                 66,400
Construction expense                                                          103,400
Contractors fees                                                                 66,400
Contingency                                                                    96,000

   Total fixed capital investment	                                       1,070,500
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     ""Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.  Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-113
_TableA-23Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          5.87 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw  water
 piping and drains                                                               12,200
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      41,800
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 74,600
Limestone grinding system*5 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           139,600
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                       98,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              36,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             37,800
Piping for all areas                                                               68,300
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                                60,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     81,600
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    126,100
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                    876,900

Engineering design and overheads                                                 78,900
Construction expense                                                           122,800
Contractors fees                                                                 78,900
Contingency                                                                   114,000

   Total fixed capital investment	1,271,500
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection oflimestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond  located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-114


  TableA-2^Summary of Estimated Fixed  investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                           7.86 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           lnvestment,$
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               14,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      52,700
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 86,300
Limestone grinding system13 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          168,700
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     110,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              43,100
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            40,700
Piping for all areas                                                               79,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                69,100
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and  boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    94,400
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   136,300
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                  994,500

Engineering design and overheads                                                89,500
Construction expense                                                          139,200
Contractors fees                                                                89,500
Contingency                                                                  129,300

   Total fixed capital investment	1,442,000
Basis:                                                ~
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     dSolids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-115
  TableA-25Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          5.80 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              12,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     41,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 74,200
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          138,400
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      97,500
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             35,900
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            37,700
Piping for all areas                                                              67,900
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               60,200
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   81,100
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  243,000
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                   989,200

Engineering design and overheads                                                79,100
Construction expense                                                          128,600
Contractors fees                                                                79,100
Contingency                                                                  128,600

   Total fixed capital  investment	1,404,600
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-116
  TabieA-26Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment8—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in  Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          11.67 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               17..100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     72,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               105,100
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          218,200
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     129,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              54,600
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                              44,900
Piping for all areas                                                               96,200
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                82,500
Revisions aand additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  115,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   285,000
Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,319,800

Engineering design and overheads                                               105,600
Construction expense                                                          171,600
Contractors fees                                                               105,600
Contingency                                                                  171,600

   Total fixed capital investment	1,874,200
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-117
        -gySummary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta~Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          17.60 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              21,000
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    100,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               129,100
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          284,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     152,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             69,900
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            49,800
Piping for all areas                                                             118,200
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               99,200
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  141,200
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  320,000
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct Investment                                                  1,585,600

Engineering design and overheads                                              126,800
Construction expense                                                         206,100
Contractors fees                                                               126,800
Contingency                                                                  206,100

   Total fixed capital  investment	2,251,400
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVa" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-118
  TableA-28Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in  Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          23.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               24,400
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    126,900
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                149,400
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          344,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      171,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             83,300
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             53,500
Piping for all areas                                                             136,800
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              113,200
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   163,500
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   346,000
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                1,812,800

Engineering design and overheads                                               145,000
Construction expense                                                          235,700
Contractors fees                                                               145,000
Contingency                                                                  235,700

   Total fixed capital investment	2,574,200
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     dSolids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-119
JTableA-ggSummary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta~Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          9.67 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              15,600
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     62,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 95,800
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          193,100
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     119,700
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             48,800
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            42,800
Piping for all areas                                                              87,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                               75,800
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam  lines                                  104,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  376,700
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,323,000

Engineering design  and overheads                                               105,900
Construction expense                                                          158,800
Contractors fees                                                               105,900
Contingency                                                                  172,000

   Total fixed capital investment	1,865,600
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x I'/z" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-120
  Table A-30Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          19.45 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and ydrains                                                             22,100
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    108,700
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                135,700
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          303,900
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      158,300
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             74,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             51,000
Piping for all areas                                                              124,200
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               103,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    148,400
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   441,800
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                1,772,200

Engineering design and overheads                                               141,800
Construction expense                                                          212,700
Contractors fees                                                               141,800
Contingency                                                                  230,400

   Total fixed capital investment	2,498,900
Basis:
     aMidwest location-197 2 costs.
     °Q" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-121


_TableA-31 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          29.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              27,200
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     151,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                166,600
Limestone grinding system*3 including  feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           397,100
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      186,600
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             95,000
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            56,500
Piping for all areas                                                              152,500
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               124,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   182,300
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    496,000
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 2,135,700

Engineering design and overheads                                                170,900
Construction expense                                                           256,300
Contractors fees                                                                170,900
Contingency                                                                   277,600

   Total fixed capital investment	3,011,400
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      .mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-122
  TableA-32Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process	
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          39.32 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              31,500
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    190,800
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                192,900
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          480,400
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     209,700
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             113,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             60,800
Piping for all areas                                                              176,600
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               142,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   211,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   536,300
Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      135,000
   Subtotal ddirect investment                                                2,480,800

Engineering design and overheads                                                198,500
Construction expense                                                          297,700
Contractors fees                                                                198,500
Contingency                                                                  322,500

   Total fixed capital investment	                                3,498,000
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-123
_Tj^teA-33Summary of Estimated Fixed Irwejrtn^^^                        Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       1 .0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          13.53 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               18,500
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      81,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                1 13,200
Limestone grinding system'3 including  feed  bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          240,200
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      137,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              59,700
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             46,600
Piping for all areas                                                              103,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                88,200
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including  injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   123,900
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    498,200
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                     _ 100,000
   Subtotal  direct investment                                                 1,610,500

 Engineering design  and overheads                                               1 1 2,700
Construction expense                                                          193,300
Contractors fees                                                                1 1 2,700
Contingency                                                                   209,400

   Total fixed capital  investment ______________ 2,238,600
Basis:
     ^Midwest location -197 2 costs.
     bO" x iy2" limestone ground to 80% minus  400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-124
              ummary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          27.23 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               26,200
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    142,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                160,600
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          378,200
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      181,200
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              90,800
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             55,500
Piping for all areas                                                             147,000
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              120,800
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   175,700
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   584,300
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
  Subtotal direct investment                                                2,162,500

Engineering design and overheads                                               151,400
Construction expense                                                          259,500
Contractors fees                                                               151,400
Contingency                                                                  281,100

^JTotalJixed capital investment	___	3,005,900^
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-125


 Jjble A-35Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         41.07 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading,  raw water
 piping and drains                                                              32,100
Limestone storage and feed  system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     197,700
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                197,200
Limestone grinding system0 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          494,300
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      213,500
Equipment foundations for  all areas                                             116,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            61,500
Piping for all areas                                                              180,500
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                               145,400
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   215,700
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    656,000
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                    	135,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 2,645,100

Engineering design and overheads                                               185,200
Construction expense                                                           317,400
Contractors fees                                                                185,200
Contingency                                                                   343,900

   Total fixed capital investment	3,676,800
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x VA." limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-126
  Table A-36Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          55.04 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              37,200
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                   249,800
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               228,300
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          597,700
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     239,900
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            138,500
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            66,100
Piping for all areas                                                             209,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              165,800
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and  boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam  lines                                   249,700
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   709,300
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      175,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                3,066,300

Engineering design and overheads                                               214,600
Construction expense                                                          368,000
Contractors fees                                                               214,600
Contingency                                                                  398,600

   Total fixed capital investment	4,262,100
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x W limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-127


 JablgA-37Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment9- Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          3.23 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and  drains                                                               9,000
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     25,900
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 55,300
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           94,700
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      77,300
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              25,400
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             32,600
Piping for all areas                                                              50,600
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                               46,400
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam  lines                                    60,500
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    108,700
Incremental solids disposal system*^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                   686,400

Engineering design and overheads                                                61,800
Construction expense                                                           96,100
Contractors fees                                                                61,800
Contingency                                                                   89,200

   Total fixed capital  investment	995,300
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x I'/z" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-128
  TableA-38Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          6.53 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           lnvestment,$
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               12,800
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     45,400
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 78,700
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          149,800
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     102,300
Equipment foundations for all areas                                               38,600
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             38,800
Piping for all areas                                                               72,000
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                63,600
Revisions and additions to  powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                     86,100
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   131,200
Incremental solids disposal system01 for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
  Subtotal direct investment                                                   919,300

Engineering design and overheads                                                 82,700
Construction expense                                                          128,700
Contractors fees                                                                 82,700
Contingency                                                                  119,500

  Total fixed capital investment	1,332,900
Basis:
     aMidwest location—1972 costs.
     "0" x W limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-129
 JTableA-39 Summary of Estimated Fixed Investtnenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          9.89 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw  water
 piping and  drains                                                               15,800
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                      63,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                  96,900
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          195,900
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     120,900
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              49,500
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             43,100
Piping for all areas                                                               88,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards  and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                76,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   106,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   148,500
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
  Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,105,200

Engineering design and overheads                                                 99,500
Construction expense                                                          154,700
Contractors fees                                                                 99,500
Contingency                                                                  143,700

  Total fixed capital investment	1,602,600
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-130


  TableA-UOSummary of Estimated  Fixed  Investmenta--Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          13.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               18,300
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     80,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                112,400
Limestone grinding system*3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                           238,000
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      136,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              59,200
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             46,400
Pi ping for all areas                                                              102,900
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                                87,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    123,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                    163,900
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,268,100

Engineering design  and overheads                                               114,100
Construction expense                                                           177,500
Contractors fees                                                                114,100
Contingency                                                                   164,900

   Total fixed capital investment	1,838,700
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x \Vi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     ^Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-131
 jfgbie A-^lSummary of Estimated Fixed lnvestmenta~Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          9.70 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investments
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               15,600
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     62,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                 95,800
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          193,400
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     119,900
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             48,300
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            42,900
Piping for all areas                                                              87,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                               75,900
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  104,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  276,000
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,222,600

Engineering design and overheads                                                97,800
Construction expense                                                          159,000
Contractors fees                                                                97,800
Contingency                                                                   159,000

   Total fixed capital investment	1,736,200
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-132
  TableA-42Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta—Dry Limestone injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          19.59 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               22,200
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    109,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                136,200
Limestone grinding system'3 including  feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          305,500
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      158,800
Equipment foundations for all areas                                              74,500
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                              51,100
Piping for all areas                                                              124,700
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               104,200
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    149,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   333,000
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,668,500

Engineering design and overheads                                                133,500
Construction expense                                                          217,000
Contractors fees                                                                133,500
Contingency                                                                  217,000

   Total fixed capital investment	2,369,500
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     "0" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-133
_TableA-^3Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         29.66 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           lnvestment,$
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              27,300
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    152,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               167,600
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball milt and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          399,900
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     187,400
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             95,600
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            56,700
Piping for al I areas                                                             153,400
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              125,500
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam  lines                                  183,300
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  377,000
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      135,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 2,061,000

Engineering design and overheads                                               164,900
Construction expense                                                          267,900
Contractors fees                                                               164,900
Contingency                                                                   267,900

   Total fixed capital investment	2,926,600
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-134
  TableA-4^Summary of Estimated Fixed investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          39.99 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              31,700
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    193,400
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               194,600
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          485,600
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     211,300
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            114,400
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             61,100
Piping for all areas                                                             178,100
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              143,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   212,800
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   416,000
Incremental solids disposal systemdfor collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      135,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                2,377,600

Engineering design and overheads                                               190,200
Construction expense                                                          309,100
Contractors fees                                                               190,200
Contingency                                                                  309,100

   Total fixed capital investment	3,376,200
Basis:
     "Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-135
_TableA-^5Summary of Estimated Fixed In vestment3-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          16.17 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment^
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              20,200
Limestone storage and feed  system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     93,800
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               123,700
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball  mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          269,600
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     147,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             66,500
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            48,700
Piping for all areas                                                             113,200
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               95,600
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  135,300
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  427,800
Incremental solids disposal system0'for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 1,641,500

Engineering design and overheads                                              131,300
Construction expense                                                          197,000
Contractors fees                                                               131,300
Contingency                                                                  213,400

   Total fixed capital investment	2,314,500
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-136
  Table A-J46Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment9—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          32.65 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               28,700
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                     164,400
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                                175,900
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          425,600
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                      194,800
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             101,300
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             58,000
Piping for all areas                                                              161,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                               131,100
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                    192,400
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   516,200
Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                       135,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                2,284,400

Engineering design and overheads                                                182,800
Construction expense                                                          274,100
Contractors fees                                                                182,800
Contingency                                                                  297,000

   Total fixed capital investment	3,221,100
Basis:
     "'Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-137


  TableA-^TSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         49.43 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              35,300
Limestone storage and feed  system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    229,200
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               216,300
Limestone grinding system'3 including  feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          557,400
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     229,900
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            129,900
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            64,400
Piping for all areas                                                             198,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              158,000
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
  ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  236,600
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  584,400
Incremental solids disposal system0' for collecting and sluicing
  limestone solids to pond                                                      175,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 2,814,400

Engineering design  and overheads                                              225,200
Construction expense                                                         337,700
Contractors fees                                                               225,200
Contingency                                                                  365,900

   Total fixed capital  investment	3,968,400
Basis:
     fMidwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x IVz" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
       prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
       injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
       mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-138
  TableA-1+8Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          66.65 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           lnvestment,$
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               41,000
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    291,100
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               251,300
Limestone grinding systemb including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          676,900
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone  distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     259,100
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            155,400
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             69,400
Piping for all areas                                                             230,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              180,700
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   274,900
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   644,800
Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      175,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                3,249,600

Engineering design and overheads                                               260,000
Construction expense                                                          390,000
Contractors fees                                                               260,000
Contingency                                                                  422,400

   Total fixed capital investment	4,582,000
Basis:
     fMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x l!/2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-139
        -49Summary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         22.63 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              23,900
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    122,700
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               146,400
Limestone grinding system^ including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          335,500
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     168,200
Equipment foundations for all areas                                             81,300
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            52,900
Piping for all areas                                                             134,000
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and  telephone                                              111,100
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam  lines                                  160,200
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                  565,800
Incremental solids disposal system*^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      100,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 2,002,000

Engineering design and overheads                                              140,100
Construction expense                                                          240,200
Contractors fees                                                               140,100
Contingency                                                                   260,300

   Total fixed capital investment	2,782,700
Basis:
     ^Midwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone.  Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-140
  TableA-^OSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          45.71 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Investment,^
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              33,900
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    215,300
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               208,100
Limestone grinding system*3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          529,900
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     222,800
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            123,900
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             63,200
Piping for all areas                                                             190,500
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              152,500
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   227,600
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   682,700
Incremental solids disposal system^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      175,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                2,825,400

Engineering design and overheads                                              197,800
Construction expense                                                          339,000
Contractors fees                                                               197,800
Contingency                                                                  367,000

   Total fixed capital investment	                           3,927,000
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-141
_TableA-5lSummary of Estimated Fixed Investmenta-Dry Limestone Injection Process
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         69.21 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                              41,700
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                    300,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               255,900
Limestone grinding system^ including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          693,600
Limestone injection system  including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     263,000
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            158,900
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                            70,000
Piping for all areas                                                             234,300
Electrical power supply including 4160 and 480 volt boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              183,800
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                  280,000
Incremental electrostatic precipitator system0                                   772,900
Incremental solids disposal system^for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      175,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                 3,429,100

Engineering design  and overheads                                              240,000
Construction expense                                                          411,500
Contractors fees                                                               240,000
Contingency                                                                  445,800

   Total fixed capital  investment	4,766,400
Basis:
     ''Midwest location-1972 costs.
     °0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clnciemental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
     "Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
       1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                        L-142
  TableA-52Summary of Estimated Fixed Investment3—Dry Limestone Injection Process
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in Fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          93.31 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           I nvestment, $
General yard work including landscaping, lighting, grading, raw water
 piping and drains                                                               48,500
Limestone storage and feed system including hoppers, unloaders, and
 conveyors                                                                   381,000
Limestone drying system including dryer, dust collectors, chutes and ducts,
 bucket elevator, and dryer shed                                               297,200
Limestone grinding system'3 including feed bin, ball mill and classifier,
 storage silo, conveyors and chutes, and dust collectors                          842,500
Limestone injection system including transport pump, air compressors, feed
 tank, conveyors, ducts and chutes, limestone distributor, piping and
 injectors                                                                     296,400
Equipment foundations for all areas                                            190,100
Instrumentation for all areas including panel and shed                             75,500
Piping for all areas                                                             272,100
Electrical  power supply including 4160 and 480 volt  boards and conduit,
 trays, groundings, and telephone                                              210,300
Revisions and additions to powerhouse and boiler including injection
 ports, metal work, insulation and steam lines                                   325,100
Incremental electrostatic precipitator systemc                                   852,800
Incremental solids disposal system1^ for collecting and sluicing
 limestone solids to pond                                                      270,000
   Subtotal direct investment                                                4,061,500

Engineering design and overheads                                               284,300
Construction expense                                                          487,400
Contractors fees                                                               284,300
Contingency                                                                  528,000

   Total fixed capital investment	5,645,500
Basis:
     aMidwest location-1972 costs.
     bO" x I'/z" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh.
     clncremental electrostatic precipitatoi added to maintain dust emission rate
      prior to injection of limestone. Dust collection efficiency prior to
      injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of
      mechanical and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water. Disposal pond located
      1 mile from power unit. Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
-------
                                         L-143
                                              8,200 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
                   33,200
         Table A-53-Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
_fromjpwer Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           1.55 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	        	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
   Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilities^
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection  (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
 Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
                                             43,500 gal
                                            267,000 M gal

                                             49,200 kWh
                                            437,900 kWh
                                             78,700 kWh
                                            -58,800 kWh
                                            514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                                 50 hr
10.00/hr
 60,400

  4,800
  8,000

    300
  3,100
    600
   (400)
  3,600
 19,900
  2,600
    500
103,400
136,600
Total
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned,$
                  132,300

                   20,700
                    6.000
                  159,000

                  295,600

                    2,800


               Total annual
                  cost, $
                 298,400
aBasis:
      Coal burned-97,900 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x iy2" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $751,500
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection ot limestone. Uust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
,      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                       L-144
                                             10,900 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
          Table A-^h Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                  (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          2.07 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
  Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilities^
  Fuel oil (drying)
  Sluice water
  Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
  Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed investment
Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of  power plant
                                             57,800 gal
                                            267,000 M gal

                                             65,400 kWh
                                            582,100 kWh
                                            104,600 kWh
                                            -57,500 kWh
                                            514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                                 50 hr
10.00/hr
                   44.100
                   44,100
 60,400

  6,400
  8,000

    500
  4,100
    700
   (400)
  3,600
 22,300
  2,700
    500
108,800
152,900
                                                                               146,900

                                                                                21,800
                                                                                 6,000
                                                                               174,700

                                                                               327,600

                                                                                 3,700
Total
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned. $
                                                                            Total annual
                                                                               cost. $
                                                        3.38
                 331,300
aBasis:
      Coal burned-98,100 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x \Vi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $834,500
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-145
         TableA-55Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
_from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics8
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          2.59 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
 13,700 tons      4.05/ton
                   55.500
                   55,500
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilities'^
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
 Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone  injection
 Thermal  effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost  of power plant
Total
 10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 72,600 gal
267,000 M gal

 82,200 kWh
731,600kWh
131,500kWh
 -56,000 kWh
514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      60 hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned.$
 60,400

  8,000
  8,000

    600
  5,100
    900
   (400)
  3,600
 24,300
  2,900
    600
114,000
169,500
                                   159,600

                                    22,800
                                     6.000
                                   188,700

                                   358,200

                                     4,600


                                Total annual
                                   cost. $
            3.69
                 362,800
aBasis:
      Coal burned-98,200 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x I1// limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $908,300
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-146
          TableA-56 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                  (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S  in Fuel;
                           3.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual

Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
Limestone (95% CaC03)
Subtotal raw material
Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $
16,400 tons 4.05/ton 66.400
66,400
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust col lection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
 Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at  17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion  costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
 10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 86,900 gal
267,000 M gal

 98,400 kWh
875,800 kWh
157,400 kWh
 -55,000 kWh
514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      70 hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                      burned.$
            3.99
 60,400

  9,600
  8,000

    700
  6,100
  1,100
   (400)
  3,600
 26,200
  3,000
    700
119,000
185,400
                                   171,600

                                    23,800
                                      6,000
                                   201,400

                                   386,800

                                      5,500


                                Total annual
                                   cost. $
                 392,300
aBasis:
      Coal burned-98,400 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x \Vi  limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $974,900
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-147
                                             19,100 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
         Table A-57 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
 from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                      7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          3.63 Tons  Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
       	Annual quantity    Unit cost. $     cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaCO3)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
 Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
                                            101,200 gal
                                            267,000 M gal

                                            114,600 kWh
                                          1,019,900 kWh
                                            183,400 kWh
                                             -53,800 kWh
                                            514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                                 80 hr
10.00/hr
                   77r400
                   77,400
 60,400

 11,100
  8,000

    800
  7,100
  1,300
    (400)
  3,600
 28,000
  3,100
    800
123,800
201,200
Total
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned,$
                  182,400

                   24,800
                    6.000
                  213,200

                  414,400

                    6,400


               Total annual
                  cost, $
                                                       4.27
                 420,800
"Basis:
      Coal burned-98,500 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x \W limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,036,300
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Uust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
.      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-148
                                             24,400 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
          TableA-58 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2  Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company^Economics3
                 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          4.64 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity     Unit cost, $      cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
  Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
  Fuel oil (drying)
  Sluice water
  Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
  Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed investment
Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
                                            129,300 gal
                                            267,000 M gal

                                            146,400 kWh
                                          1,303,000 kWh
                                            234,200 kWh
                                           -176,500 kWh
                                            514,000 kWh
        .11/gal
        .03/M gal

       .007/kWh
       .007/kWh
       .007/kWh
       .007/kWh
       .007/kWh
                                                 90 hr
      10.00/hr
                         98.800
                         98,800
 60,400

 14,200
  8,000

  1,000
  9,100
  1,600
 (1,200)
  3,600
 32,100
  6,300
    900
136,000
234,800
                                                                              225,300

                                                                                27,200
                                                                                 6.000
                                                                              258,500

                                                                              493,300

                                                                                 8,300
Total
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
                     Total annual
                        cost.S	
±.11
                                                                              501.600
aBasis:
      Coal burned-293,800 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yi
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x I'/z limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,280,100
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-149
         Table A-59 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          6.20 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	.	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
   32,700 tons      4.05/ton
                  132.400
                  132,400
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
 Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry  limestone injection
 Thermal  effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  173,300 gal
  267,000 M gal

  196,200 kWh
1,746,200 kWh
  313,900 kWh
 -173,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      100hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned.$
 60,400

 19,100
  8,000

  1,400
 12,200
  2,200
 (1,200)
  3,600
 36,100
  6,800
  1,000
149,600
282,000
                                    252,000

                                     29,900
                                       6.000
                                    287,900

                                    569,900

                                     11,000


                                 Total annual
                                    cost. $
              1.97
                 580.900
""Basis:
      Coal burned-294,300 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,431,500
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
.      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-150
          Table A-60Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
_fromJPgwer Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (150-MW  Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           7.76 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
       .	Annual quantity     Unit cost, $      cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
   Subtotal raw material
   40,900 tons      4.05/ton
                  165.600
                  165,600
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
  Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of  power plant
Total
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  216,800 gal
  267,000 M gal

  245,400 kWh
2,184,100kWh
  392,600 kWh
 -168,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      120hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                      burned, $
 60,400

 23,800
  8,000

  1,700
 15,300
  2,700
  (1,200)
  3,600
 39,900
  7,200
  1.200
162,600
328,200
                                     276,100

                                      32,500
                                       6.000
                                     314,600

                                     642,800

                                      13,800


                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
              2.23
                 656,600
aBasis:
      Coal burned-294,700 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yi
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x IVi  limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,568,800
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection to limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-151
         Table A-6lAverage Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2
jromJPower Plants by Dry Limestone
                                                                     Emission
                                                                          ^
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          9.33 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
                       	.__^^Q]Ja.!jayantity_	Uoitcpst^S	cost, $	
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
                                             49,100 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
                                           260,200 gal
                                           267,000 M gal

                                           294,600 kWh
                                          2,621,900 kWh
                                           471,400kWh
                                           -165,000 kWh
                                           514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                                130hr
10.00/hr
Total
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned, $	
                                                       2.47
                  198,900
                  198,900
 60,400

 28,600
  8,000

  2,100
 18,400
  3,300
  (1,200)
  3,600
 43,300
  7,500
  1,300
175,300
374,200
                  298,200

                   35,100
                 __6,QOO
                  339,300

                  713,500

                   16,600


               Total annual
                 730,100
aBasis:
      Coalburned-295,100 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,694,400
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection to limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
,      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-152
          Table A-62Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3	
                 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          10.90 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
         	            Annual quantity    Unjt^gstJiL—__costt_$.	
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95%CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
aBasis:
   57,400 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  304,200 gal
  267,000 M gal

  344,400 kWh
3,065,200 kWh
  551,OOOkWh
  161,500kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      150hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.S
                  232,500
                  232,500
 60,400

 33,500
   8,000

   2,400
 21,500
   3,900
  (1,100)
   3,600
 46,500
  7,700
  1,500
187,900
420,400
                                    318,200

                                      37,600
                                       6,000
                                    361,800

                                    782,200

                                      19,300


                                  Total annual
                                    cost. S
             2.71
                 801,500
      Coal burned-295,600 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-! 5 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,808,000
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
BCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-153
          Table A-63Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2  Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Ecgnmrijcsg_
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          7.73 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
                             	Annual quantity     Unit cost, $      cost,_$__
              Direct Costs
 Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
   Subtotal raw material
 Conversion costs
  Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
 Utilities'^
  Fuel oil  (drying)
  Sluice water
  Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection  (credit)
   Sol ids disposal
 Maintenance
  Labor and  material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal  areas
   Dust collection
 Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
 Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed  investment
 Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry  limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
   40,700 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  215,700 gal
  267,000 M gal

  244,200 kWh
2,173,400 kWh
  390,700 kWh
 -294,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      120hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned,$
                  164.800
                  164,800
 60,400

 23,700
  8,000

  1,700
 15,200
  2,700
  (2,100)
  3,600
 41,000
  9,900
  1.200
165,300
330,100
                                    298,300

                                     33,100
                                       6.000
                                    337,400

                                    667,500

                                     13,800
                                 Total annual
                                    cost, $
              1.39
                 681,300
      Coal burned-489,700 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x I'/z limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,695,100
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
,      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-154
          TableA-6l4Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
 from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          10.33'Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
 	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03}
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   54,400 tons
 4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  288,300 gal
  267,000 M gal

  326,400 kWh
2,905,000 kWh
  522,200 kWh
 -287,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      140hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned. $
220,300
220,300
 60,400

 31,700
  8,000

  2,300
 20,300
  3,700
  (2,000)
  3,600
 45,600
 10,400
   1.400
185,400
405,700
                                     328,800

                                      37,100
                                       6.000
                                     371,900

                                     777,600

                                      18,400


                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
              1.62
                 796,000
      Coal burned-490,400 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      MnJwestj>lantlocation-1972 costs
      O" x IVi  limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,868,100
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-155
          TableA-65 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economicsa
                (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          12.93 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion  costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal  effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
                                          _Annual quantity    U_njt_cost. $
   68,100 tons      4.05/ton
               Total annual
                 cost, $


                 .275,800
                 275,800
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr      60,400
  360,900 gal
  267,000 M gal

  408,600 kWh
3,636,500 kWh
  653,800 kWh
 -280,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      160 hr
10.00/hr
Total
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned, $
 39,700
  8,000

  2,900
 25,500
  4,600
  (2,000)
  3,600
 51,600
 11,000
   1,600
206,900
482,700
                                    367,200

                                      41,400
                                       6.000
                                    414,600

                                    897,300

                                      23,000
                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
              1.87
                 920,300
aBasis:
      Coal burned-491,200 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,086,100
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
,      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-156
          Table A-6£Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          15.55 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
   81,900 tons      4.05/ton
                  331,700
                 "331,700
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry  limestone injection
   on operating cost of  power plant
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  434,100 gal
  267,000 M gal

  491,400kWh
4,373,500 kWh
  786,200 kWh
 -275,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      180 hr
10.00/hr
Total
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned.$
  60,400

  47,800
   8,000

   3,400
  30,600
   5,500
  (1,900)
   3,600
  56,100
  11,500
	1,800
 226,800
 558,500
                                     396,600

                                      45,400
                                       6.000
                                     448,000

                                   1,006,500

                                      27,600
                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $	
              2.10
                1,034,100
aBasis:
      Coal burned-491,900 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x Wi' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,253,600
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-157

          Table A-67Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
_jrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          18.17 Tons  Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cosi, j>	
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw  material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor  & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
  Grinding
   Injection
   Dust col lection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual  operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of  power plant
   95,700 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  507,200 gal
  267,000 M gal

  574,200 kWh
5,110,400kWh
  918,700 kWh
 -269,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      200 hr
10.00/hr
                 387,600
                 "387,600
  60,400

  55,800
   8,000

   4,000
  35,800
   6,400
  (1,900)
   3,600
  60,300
  11,900
	2.000
 246,300
 633,900
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                      burned,$
                                     423,800

                                      49,300
                                       6.000
                                     479,100

                                   1,113,000

                                      32,200


                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $
 Total
              2.32
                1,145,200
 "Basis:
      Coal burned-492,600 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yi
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 11A" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,407,700                                                      _
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection ot limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
 ,     Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-158
          TableA-68 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          10.83 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
 	Annual quantity    Unit cpsj, $	jcost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
   57,000 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  302,100 gal
  267,000 M gal

  342,000 kWh
3,043,800 kWh
  547,200 kWh
 -411,600kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      150hr
10.00/hr
Total
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
                  230,900
                 "230900
 60,400

 33,200
  8,000

  2,400
 21,300
  3,800
  (2,900)
  3,600
 48,100
 12,900
   1,500
192,300
422,300
                                     357,700

                                      38,500
                                       6.000
                                     402,200

                                     824,500

                                      19,300


                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $
              1.23
                 843,800
aBasis:
      Coal burned-685,600 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x \Vi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,032,300
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-159
          Table A-69Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO, Emission
 Jrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics8
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel-
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          14.47 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                                           Annual quantity    Unit cost $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion  costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
                                  Total annual
                                    cost, $
   76,200 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  403,900 gal
  267,000 M gal

  457,200 kWh
4,069,100 kWh
  731,500kWh
 -402,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      170hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned, $
                  308.600
                  308,600
 60,400

 44,400
  8,000

  3,200
 28,500
  5,100
  (2,800)
  3,600
 54,800
 13,600
   1,700
220,500
529,100
                                    401,100

                                      44,100
                                       6.000
                                    451,200

                                    980,300

                                      25,700


                                  Total annual
                                    cost. $
Total
              1.47
                1,006,000
dBasis:
      Coal burned-686,600 tons/yr; .785 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x VA" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,278,800
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids  disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-160
          Table A-70Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
 Jrqm Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       5.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          18.11 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
   95,300 tons      4.05/ton
                  386.000
                  386,000
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   I njection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  505,100 gal
  267,000 M gal

  571,800kWh
5,089,000 kWh
  914,900 kWh
 -392,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      200 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned,$
              1.69
 60,400

 55,600
   8,000

   4,000
 35,600
   6,400
  (2,700)
   3,600
 60,700
 14,400
  2.000
248,000
634,000
                                    440,600

                                      49,600
                                       6.000
                                    496,200

                                   1,130,200

                                      32,200


                                  Total annual
                                    cost, $
                1,162,400
aBasis:
      Coal burned -687,600 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,503,200
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                            114,600 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
                                        L-161

         Table A-71 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
__fromPower Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       6.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          21.77 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost. $     cost. S
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal  direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs

 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
                                            607,400 gal
                                            267,000 M gal

                                            687,600 kWh
                                          6,119,600kWh
                                          1,100,200 kWh
                                           -385,000 kWh
                                            514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                                220 hr
10.00/hr
                  464,100
                  464,100
 60,400

 66,800
  8,000

  4,800
 42,800
  7,700
  (2,700)
  3,600
 66,200
 15,000
  2.200
274,800
738,900
                                                                               476,600

                                                                                55,000
                                                                                 6.000
                                                                               537,600
                                                                             1,276,500

                                                                                38,600
Total
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned. $
                                                                            Total annual
                                                                               cost, $
                                                        1.91
                1,315,100
"Basis:
      Coal burned-688,600 tons/yr; .787 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yi
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1V4" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,707,700
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-162
          TableA-72 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 0.8% S in fuel;
                       7.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          25.43 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
                    	          	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  I njection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
  133,900 tons      4.05/ton
   11,720 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  709,700 gal
  267,000 M gal

  803,400 kWh
7,150,300 kWh
1,285,400 kWh
 -376,600 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      240 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
              2.14
                  542.300
                  542,300
 70,300

 78,100
  8,000

  5,600
 50,100
  9,000
  (2,600)
  3,600
 71,300
 15,500
  2.400
311,300
853,600
                                     509,200

                                      62,300
                                       7,000
                                     578,500

                                   1,432,100

                                      45,000


                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
                1,477,100
aBasis:
      Coal burned-689,600 tons/yr; .788 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      O" x \V" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,893,300
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone.
       Dust collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
DCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-163
         Table A-73Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8
~                (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           1.93 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
   	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $
~~~"Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
 10,200 tons     4.05/ton
                   41.300
                   41,300
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection  (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
 10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 54,100 gal
267,000 M gal

 61,200kWh
544,700 kWh
 97,000 kWh
 -57,000 kWh
514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      50 hr
10.00/hr
 Total
 "Basis:
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                      burned, $
 60,400

  6,000
  8,000

    400
  3,800
    700
   (400)
  3,600
 21,700
  2,800
    500
107,500
148,800
                                   143,800

                                    21,500
                                     6.000
                                   171,300

                                   320,100

                                     3,000


                                Total annual
                                   cost, $
            3.30
                 323,100
      Coal burned-98,000 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant—15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x P/2 limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $817,100                                   .    .  .  t.   *!•„,,„,*„„„ n,,ct
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of l™«tane- Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
bCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-164
          Table A-T^Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       2.0 Mojes CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          3.89 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
                                          Annual quantity    Unit cost. $
   20,500 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
                                  Total annual
                                    cost, $	
                   83.000
  108,700 gal
  267,000 M gal

  123,000 kWh
1,094,700 kWh
  196,800 kWh
  -52,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       80 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
                                      83,000
 60,400

 12,000
  8,000

    900
  7,700
  1,400
   (400)
  3,600
 28,800
  3,300
    800
126,500
209,500
                                     188,400

                                      25,300
                                       6,000
                                     219,700

                                     429,200

                                       5,900


                                  Total annual
                                     cost,$
             4.42
                 435,100
"Basis:
      Coal burned-98,400 tons/yt; .788 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant locatkm-1972 costs
      0" x W-i limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,070,500
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-165
         Table A-7 5 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
 from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3	
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                      3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                         5.87 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                          Total annual
               	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
  Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed investment
Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
 Total
   30,900 tons     4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  163,800 gal
  267,000 M gal

  185,400 kWh
1,650,100 kWh
  296,600 kWh
  -48,800 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      100hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                       5.42
                _125J_00
                 125,100'
 60,400

 18,000
  8,000

  1,300
 11,600
  2,100
   (300)
  3,600
 34,400
  3,700
  1.000
143,800
268,900
                                    223,800

                                     28,800
                                      6.000
                                    258,600

                                    527,500

                                      8,900


                                  Total annual
                                    cost. $	
                                    536,400
 "Basis:
       Coal burned-98,900 tons/yr; .791 Ibs/kWh
       Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
       Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
       Midwest plant location-1972 costs
       0" x 1%" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
        collection efficiency
        and electrostatic devices.
       Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
       Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
       Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 °Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                             41,400 tons      4.05/ton
                                             10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
                                        L-166
          Table A-76Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8
                  (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          7.86 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	                Annual quantity    Unit cost, $      cost, $	
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
  Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilities'^
  Fuel oil (drying)
  Sluice water
  Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
  Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
                                            219,400 gal
                                            267,000 M gal

                                            248,400 kWh
                                          2,210,800 kWh
                                            379,400 kWh
                                             -46,000 kWh
                                            514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                                120hr
10.00/hr
                                                                               167,700
 60,400

 24,100
  8,000

  1,700
 15,500
  2,700
    (300)
  3,600
 39,300
  4,000
  1.200
160,200
327,900
lolal
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned,$
                  253,800

                   32,000
                    6.000
                  291,800

                  619,700

                   12,000


               Total annual
                  cost, $
                                                       6.36
                 631 700
aBasis:
      Coal burned-99,400 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yt
      Midwest plant location-197 2 costs
      0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,442,000
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-167

          Table A-77 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02  Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (150-MW  Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                        1.0 Moles CaO I njected  per Mole S in Fuel;
                           5.80 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

___	Annual quantity     Unit cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
   Subtotal raw material
                                 Total annual
                                    cost, $
   30,600 tons      4.05/ton
Conversion costs
  Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
  Fuel oil (drying)
  Sluice water
  Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
  Labor and  material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed investment
Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry  limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
                  123.900
                  123,900
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr      60,400
  162,200 gal
  267,000 M gal

  183,600 kWh
1,634,000 kWh
  293,800 kWh
 -171,OOOkWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      100hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned,$
 17,800
  8,000

  1,300
 11,400
  2,100
  (1,200)
  3,600
 35,200
  6,900
  1.000
146,500
270,400
                                    247,200

                                     29,300
                                      6.000
                                    282,500

                                    552,900

                                      8,900


                                 Total annual
                                    cost, $
             1.91
                 561,800
      Coal burned-293,900 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant^-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1% limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,404,600
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full Value.
-------
                                        L-170
          Table A-80 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8
                 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          23.59 Tons  Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
  124,200 tons      4.05/ton
                  503.000
                  503,000
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal  areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  658,300 gal
  267,000 M gal

  745,200 kWh
6,632,300 kWh
1,192,300 kWh
 -138,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      230 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned, $
 60,400

 72,400
  8,000

  5,200
 46,400
  8,300
  (1,000)
  3,600
 67,400
  9,800
  2.300
282,800
785,800
                                     453,100

                                      56,600
                                    	6JQQO
                                     515,700

                                   1,301,500

                                      35,800


                                  Total annual
                                     cost,$	
             4.48
                1,337,300
aBasis:
      Coal burned-298,200 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant^lS yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yt
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x Wi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,574,200
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond Water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-171
          Table A-SlAverage Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Inject ion-Regulated Power Company Economic^
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel-
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                          9.67 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                           Annual quantity    Unit cost, $
                                 Total annual
                                 	cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaCO3)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Sol ids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal  effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   50,900 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  269,800 gal
  267,000 M gal

  305,400 kWh
2,718,100 kWh
  488,600 kWh
 -285,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 ,007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      140hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned, $
                                    206,100
 60,400

 29,700
  8,000

  2,100
 19,000
  3,400
  (2,000)
  3,600
 45,400
 10,600
   1.400
181,600
387,700
                                    328,300

                                     36,300
                                       6.000
                                    370,600

                                    758,300

                                      14,800


                                  Total annual
                                    cost, $
              1.58
                 773,100
aBasis:
      Coal burned-489,900 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest giant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1%  limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,865,600
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-174
          Table A-8U Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          39.32 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
   Subtotal raw material
   207,000 tons      4.05/ton
                  838.400
                  838,400
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilities^
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
    11,720 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,097,100 gal
   390,000 M gal

 1,242,000 kWh
11,053,800 kWh
 1,987,200 kWh
  -230,000 kWh
   750,800 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       320 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
   70,300

  120,700
   11,700

    8,700
   77,400
   13,900
   (1,600)
    5,300
   89,800
   15,100
    3.200
  414,500
1,252,900
                                     615,600

                                       82,900
                                        7,000
                                     705,500

                                    1,958,400

                                       59,700
                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $
              4.06
                2.018.100
      Coal burned-497,000 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVi' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investmen-t, $3,498,000
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-175
         Table A-8 5 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
 jrom_Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          13.53 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                          Annual quantity    Unit cost, $
                                 Total annual
                                    cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilities*5
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   71,200 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  377,400 gal
  267,000 M gal

  427,200 kWh
3,802,100 kWh
  683,500 kWh
 -399,000 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      170hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned,$
                 288.400
                 288,400
 60,400

 41,500
  8,000

  3,000
 26,600
  4,800
  (2,800)
  3,600
 53,400
 13,800
   1.700
214,000
502,400
                                    394,000

                                      42,800
                                       6.000
                                    442,800

                                    945,200

                                      20,700


                                  Total annual
                                    cost, $
              1.41
                 965,900
      Coal burned-685,800 tons/yr; .784 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant—15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1V4 Hmestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,238,600
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection ot limestone, uust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
.      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-178
          TableA-88 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 3.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          55.04 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaCO3)
  Subtotal raw material
   289,700 tons      4.05/ton
                1.173.300
                1,173,300
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilities0
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust col lection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust col lection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
    13,370 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,535,400 gal
   570,000 M gal

 1,738,200 kWh
15,470,000 kWh
 2,781,100 kWh
  -322,000 kWh
 1,097,300 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       390 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
   80,200

  168,900
   17,100

   12,200
  108,300
   19,500
   (2,300)
    7,700
  108,200
   19,700
    3.900
  543,400
1,716,700
                                      750,100

                                      108,700
                                        8.000
                                      866,800

                                    2,583,500

                                       83,600
                                   Total annual
                                      cost. $
              3.83
                2,667,100
aBasis:
      Coal burned-695,800 tons/yr; .795 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $4,262,100
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
DCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-179
         Table A-89 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
 from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           3.2 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                              	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $
                                Total annual
                                  cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
   disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion  costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal  effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
 17,000 tons     4.05/ton
 10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 90,100 gal
267,000 M gal

102,000 kWh
907,800 kWh
163,200 kWh
 -53,500 kWh
514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      70 hr
10.00/hr
                   68.900
                   68,900
60,400

 9,900
 8,000

   700
 6,400
 1,100
  (400)
 3,600
26,700
 3,200
   700
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned,$
                                   120,300
                                   189,200
                                   175,200

                                    24,000
                                  _ 6000
                                   205,200

                                   394,400

                                     4,900


                                Total annual
                                   cost. $
            4.06
                 399,300
      Coal burned-98,300 toiis/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x I1//' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $995>300
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
      collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
      and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-182
          TableA- 92 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection  Regulated
                  (50-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           13.3 Tons Dry Limestone per  Hour)
                                                                            Total annual
                                           Annual quantity    Unit costf,.$____cgstt_$___
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry  limestone injection
  on operating cost of  power plant
Iota!
aBasis:
   70,200 tons
 4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  372,100 gal
  267,000 M gal

  421,200kWh
3,748,700 kWh
  673,900 kWh
  -38,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      160hr
10.00/hr
            Cost/ton
             of coal
           burned,$
             ~8.72
 284,300
 284,300
  60,400

  40,900
   8,000

   2,900
  26,200
   4,700
    (300)
   3,600
  50,400
   4,800
	1,600.
 203,200
 487,500
                  323,600

                   40,700
                    6.000
                  370,300

                  857,800

                   20,200


               Total annual
                  cost, $
      Coal burned-100,700 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant—15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x I'/z' limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $1,838,700
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power Unit,
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
bCost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-183
         Table A-93Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
 from Poy^r_Pl^tsj3^Dry i-imestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel-
                       1.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           9.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaCO3)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
   disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal  direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal  effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
                                                  quantity    Unj^cost $
   51,100 tons      4.05/ton
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  270,800 gal
  267,000 M gal

  306,600 kWh
2,728,700 kWh
  490,600 kWh
 -160,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      140hr
10.00/hr
                                 Total annual
                                    cost, $
                 207.000
                 207,000
 60,400

 29,800
  8,000

  2,100
 19,100
  3,400
  (1,100)
  3,600
 44,300
   7,800
   1.400
178,800
385,800
                                    305,600

                                     35,800
                                       6,000
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned, $
             2.54
                                    347,400

                                    733,200

                                      14,800


                                  Total annual
                                    cost, $	
                 748,000
      Coal burned-294,800 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1%  limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital 6investment, $1,736,200
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
      collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
      and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-184
          TableA-9^ Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           19.6 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
 	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
                                           103,100 tons      4.05/ton
                                            10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
                                           546,400 gal
                                           267,000 M gal

                                           618,600 kWh
                                         5,505,500 kWh
                                           989,800 kWh
                                          -142,000 kWh
                                           514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
                                               140 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned,$
                  417.600
                  417,600
 60,400

 60,100
  8,000

  4,300
 38,500
  6,900
  (1,000)
  3,600
 61,600
  9,500
  1f400
253,300
670,900
                                                                              417,000

                                                                               50,700
                                                                                6.000
                                                                              473,700

                                                                            1,144,600

                                                                               29,900


                                                                           Total annual
                                                                              cost, $
                                                       3.95
                1,174,500
aBasis:
b,
     Coal burned-297,300 tons/yr; .793 Ibs/kWh
     Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
     Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
     Midwest plant location-1972 costs
     0" x \Vi limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
     Capital investment, $2,369,500
     Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
      collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
      and electrostatic devices.
     Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
     Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
     Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
'Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-185
         TableA-95 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
 from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          29.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                          Annual quantity    Unit cost, $
                                 Total annual
                                    cost, $
             Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
  156,000 tons
    4.05/ton
   11,720man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  827,300 gal
  390,000 M gal

  936,600 kWh
8,335,700 kWh
1,498,600 kWh
 -128,000 kWh
  750,800 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      270 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned. $
-631J300
 631,800
  70,300

  91,000
  11,700

   6,600
  58,300
  10,500
    (900)
   5,300
  77,100
  10,700
   2.700
 343,300
 975,100
                                    515,100

                                      68,700
                                       7fOOO
                                    590,800

                                   1,565,900

                                      45,100


                                  Total annual
                                    cost.
              5.38
                1,611,000
"Basis:
      Coal burned-299,700 tons/yr; .799 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant—15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time—5000 hi/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1V4 limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,926,600
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection oi limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-186

          Table A-96Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (150-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in  Fuel;
                           40 Tons Dry  Limestone per Hour)

Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
Limestone (95% CaC03)
Subtotal raw material
Total annual
Annual quantity Unit cost, $ cost, $
21 0,500 tons 4.05/ton 852.500
852,500
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilities^
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust col lection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
    11,720 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,115,700 gal
   390,000 M gal

 1,263,000 kWh
11,240,700 kWh
 2,020,800 kWh
  -115,500 kWh
   750.800 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       320 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned,$
   70,300

  122,700
   11,700

    8,800
   78,700
   14,100
     (800)
    5,300
   89,500
   11,800
    3.200
  415,300
1,267,800
                                      594,200

                                       83,100
                                        7.000
                                      684,300

                                    1,952,100

                                       60,700
                                   Total annual
                                      cost, $
              6.66
                2,012,800
aBasis:
      Coal burned-302,100 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $3,376,200
      Incremental electrostatic piecipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-187
          Table A-97 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2 Emission
 jfrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                           16.8 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

rect Costs
terial
CaCOs )
later! a I
Annual quantity
85, 100 tons
Unit cost, $
4.05/ton
Total annual
cost, $
344.700
344,700
Delivered raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilities'^
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal  effect of dry  limestone injection
  on operating cost of  power plant
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  451,000 gal
  267,000 M gal

  510,600 kWh
4,544,300 kWh
  817,000 kWh
 -267,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
                                                               .11/gal
                                                               .03/M gal

                                                              .007/kWh
                                                              .007/kWh
                                                              .007/kWh
                                                              .007/kWh
                                                              .007/kWh
      190hr
                                                             10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned. $
 60,400

 49,600
  8,000

  3,600
 31,800
  5,700
  (1,900)
  3,600
 57,300
 12,100
   1.900
232,100
576,800
                                    407,400

                                      46,400
                                       6,000
                                    459,800

                                   1,036,600

                                      24,600
                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $
                                                        2.16
                                   1,061,200
Total	
aBasis:
      Coal burned-491,400 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location—1972 costs
      0" x 1% limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,314,500
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-188
          TableA-98 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing S02 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          32.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)

                	Annual quantity    Unit cost. $
                                  Total annual
                                    cost. $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed  investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
  171,900 tons
 4.05/ton
   11,720 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  911,100 gal
  390,000 M gal

1,031,400 kWh
9,179,500 kWh
1,650,200 kWh
 -236,500 kWh
  750,800 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      280 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
  696,200
  696.200
   70,300

  100,200
   11,700

    7,200
   64,300
   11,600
   (1,700)
    5,300
   82,000
   14,600
    2.800
  368,300
1,064,500
                                    566,900

                                      73,700
                                       7.000
                                    647,600

                                   1,712,100

                                      49,900
                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $
             3.56
                1.762.000
"Basis:
      Coal burned-495,400 tons/yr; .793 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $3,221,100
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1  mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-189

          TableA-99 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO, Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       3.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          49.4 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                          Annual quantity    Unit cost, $
                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion  costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   260,200 tons      4.05/ton
    11,720 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,379,100 gal
   570,000 M gal

 1,561,200 kWh
13,894,700 kWh
 2,497,900 kWh
  -213,500 kWh
 1,097,300 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       360 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned.$
              4.86
                1.053.800
                1,053,800
   70,300

  151,700
   17,100

   10,900
   97,300
   17,500
   (1,500)
    7,700
  102,600
   16,500
    3.600
  493,700
1,547,500
                                     698,400

                                      98,700
                                        7,000
                                     804,100

                                    2,351,600

                                      75,200


                                  Total annual
                                     cost. $
                2,426,800
aBasis:
      Coal burned-499,400 tons/yr; .799 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x 1V4  limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $3,968,400
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-190
         TableA-100 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SOj  Emission
 from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics8
                 (250-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          66.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
 	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
  Grinding
   Injection
  Dust collection (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   350,800 tons      4.05/ton
    13,370 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,859,200 gal
   609,000 M gal

 2,104,800 kWh
18,732,700 kWh
 3,367,700 kWh
  -192,500 kWh
 1,172,300 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       430 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned, $
                1.420.700
                1,420,700
   80,200

  204,500
   18,300

   14,700
  131,100
   23,600
   (1,300)
    8,200
  119,300
   18,200
    4.300
  621,100
2,041,800
                                     806,400

                                     124,200
                                        8.000
                                     938,600

                                    2,980,400

                                     101,100
                                   Total annual
                                      cost, $
              6.12
aBasis:
                3,081,500
      Coal burned-503,500 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x l'/2f limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $4,582,000
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-191
         Table A-101 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SQ2 Emission
_Jrom Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       1.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          22.7 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
 	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
  119,100 tons      4.05/ton
                 482.400
                 482,400
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilities^
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection  (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry  limestone injection
   on operating cost of  power plant
Total
   10,070 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
  631,200 gal
  267,000 M gal

  714,600 kWh
6,359,900 kWh
1,143,400 kWh
 -374,500 kWh
  514,000 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
      230 hr
10.00/hr
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                      burned.$
 60,400

 69,400
  8,000

  5,000
 44,500
  8,000
  (2,600)
  3,600
 67,800
 15,700
  2.300
282,100
764,500
                                    489,800

                                      56,400
                                       6.000
                                    552,200

                                   1,316,700

                                      34,500


                                  Total annual
                                    cost. $
              1.96
                1,351,200
aBasis:
      Coal burned-688,000 tons/yr; .786 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant—15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $2,782,700
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
,      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-192
         TableA-102Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2  Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       2.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          '45.8 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
	Annual quantity    Unit cost. $     cost. $
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
   240,600 tons      4.05/ton
                  974.400
                  974,400
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and  material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual  operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
Total
    11,720 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,275,200 gal
   570,000 M gal

 1,443,600 kWh
12,848,000 kWh
 2,309,800 kWh
  -331,100 kWh
 1,097,300 kWh
  -11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       340 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                    Jjurned,$
              3.33
   70,300

  140,300
   17,100

   10,100
   89,900
   16,200
   (2,300)
    7,700
   98,800
   19,000
    3.400
  470,500
1,444,900
                                     691,200

                                       94,100
                                        7,000
                                     792,300

                                    2,237,200

                                       69,800


                                   Total annual
                                     cost, $
                2,307,000
aBasis:
      Coal burned-693,600 tons/yr; .793 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stieam time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVi" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $3,927,000
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                         L-193

        TableA-103 Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO2  Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone Injection-Regulated Power Comnany Economic
                 (350-MW  Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S  in fuel-
                       3.0 Moles CaO I njected per Mole S in  Fuel •
                           69.2 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                           Annual quantity    Unit cost, $
                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
              Direct Costs
 Delivered raw material
  Limestone (95% CaC03)
   Subtotal raw material
 Conversion costs
  Operating labor & supervision
   including payroll overhead
 Utilitiesb
  Fuel oil (drying)
  Sluice water
  Electricity
   Receiving-drying
   Grinding
   Injection
   Dust collection (credit)
   So I ids disposal
 Maintenance
  Labor and material
   Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
   Dust collection
 Analyses
  Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
 Average capital charges at 17.6%
  of initial fixed  investment
 Overhead
  Plant, 20% of conversion costs
  Administrative, 10% of operating labor
  Subtotal indirect costs
  Average annual  operating cost
   for dry limestone injection
  Thermal effect of dry  limestone injection
   on operating cost of power plant
   364,300 tons      4.05/ton
    13,370 man-hr   6.00/man-hr
 1,930,800 gal
   630,000 M gal

 2,185,800 kWh
19,453,600 kWh
 3,497,300 kWh
  -298,900 kWh
 1,212,800 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       440 hr
10.00/hr
Total
                                                      Cost/ton
                                                       of coal
                                                     burned, $
              4.57
                1.475.400
                1,475,400
   80,200

  212,400
   18,900

   15,300
  136,200
   24,500
   (2,100)
    8,500
  121,500
   21,500
    4.400
  641,300
2,116,700
                                     840,600

                                     128,300
                                        8.000
                                     976,900

                                   3,093,600

                                     105,200


                                  Total annual
                                     cost, $
                3,198,800
aBasis:
      Coal burned-699,200 tons/yr; .799 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant—15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time-5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x IVz limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $4,766,400
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids  disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
.      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
 Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                        L-194
          Table A-lQl+Average Annual Operating Cost for Reducing SO3 Emission
  from Power Plants by Dry Limestone injection—Regulated Power Company Economics3
                 (350-MW Existing Coal-Fired Power Unit; 5.0% S in fuel;
                       4.0 Moles CaO Injected per Mole S in Fuel;
                          93.3 Tons Dry Limestone per Hour)
                                                                           Total annual
 	Annual quantity    Unit cost, $     cost, $   _
              Direct Costs
Delivered raw material
 Limestone (95% CaC03)
  Subtotal raw material
Conversion costs
 Operating labor & supervision
  including payroll overhead
Utilitiesb
 Fuel oil (drying)
 Sluice water
 Electricity
  Receiving-drying
  Grinding
  Injection
  Dust collection  (credit)
  Solids disposal
Maintenance
 Labor and material
  Drying, grinding, injection, and solids
    disposal areas
  Dust collection
Analyses
 Subtotal conversion costs
  Subtotal direct costs

             Indirect Costs
Average capital charges at 17.6%
 of initial fixed investment
Overhead
 Plant, 20% of conversion costs
 Administrative, 10% of operating labor
 Subtotal indirect costs
 Average annual operating cost
  for dry limestone injection
 Thermal effect of dry limestone injection
  on operating cost of power plant
Total
   491,100 tons     4.05/ton
                1.989.000
                1,989,000
    15,350 man-hr   6.00/man-hr      92,100
 2,602,800 gal
   831,DOOM gal

 2,946,600 kWh
26,224,700 kWh
 4,714,600 kWh
  -269,500 kWh
 1,599,700 kWh
  .11/gal
  .03/M gal

 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
 .007/kWh
       530 hr
10.00/hr
                                                     Cost/ton
                                                      of coal
                                                     burned, $
  286,300
   24,900

   20,600
  183,600
   33,000
    (1,900)
   11,200
  145,700
   23,700
    5,300
  824,500
2,813,500
                                      993,600

                                      164,900
                                        9.200
                                    1,167,700

                                    3,981,200

                                      141,500
                                   Total annual
                                      cost, $
               5.85
                4,122,700
aBasis:
      Coal burned-705,000 tons/yr; .806 Ibs/kWh
      Remaining life of power plant-15 yr
      Power plant on-stream time—5000 hr/yr
      Midwest plant location-1972 costs
      0" x \V" limestone ground to 80% minus 400 mesh
      Capital investment, $5,645,500
      Incremental electrostatic precipitator added to maintain dust emission rate prior to injection of limestone. Dust
       collection efficiency prior to injection of limestone is assumed to be 99% using a combination of mechanical
       and electrostatic devices.
      Solids disposed as 15% slurry with no recycle of pond water.
      Disposal pond located 1 mile from power unit.
      Cost of solids disposal pond not included.
"Cost of utility supplied from power plant at full value.
-------
                                                         Table A-105





DRY LIMESTONc  INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO.- ECON., 50 MW  EX.  COAL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 0.3* S IN FUEL, 3.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.




                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:   $     751500
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KV»-HR/KW M KwH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
5.- _
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.

5000
5000
5 JOO
5000
3500
3500
3500
3_.5.0_.0_
1500
1500
1500
1500

250000
250000
250000
250000
25.QO.flii _
175000
175000
175000
175000
1250.0.0.
75000
75000
75000
75000

97900
97900
97900
97900
212Q2_
68600
6S600
68600
68600
29400
29400
29400
29400
224.00
TOTAL 50000 2500000 979500
EQUIVALENT CCST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IE DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT rtJRTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL bURNED
EQUIVALENT fVEScNT ft'JRTH, 1ILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR

376200
365800
355400
344900
3_ 2.4.5-0.0.
283000
277600
267200
256700
_24.6.3_QQ. _
180200
169800
159400
143900
13a5QQ.
3909400
3.99
1.56
2223900
2.27
0.89

376200
742000
1097400
1442300
1226.3.30.
2064800
2342400
2609600
2866300
3.1126.Q.Q.
3292800
3462600
3622000
3770900

                                                                                                                                       01
-------
                                                      Table A-106





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  50  MW  EX.  COAL  FIREO POWER UNIT, 0.81 S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:   t     834500
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPAMY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR *
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IS COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
3.Q 1500
250000
250000
250000
250000
175000
175000
175000
175000
75000
75000
75000
75000
98100
98100
98100
98100
68700
68700
68700
68700
29400
29400
29400
29400
_ 224QQ-
TOTAL 50000 2500000 981000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
417800
406200
394600
383100
318800
307200
295600
284100
198100
186600
175000
163400
	 1512QQ 	
4326400
4.41
1.73
2464300
2.51
0.99
417800
824000
1218600
1601700
	 laiazao-
2292000
2599200
2894800
3178900
3649500
3836100
4011100
4174500

                                                                                                                                ID
-------
                                                        Table A-107

DRY LIMESTONE  INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S  IN FUEL,  5.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:  $     908300
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START
  ANNUAL
OPERATION,
 KW-HR/KW
  POWER
GENERATION
 M KWH/YR
   POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
  TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
 INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
 (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
  IN COST OF POWER)
           $
 CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
 IN COST OF
   POWER,
      $
  1
  2
  3
  4

 ~6
  7
  8
  9
-10.
 11
 12
 13
 V4
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
3Q_
5000
5000
5000
5000
	 5.QQQ. 	
3510
3500
3500
3500
_ 	 	 as.QQ. 	
1500
1500
1500
1500
250000
250000
250000
250000
	 25QOQQ_
175000
175000
175000
175000
75000
75000
75000
75000
	 25QO.Q 	
98200
98200 '
98200 '
98200 '
68800 ;
68800 ;
68800 :
68800 :
6jaaQQ 	 	 i
29500 i
29500 i
29500 ]
29500 ;
2.2500 	 __ 	 J
 TOTAL        50000           2500000            982500
    EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
    EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT  10.OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
    EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
    EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
                                                                       456900
                                                                       444300
                                                                       431700
                                                                       419100
                                                                      _iQ6.5QQ	
                                                                       347400
                                                                       334800
                                                                       322200
                                                                       309600
                                                                      -2.220.0.0.	
                                                                       214300
                                                                       201700
                                                                       189100
                                                                       176500
                                                                       16.3,200.	
                                                            4715000
                                                               4.80
                                                               1.89
                                                            2689400
                                                               2.74
                                                               1.08
                                                                                      456900
                                                                                      901200
                                                                                      332900
                                                                                     ^752000
                                                                                     2J.5fl5Qfl_
                                                                                     2505900
                                                                                     2840700
                                                                                     3162900
                                                                                     3472500
                                                                                     3983800
                                                                                     4185500
                                                                                     4374600
                                                                                     4551100
                                                                                     47-15.0.00.
                                                                                                                        <£>
-------
                                                       Table A-108





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  50  MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8S S IN FUEL, 6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  $     974900
YEARS
AFTER
POWER. ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWERJ
TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
20 5QOO ^
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 • 350Q
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
ifl 	 _L5fifl 	 ^


250000
250000
250000
250000
175000
175000
175000
175000
__125flQQ_
75000
75000
75000
75000
15QQQ


98400
98400
98400
98400
_, 98400
68900
68900
68900
68900
29500
29500
29500
29500
29500
TOTAL 50000 2500000 984000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


493400
479900
466300
452800
	 4a22QQ 	
374400
360900
347300
333800
3.2D.3.0.Q
229700
216200
202600
189100
	 115.400. 	
5081600
5.16
2.03
2901100
2.95
1.16


493400
973300
1439600
1892400
	 23.3.1J.QO.
2706100
306700C
3414300
3748100
4P.684.Qp'.
4298100
4514300
4716900
4906000
	 saaiiafl.

                                                                                                                                  00
-------
                                                      Table A-109




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POHER CO. ECON., 50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  *    1036300
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR ",
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
-10.
11
13
14
15_
16
17
18
19
-2.Q.
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
_2tt
TOT
PRE




5000 250000
5000 250000
5000 250000
5000 250000
_5.QQO_ 250000
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
15OO
1500
1SOQ
175000
175000
175000
175000
115QQfl 	
75000
75000
75000
75000
75000


98500
98500
98500
98500
69000
69000
69000
69000
	 6.2QQQ 	 	 	 .
29600
29600
29600
29600
226QQ
AL 50000 2500000 985500
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
SENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OS TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


528300
513900
499500
485100
	 4iaaaa _„ 	
399800
385400
371000
356700
	 3.4.22QQ 	 _
243900
229500
215200
20080
	 18.6.4.QU
5428600
5.51
2.17
3102100
3.15
1.2*


528300
1042200
1541700
2026800
2 8 9 74 00~
3282800
3653800
40105OO
4596700~
4826200
5041400
5242200
54.2.B6.QQ

                                                                                                                                  VD
-------
                                                       Table A-110




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 0.8S S IN FUEL,  3.0  INJECTION  STOICHIONETRY.


                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  $    1280100
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
2
3
4
^5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14



16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
^20 _ 5000
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
3500
3500
3500
3500

	 . 	 	 	
750000
750000
750000
750000
525000
525000
525000
525000
1500 225000
1500 225000
1500 225000
1500 225000
1500 22jOQO

	
293800
293800
293800
293800
205700
205700
205700
205700
88100
88100
88100
88100
_BfllQQ
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2938000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



634300
616500
598800
581000
-56.3,10.0 	
478500
460800
443100
425300
	 40.16.QJi 	
291400
273700
256000
238200
6489000
2.21
0.87
3712400
1.26
0.49
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
*



634300
1250800
1849600
2430600
,. , 2223900
3472400
3933200
4376300
4801600
52Q22QQ
5500600
5774300
6030300
6268500
&.4S2QQQ

                                                                                                                                   IV)
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   o
-------
                                                        Table A-lll

DRY LIMESTONE  INJECTIONt  REGULATED  POWER CO.  ECON.,  150 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.
                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:  $    1431500
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START
  ANNUAL
OPERATION,
 KW-HR/KW
  POWER
GENERATION
 M KWH/YR
   POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTIONt
  TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
 INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
 (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
  IN COST OF POWERJ
           $
 CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
 IN COST OF
   POWER,
      *
    750000
    750000
    750000
    750000
    ,15.0.0.0.0.-
    525000
    525000
    525000
    525000
                              225000
                              225000
                              225000
                              225000
                                                294200
                                                294200
                                                294200
                                                294200
                                                            729300
                                                            709400
                                                            689600
                                                            669700
206000
206000
206000
206000
88300
88300
88300
88300
	 aaaofl 	
547700
527900
508000
488200
329700
3099QO
290000
270200
__ 	 2.5.0100.
                                                       729300
                                                      1438700
                                                      2126300
                                                      2798000
                                                     -34.4.12QQ.
                                                      3995600
                                                      4523500
                                                      5031500
                                                      5519700
                                                                                    6317800
                                                                                    6627700
                                                                                    6917700
                                                                                    7187900
 TOTAL       50000           7500000           2942500                7438200
    EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED                      2.53
    EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR                             0.99
 PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT  10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS       4262400
    EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED             1.45
    EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR                    0.57
-------
                                                       Table A-112


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL FIRED  POWER  UNIT,  0.88 S  IN  FUEL,  5.0  INJECTION STOICHIOM6TRY.

                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    1568800
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
I
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
,10 ^rT-
11
12
13
14
15



16 5000 750000
17 5000 750000
18 5000 750000
19 5000 750000
_2Q 	 	 5UCJ2 	 7.5QQQO
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 350O
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
30 , , 15Q0 , - ,
525000
525000
525000
525000
	 525QQ&.
225000
225000
225000
225000
225QQ.fi
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE
R01 FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER! POWER.
TONS COAL/YR § $



294700
294700
294700
294700
^_2S4ZOa^.,li».r-
206300
206300
206300
206300
2Q6300
88400
88400
88400
88400
8fl400_
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2947000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



819300
797600
775800
754000
. 	 	 Z3.22Qa_
613300
591600
569800
548100
	 526.3flQ
365400
343700
321900
300200
	 	 2ia4Qa_
8337700
2.83
1.11
4784000
1.62
0.64



819300
1616900
2392700
3146700
	 3.S1SQQQ
4492300
5083900
5653700
6201800
6-22JLLQ2
7093500
7437200
7759100
805930O
	 . 	 aaaziflo.
                                                                                                                                 l\3
                                                                                                                                 O
-------
                                                     Table A-113



DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL FIRED POWER  UNIT,  0.8*  S  IN  FUEL,  6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.


                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    1694400
YEARS
AFTER.
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KH-HR/KW M KWH/YR
1
2
3
4
•j
6
7
8
9
-10
11
12
13
14
1*>
16
17
ia
19
-2.0.
21
22
23
24
25



5000
5000
5000
5000
5QOO
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500



750000
750000
750000
750000
	 isaoao-
525000
525000
525000
525000
525QOO
26 1500 225000
27 1500 225000
28 1500 225000
29 1500 225000
20. i5CO 225QQQ
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR $



295100
295100
295100
295100
zasiaa 	 _ 	
206600
206600
206600
206600
	 ZQfifiQfl 	
88500
88500
88500
88500
Sfl5.QQ
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2951000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



905800
882300
858800
835300
aiiaofl_
676000
652500
629000
605500
	 aazQ-QQ 	
399300
375800
352300
328800
	 3Q52QQ 	
9200500
3.12
i.23
5284900
1,79
0.70
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
i



905800
1788100
2646900
3482200
	 	 . 	 i224QDfl
4970000
§622500
6251500
6857000
	 Z4.22QQfl_
1838300
821*100
3566400
8895200
	 22£Ki5_QQ

                                                                                                                                 IV)
                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                 00
-------
                                                        Table  A-llU

OR* LIMESTONE  INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON.,  150  MM  EX.  COAL FIRED  POWER  UNIT,  0.81  S  IN  FUEL,  7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRV.

                                                 FIXED  INVESTMENT:  *     isoaooo
YEARS
AFTER
POWER.
UNIT
START

~~I
  2
  3
  4
             ANNUAL
          OPERATION,
           KW-HR/KW
  POWER
GENERATION
 M KWH/YR
   POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
  TONS COAL/YR
                                                            ANNUAL OPERATING COST
                                                              INCLUDING REGULATED
                                                            ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
                                                              (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
                                                              IN COST OF POWER)
                                                                                   CUMULATIVE
                                                                                  NET INCREASE
                                                                                   IN COST OF
                                                                                     POWER,
                                                                                        $
  6
  7
  8
  9

 "ll"
 12
 13
 14
 16
 17
 18
 19
 21
 22
 23
 24
-2,5	
 26
 27
 28
 29
     5000
     5000
     5000
     5000
	aaoa—
     3500
     3500
     3500
     3500
	asafl	
             1500
             1500
             1500
             1500
                             750000
                             750000
                             750000
                             750000
                            -isaflfla..
                             525000
                             525000
                             525000
                             525000
                            _525_aaa.
                             225000
                             225000
                             225000
                             225000
       295600
       295600
       295600
       295600
	2256.0.0—
       206900
       206900
       206900
       206900
    	2fl62QQ_.
        88700
        88700
        88700
        88700
                                             988800
                                             963700
                                             938600
                                             913600
                                                       988800
                                                      1952500
                                                      2891100
                                                      3804700
                                             736200
                                             711200
                                             686100
                                             661100
                                             63.6QQ.O.-
                                             431400
                                             406400
                                             381300
                                             356200
                                                                                               5429400
                                                                                               6140600
                                                                                               6826700
                                                                                               7487800
                                                      8555200
                                                      8961600
                                                      9342900
                                                      9699100
                                                     1QQ3.Q.3.QO.
TOTAL       50000           7500000            2956000                10030300
   EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER  TON  OF  COAL  BURNED                       3.39
   EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                              1.34
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT   10.0* TO  INITIAL  YEAR,  DOLLARS        5766600
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT  WORTH, DOLLARS PER  TON OF COAL  BURNED              1.95
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT-WORTH, MILLS PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                     0.77
-------
                                                       Table A-115
DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER  CO.  ECON., 250 MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 6.8X S IN FUEL,  3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.
                                               FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    1695100
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) POWER,
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $ $
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ID
11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
20 ^5OOQ
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 2500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
^n 1*500



1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
_125flflQQ_ 	
875000
875000
875000
875000
aiiaaa.
375000
375000
375000
375000
375000



489700
489700
489700
489700
„. 489700, _,..,-
342800
342800
342800
342800
34.2flQ.fl 	 	
146900
146900
146900
146900
__ JAfiSQQ 	 __ 	
TOTAL 50000 12500000 4897000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR

	
857200
833700
810200
786700
-1632,00 	
642200
618700
595200
571600
	 54B1QQ 	
384800
361300
337800
314300
__22QflQQ 	
8715800
1.78
0.70
4999800
1.02
0.40



857200
1690900
2501100
3287BOO
	 4fl51QQfl.
4693200
5311900
5907100
6478700
	 _ 	 	 ZQ2.6flflQ
7411600
7772900
8110700
8425000
,- „, 	 ,9715800

-------
                                                       Table A-ll6


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER  CO.  ECON., 250 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT,  0.8*  S  IN  FUEL,  4.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.


                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  *    1868100
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION,
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
INET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
*
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.5
16
17
IB
19
2.0. ^ -
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
3.Q


5000
5000
5000
5000
50QC
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1«500


1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
125QQQQ
875000
875000
875000
875000
"375000
375000
375000
375000
375000


490400
490400
490400
490400
34330O
343300
343300
343300
	 343100 	
147100
147100
147100
147100
1471QQ


989600
963700
9378OO
911900
48.6jO.PQ
738000
712100
686200
660300
	 6.14400 	
435500
409600
383700
357800
331900


989600
1953300
2891100
3803000
	 	 4&fl2flflQ_
5427000
6139100
6825300
7485600
	 fli2flQOQ_
8555500
8965100
9348800
9706600
10.03.8.500.
TOTAL 5000C 12500000 4904000 10038500
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.05
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.80
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 5768300
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 1.18
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 0.46
                                                                                                                                 17
                                                                                                                                 N)
                                                                                                                                 o
-------
                                                       Table A-117

ORV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  250 MW EX.  C3AL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 5.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRV.

                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  $    2086100
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KHH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POKER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR *
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
«
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1O , .,
11
12
13
14
A5
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
2Q _5DQO_
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 35 QQ
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
30 15QQ
	
1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
lisaaoa 	
875000
875000
875000
875000
ai5flOQ_
375000
375000
375000
375000
375QQO
	
491100
491100
491100
491100
^TT ^491100,^ ^
343800
343800
343800
343800
343800
147300
147300
147300
147300
1413-0.0. _ _
TOTAL 50000 12500000 4911000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT HORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT HORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


1136400
1107500
1078500
1049600
__1QZQ1QQ 	
844800
815900
787000
758000
	 2221QQ 	
493400
464400
435500
406600
—17-7.&OQ
11505000
2.34
0.92
6619100
1.35
0.53


1136400
2243900
3322400
4372000
	 5322200-
6237500
7053450
7840400
8598400
	 22225flQ_
9820900
10285300
10720800
11127400
	 li505flflQ_

                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                  -si
-------
                                                       Table A-118




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT,  0.8S  S  IN  FUEL, 6.0  INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                               FIXED INVESTMENT:  S    2253600
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING RP6ULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
_10 	
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
^2.0 	 	



5000
5000
5000
5000
5.OOO . .
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 35OO
26
27
26
29
3.0
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500



1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
875000
875000
875000
875000
875000
375000
375000
375000
375000
375000



491900
491900
491900
491900
42123Q 	 _
344300
344300
344300
344300
24&3.Q.a_
147600
147600
147600
147600
14-7.6.0.0—
TOTAL 50000 12500000 4919000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT .WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



1267700
1236500
1205300
1174000
-ll&ZflQO 	 _
939900
908700
877500
846200
	 aiSQQQ 	
543500
512300
481000
449800
	 41&60H 	
12818800
2.61
1.03
7382400
1.50
0.59
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
S



1267700
2504200
3709500
4883500
	 6flZ63flfl_
6966200
7874900
8752400
9598600
	 ,,10413600
10957100
11469400
11950400
12400200
	 IZfllflSQQ.
                                                                                                                                  ro
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  oo
-------
                                                        Table A-119


DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MM EX. COAL  FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S  IN FUEL, 7.0  INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  *    2407700
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TOTAL
EQU
ANNUAL
OPERATION,
KW-HR/KW



5000
5000
5000
5000
50OO
3500
3500
3500
3500
35flQ
1500
1500
1500
1500
150°
50000
IVALENT COST,
POWER
GENERATION
M KWH/YR



1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000 ,.
875000
875000
875000
875000
,_ aisjwp
375000
375000
375000
375000
-325000.
12500000
DOLLARS PER TON OF
POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS COAL/YR



492600
492600
492600
492600
4226.QQ 	
344800
344800
344800
344800
_ _,_34^aoa 	
147800
147800
147800
147800
4926000
COAL BURNED
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
tNET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
S



1394700
1361300
1327900
1294500
	 	 1261200 	
1031600
998200
964800
931400
591600
558200
524800
491400
14087600
2.86
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
t



1394700
2756000
4083900
5378400
_ 	 6.6.226.00
7671200
8669400
9634200
10565600
_ 	 114.43.6.0.Q
12055200
12613400
13138200
13629600

   EQUIVALENT  COST,  MILLS  PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                             1.13
PRESENT WORTH  IF  DISCOUNTED  AT  10.OX  TO  INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS       8120000
   EQUIVALENT  PRESENT  WORTH, DOLLARS PER  TON  OF COAL BURNED             1.65
   EQUIVALENT  PRESENT  WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR                    0.65
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   to
-------
                                                        Table A-120




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  350  MW  EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8J S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    2032300
YEARS
AFTER
POWER. ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT CNET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
5 ,-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
2Q__ _5QQQ 	
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
_25 J5QO
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
3g T — L5QQ 	 _.,„„„


1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
-1Z500QO-
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
12.25.DQQ ..
525000
525000
525000
525000
525QOQ


685600
685600
685600
685600
, n 6.856QQJ
479900
479900
479900
479900
_ £239.00 	 	
205700
205700
205700
205700
205700
TOTAL 50000 17500000 6856000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


1055400
1027200
999100
970900
	 stiziao. 	
787200
759000
730800
702600
	 6.145.00
465900
43 700
409500
381300
-15.1IQO.
10696900
1.56
0.61
6146600
0.90
0.35


1055400
2082600
3081700
4052600
4995300
5782500
6541500
7272300
7974900
aai240Q
9115300
9553000
9962500
10343800
106.i62QQ

-------
                                                       Table A-121
ORY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 HW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOHETRY.
                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  s    2278800
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR *
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1ft
11
12
13
-15.
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29



5000
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
L5QQ



1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
_1Z5QQQO_ 	
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
_I2Z5£Qfl_ _
525000
525000
525000
525000
525.QQQ



686600
686600
686600
686600
480600
480600
480600
480600
206000
206000
206000
206000
206000
TOTAL 50000 17500000 6866000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. 0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
	

1242200
1210600
1179000
1147400
	 11I5MQ 	
922400
890800
859200
827600
_Z26.QQQ
537500
505900
474300
442800
	 	 4.112QO. 	
12562700
1.83
0.72
7230600
1.05
0.41
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
*
	

1242200
2452800
3631800
4779200
	 5Jl25flflQ_
6817400
7708200
8567400
9395000
	 J>fll210.QQ
10728500
11234400
11708700
12151500

-------
                                                        Table A-122
DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 HW EX.  COAL FIRED POWER  UNIT,  0.8*  S  IN  FUEL*  5.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOHETRY.
                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  S    2503200
YEARS
AFTER.
POWER. ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KH M KHH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR *
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
»
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2P


5000
5000
5000
5000
5OOO
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
,25 35DO
26
27
28
29
3Q
1500
1500
1500
1500
150O_


1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
J,75QOOO_
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
.1225000.
525000
525000
525000
525000
525QQQ


687600
687600
687600
687600
,687600 	 	
481300
481300
481300
481300
4R1300
206300
206300
206300
206300
2O6300
TOTAL 50000 17500000 6876000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


1421900
1387200
1352400
1317700
—uaaaoa 	
1052200
1017500
9B2800
948000
	 213200 	
605800
571100
536400
501700
.4J&.1QDQ
14358000
2.09
0.82
8274100
1.20
0.47


1421900
2809100
4161500
5479200
	 626220Q.
7814400
8831900
9814700
10762700
	 11626000-
12281800
12852900
13389300
13891000
. _ -14358000.

                                                                                                                                   ro
-------
                                                       Table  A-123
DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER  CO.  ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8X S IN FUEL,  6.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.
                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    2707700
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POKER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KH-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR *
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ifl
11
12
13
1*
15
16 5COO
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
?0 5.Q.QQ



1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
1Z5QQQQ
21 3500 1225000
22 3500 1225000
23 3500 1225000
24 3500 1225000
25 25QQ 1225OOO
26 1500
27 1500
26 1500
29 1500
2Q 	 L5fl-Q
525000
525000
525000
525000
525000



688600
688600
688600
688600
_ 68.S6J2Q 	
482000
482000
482000
482000
4£2flQ.Q.
206600
206600
206600
206600
246.6.0.0.
TOTAL 50000 17500000 6886000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



1595800
1558300
1520700
1483200
	 14.456.flQ 	 	
1177900
1140300
1102800
1065200
	 1Q22ZQQ 	
670900
633300
595800
558200
	 52QZCQ 	
16096400
2.34
0.92
9285400
1.35
0.53
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$



1595800
3154100
4674800
6158000
	 Z6.D26.QQ.
8781500
9921800
11024600
12089800
13.1115flQ
13788400
14421700
15017500
15575700
	 16.32£4.flQ

                                                                                                                                 GO
-------
                                                       Table A-


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  350  MW  EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 0.8* S IN FUEL, 7.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    2893300
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR t
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
»
1
2
3
4
5 '
6
7
8
9
.,10 .„_ ,, , 	
11
12
13
14


16 5000 1750000
17 5000 1750000
18 5000 1750000
19 5000 1750000
2ft_ _5flflfl_ ^ 1750000
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
2* 3500
24 35QP
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
3Q_ t 	 L5QQ 	 n
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
-1225QUQ-
525000
525000
525000
525000
•5P5000


689600
689600
689600
689600
&&2&QQ_ _ 	
482800
482800
482800
482800
4828QQ
206900
206900
206900
206900
206900 	
TOTAL 5000C 17500000 6896500
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


1776900
1736800
1696700
1656500
	 16.164QQ 	
1309600
1269500
1229300
1189200
	 .1142100 	
740300
700200
660000
619900
	 5Z2flQQ 	
17930200
2.60
1.02
10347900
1.50
0.59


1776900
3513700
5210400
686690O
	 aiaiiflQ-
9792900
11062400
12291700
13480900
_ _14£3.flQ.Qfi_
15370300
16070500
16730500
17350400
	 11230200.
                                                                                                                                 r
                                                                                                                                 IVJ
-------
                                                          Taisle A-125





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 50 MM EX. COAL  FIRED  POKER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL,  1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                  FIXED INVESTMENT:   t     817100
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
1
2
3
4
5 ^_^_ - _,„ -
6
7
8
9
11
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
Zfl 5000 „ ,_
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 3500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
3.0 _15Dfl_



250000
250000
250000
250000
175000
175000
175000
175000
75000
75000
75000
75000
750QO
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR »



98000
98000
98000
98000
28000
68600
68600
68600
68600
6860Q
29400
29400
29400
29400
29400
TOTAL 50000 2500000 980000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



407900
396500
385200
373800
311600
300200
288900
277600
194000
182700
171300
160000
	 iifilQa 	
4227100
4.31
1.69
2406900
2.46
0.96
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$



407900
804400
1189600
1563400
	 13253Q2_
2237500
2537700
2826600
3104200
	 	 3.3.Ifl4.QQ_
3564400
3747100
3918400
4078400
	 422JlQPr

                                                                                                                                      01
-------
                                                       Table  A-126



DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER  CO.  ECON.,  50  MM EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0? S IN FUEL,  2.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.


                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  «    IOTOSOO
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KH M KWH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
20 5QQQ
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 _J15QQ_
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
250000
250000
250000
250000
175000
175000
175000
175000
_liaQQQ_
75000
75000
75000
75000
15.QQQ
98400
98400
98400
98400
98400
68900
68900
68900
68900
68900
29500
29500
29500
29500
_295Qfl _ 	
TOTAL 50000 2500000 984000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESF.NT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
546100
531200
516400
501500
-4.a6.ZQQ 	
412900
398100
383200
368400
	 3535QQ 	
251600
236700
221800
207000
	 1221QQ 	
5607200
5.70
2.24
3205200
3.26
1.28
546100
1077300
1593700
2095200
2994800
3392900
3776100
4144500
4749600
4986300
5208100
5415100
, 56QI2QQ

                                                                                                                                 r\j
                                                                                                                                 i—»

                                                                                                                                 01
-------
                                                      Table A-12?





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  50  MW  EX.  COAL  FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION ST01CHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    1271500
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
2
3
4
5 	 	
6
7
8
9




CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$


11
12
13
14
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
PO 5000
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25. -3.500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
an _150-0 	
250000 98900
250000 98900
250000 98900
250000 98900
250000 	 	 2H2QQ 	 _ _.
175000 69200
175000 69200
175000 69200
175000 69200
115000 -u ,69200
75000 29700
75000 29700
75000 29700
75000 29700
isaaa_ 	 22ZQO 	 	
TOTAL 50000 2500000 989000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT *ORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
668100
650400
632800
615200
52Z50Q
502100
484400
466800
449200
	 431500 	 ,_
301000
283300
265700
248100
. 	 	 23Q4QQ
6826500
6.90
2.73
3911300
3.95
1.56
668100
1318500
1951300
'.566500
	 3164000-
3666100
4150500
4617300
5066500
5799000
6082300
6348000
6596100

                                                                                                                                IV)
-------
                                                      Table A-128
DRV LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  50 MW EX. COAL  FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL,  4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.
                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   *    144-2000
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF PDWERI
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
2
3
4
, .5 	 _..^_ 	 ..„ .
6
7
8
9
IP
11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
20. 5poo
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 3500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
3.Q _ L50Q



250000
250000
250000
250000
25QQOQ
175000
175000
175000
175000
1Z5QQU 	 „„
75000
75000
75000
75000
75QQQ
TOTAL 50000 2500000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. 0* TO INI
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOW



99400
99400
99400
99400
224QQ 	 _ 	
69600
69600
69600
69600
_6.9.6.QQ 	
29800
29800
29800
29800
	 2.2&Q.Q. 	
994000
BURNED
TIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
OF COAL BURNED
ATT-HOUR



781000
761000
741100
721100
_ .101100 	
584200
564200
544200
524200
	 5Q4.2.QQ 	
345700
325800
305800
285800
7955200
8.00
3.18
4565900
4.59
1.83
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,



781000
1542000
2283100
3004200
4289500
4853700
5397900
5922100
	 . 	 6.4 2.6.3.QQ_
6772000
7097800
7403600
7689400
	 7_3S520J}

                                                                                                                                oo
-------
                                                         Table A-129




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  150  MW EX. COAL  FIRED  POWER UNIT,  3.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                 FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $     140*600

YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION,
START KH-HR/KW
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10 	
11
12
13
14
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
2.O 5.0QQ
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
?*> 3500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
_aa 	 isafl —
TOTAL 50000
EQUIVALENT COST,
EQUIVALENT COST,



POWER
GENERATION
M KWH/YR













750000
750000
750000
750000
Z5QQ.QQ _
525000
525000
525000
525000
5_2.5QQfl
225000
225000
225000
225000
	 22.5QO.Q 	
7500000
DOLLARS PER TON OF



POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS COAL/YR













293900
293900
293900
293900
2,9.3.9.00,
205700
205700
205700
205700
20.5100. 	
88200
88200
88200
88200
	 aazfio. 	
2939000
COAL BURNED
MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0*
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
(NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
(













707400
687900
668400
649000
	 	 62.95_O.Q 	
532000
512500
493100
473600
	 	 iSilQQ 	 .
321600
302100
282600
263200
	 Z&3.1D.Q 	
7220700
2.46
0.96

CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$













707400
1395300
2063700
2712700
	 3.3.422QQ
3874200
4386700
4879800
5353400
._ 	 5flQl5QQ
6129100
6431200
6713800
6977000
	 122.fllQO._



TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 4135700
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER
KILOWATT-HOUR
1.41
0.55


                                                                                                                                  [7

                                                                                                                                  N>
                                                                                                                                  I—*
                                                                                                                                  to
-------
                                                         Table  A-130

DRY LIMESTONE  INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.
                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    1374200
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START
  1
  2
  3
  4
 ..5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13

 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25_
 26
 27
 28
 29
.30	
  ANNUAL
OPERATION,
 KW-HR/KW
  POWER
GENERATION
 M KWH/YR
   POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
  TONS COAL/YR
   5000
   5000
   5000
   5000
   5000^
   3500
   3500
   3500
   3500
   1500
   1500
   1500
   1500
   150Q
    750000
    750000
    750000
    750000
    525000
    525000
    525000
    525000
    225000
    225000
    225000
    225000
   -22.5000—
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
 INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
 (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
  IN COST OF POWER)
           t
 CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
 IN COST OF
   POWER,
      S
       295300                1029400                  1029400
       295300                1003500                  2032900
       295300                 977500                  3010400
       295300                 951500                  3961900
      -225300	9.25500.	iflaiAQQ-
       206700                 766200                  5653600
       206700                 740300                  6393900
       206700                 714300                  7108200
       206700                 688300                  7796500
      .2Q61QQ	6.&210Q	ai5MQQ
        88600                 447800                  8906600
        88600                 421900                  9328500
        88600                 395900                  9724400
        88600                 369900                 10094300
                              3.A32QQ
TOTAL       50000           7500000           2953000
   EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
   EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT  10.OX TO  INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER  TON OF COAL BURNED
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
                                                          10438200
                                                              3.53
                                                              1.39
                                                           6002800
                                                              2.03
                                                              0.80
-------
                                                       Table A-131




ORY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL  FIRED  POWER  UNIT,  3.0* S  IN  FUEL, 3.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    2251400
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
20 5QQQ_



750000
750000
750000
750000
75QQQO
21 3500 525000
22 3500 525000
23 3500 525000
24 3500 525000
?•> 350Q - - 525OOO
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
•*n i son
225000
225000
225000
225000
225000



296700
296700
296700
296700
	 226.1Q.Q 	 	
207700
207700
207700
207700
-2Q.ZZQQ 	 	
89000
89000
89000
89000
890QO
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2967000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



1324800
1293600
1^62300
1231100
J.1922QO. 	
979700
948500
917200
8B6000
560600
529400
498100
466900
	 _4.25ZQ.a 	
13388600
4.51
1.79
7717400
2.60
1.03
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$



1324800
2618400
3880700
5111800
	 6.3.11ZQ.Q
7291400
8239900
9157100
10043100
	 lQfl2I2QQ
11458500
11987900
12486000
12952900
	 123.aflfi.QQ

-------
                                                        Table  A-132





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 150 MW EX.  COAL FIRED POWER UNIT,  3.0JE S IN FUEL,  4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  $    2574200
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER. ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5COO
2Q 5000
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 	 	 _25QQ 	
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
30 _ _.150Q ,_
750000
750000
750000
750000
I5QOQQ 	 _ _
525000
525000
525000
525000
225000
225000
225000
225000
225000
298200
298200
298200
298200
	 22B2.QQ 	
208700
208700
208700
208700
89500
89500
89500
89500
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2982000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
1604200
1568500
1532800
1497200
	 14615.QQ
1181300
1145600
1109900
1074200
	 1023.500 	
665000
629300
593600
557900
	 522ZQQ 	 .
16181700
5.43
2.16
9342200
3.13
1.25
1604200
3172700
4705500
6202700
Z&6_42QQ
8845500
9991100
11101000
12175200
13878700
14508000
15101600
15659500
. 	 16iSlZflfl

                                                                                                                                 rvs
-------
                                                        Table  A-133
DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON., 250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.01 S IN FUEL,  1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.
                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    1865600
YEARS
AFTER.
POWER ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION,
START KW-HR/KW
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
e
9
ifl
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
-2.Q
ai
22
23
24
_2i
26
27
28
29
_lfl
TOT
PRE

5000
5000
5000
5000
5.00Q
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1 *^00

1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
J.2.5QQQQ
875000
875000
875000
875000
&Z5.QQQ
375000
375000
375000
375000
3I5QQQ

489800
489800
489800
489800
4fl2flflQ 	 	 	
342900
342900
342900
342900
34.22QQ 	 	
147000
147000
147000
147000
1470.0.0. 	 _ 	
A, 50000 12500000 4898500
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
SENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR

966600
940800
914900
889000
	 a&aiaa 	
722000
696100
670200
644300
	 ftiasaa
428400
402500
376600
350800
	 124."iPQ 	
9808700
2.00
0.78
5633500
1.15
0.45

966600
1907400
2822300
3711300
4,57.44.0.0.
5296400
5992500
6662700
7307000
iszssaa
8353900
8756400
9133000
9483800
	 	 2flflfl2QQ

                                                                                                                                co
-------
                                                         Table A-
DRV LIMESTONE  INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON.,  250 MW EX.  COAL FIRED POWER  UNIT,  3.0? S IN FUEL, 2.0 INJECTION STOIC HI OMETR Y.

                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    2*98900
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START

  1
  2
  3
  4
  6
  7
  e
  9
_ifi_
 11
 12
 13
  ANNUAL
OPERATION,
 KW-HR/KW
  POWER
GENERATION
 M KHH/YR
   POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
  TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
 INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
 (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
  IN COST OF POWER)
 CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
 IN COST OF
   POWER,
      t
                                                                                                                        I\J
                                                                                                                        ro
 1,5
 16
 17
 18
 19
 21
 22
 23
 24
-Zi_
 26
 27
 28
 29
   5000           1.750000            492200                1456800                   1456800
   5000           1250000            492200                1422100                   2878900
   5000           1250000            492200                1387500                   4266400
   5000           1250000            492200                1352800                   5619200
	5QO.Q	1250000	4222QQ	13.1B2QQ	6.2224.00-
   3500            875000            344500                1076800                   8014200
   3500            875000            344500                1042200                   9056400
   3500            875000            344500                1007500                  10063900
   3500            875000            344500                 972800                  11036700

   1500            375000            147700                 615900                  12590800
   1500            375000            147700                 581300                  13172100
   1500            375000            147700                 546600                  13718700
   1500            375000            147700                 512000                  14230700
	L5QQ	325000	142200	422200	
TOTAL        5000C           12500000            4922000                14708000
   EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS  PER  TON  OF  COAL  BURNED                      2.99
   EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                              1.18
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED  AT  10.0* TO  INITIAL YEAR,  DOLLARS       8480000
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT  WORTH, DOLLARS PER  TON OF  COAL  BURNED             1.72
   EQUIVALENT PRESFNT  WORTH, MILLS PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                     0.68
-------
                                                       Table A-135
DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX.  C3AL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRV.
                                               FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    3011*00
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT 
-------
                                                       Table A-136
DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 250 MW EX.  C3AL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 3.0J S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.
                                               FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    3*93000
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START
ANNUAL POWER
OPERATION, GENERATION
KH-HR/KW M KWH/YR
POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
(NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
$
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
3D
21
22
23
24
_25_
26
27
28
29
2P

5000
5000
5000
5000
_5CQQ 	
3500
3500
3500
3500
_3.5QQ 	 	 	
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500

1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
12j5.QO.aQ 	
875000
875000
875000
875000
	 aisQo.0. 	
375000
375000
375000
375000
31500.0.

497000
497000
497000
497000
_ 421QQQ 	 .
347900
347900
347900
347900
	 34J2QQ-
149100
149100
149100
149100
149100

2380700
2332200
2283700
2235200
21&6.ZQQ
1743400
1694900
1646300
1597800
__ 	 _15i23.QQ 	
960100
911600
863100
814600
16.6.1OO
TOTAL 50000 12500000 4970000 23965700
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 4.82
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.92
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 13863600
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 2.79
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.11

2380700
4712900
6996600
9231800
	 _114ia5QQ
13161900
14856800
16503100
18100900
	 126.5.QZQQ
20610300
21521900
22385000
23199600
	 2.3.265IQQ

                                                                                                                               ro
-------
                                                        Table A-137


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULA1tD POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  t    2238600
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS
AFTER
POWER. ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION,
START K.W-HR/KW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
PO 50OO
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
s«; 3500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
i9 1500
^n 1500
TOTAL 5000C
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POxER
GENERATION
M KWH/YR














1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
115.000.0.
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225LQO.fl
525000
525000
525000
525000
52500.0 	
17500000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF
POWER UNIT INET
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN
TONS COAL/YR














685600
685800
685800
685800
, , ._ ., 6B5aQQ
480000
480000
480000
480000
AflQQQQ
205700
205700
205700
205700
__20 510.0 	 	
6857500
COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0% TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
ANNUAL INCREASE
COST OF POWER)
S














1197900
1166900
1135900
1104800
iaz.3.$.Q.a
890800
859700
828700
797700
	 26.6.6.0.0. 	
521700
490700
459600
428600
	 1216.00 	
12121000
1.77
0.69
6973000
L.02
0.40
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
t














1197900
2364800
3500700
4605500
	 56.12300
6570100
7429800
8258500
9056200
28.22&00
10344500
10835200
11294800
11723400
. 	 12121000



                                                                                                                                  N>
                                                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                                                  --J
-------
                                                        Table A-138


DRY tIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON., 350 MW EX. C3AL FIRED POWER UNIT,  3.0J S  IN  FUELt  2.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    3005900
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15 _ 	
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
_2.Q 	 5QQQ 	
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 25QQ
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
30 15.00
TOTAL 50000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS













1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
-1Z5QQQQ 	
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
I225fl]0.fl
525000
525000
525000
525000
_52SQQQ_
17500000
PER TON OF
POWER UNIT (NET
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN
TONS COAL/YR













689100
689100
689100
689100
	 6S21QQ 	
482300
482300
482300
482300
4fi23QQ
206700
206700
206700
206700
2.Q6ZQQ
6890500
COAL 8URNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH
AT 10.0*
TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
, MILLS PER
KILOWATT-HOUR
ANNUAL INCREASE
COST OF POWER)
S













1858900
1817200
1775600
1733900
	 16922QQ 	
1369300
1327600
1285900
1244300
	 12Q26QQ 	
772200
730500
688300
647100
	 &Q55.QQ 	
18751600
2.72
1.07
10824500
1.57
0.62
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$













1858900
3676100
5451700
7185600
	 aaziflQQ_
10247100
11574700
12860600
14104900
1520.Z5QQ.
16079700
16810200
17499000
18146100
19. 7.5 16. 0.0






                                                                                                                               IV)
                                                                                                                               oo
-------
                                                       Table A-139


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL,  3.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    3676800
                                                           ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL POWER
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POHERJ
TONS COAL/YR *
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
_10
11
12
13
14
16
17
IB
19
~21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
o n


5000
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500-
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500


1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
525000
525000
525000
525000


692400
692400
692400
692400
6224.00
484700
484700
484700
484700
	 _4fl4.1QO 	 	
207700
207700
207700
207700
_ 2Q2IQQ _ _
TOTAL 50000 17500000 6924000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


2501700
2450700
2399700
2348700
	 2222BQQ 	
1833200
1782200
1731200
1680200
	 1622200 	
1010900
959900
908900
857900
	 806300 	
25199100
3.64
1.44
14573700
2.10
0.83


2501700
4952400
7352100
9700800
11998600
13831800
15614000
17345200
19025400
21665500
22625400
23534300
24392200

                                                                                                                                IV)
                                                                                                                                CO
-------
                                                        Table A-
DRY  LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER CO. ECON., 350 MW EX. CDAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 3.0* S IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOIC HIOMETRY.

                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:  $    4262100
 YEARS
 AFTER
 POWER
 UNIT
 START
  ANNUAL
OPERATION,
 KW-HR/KW
  POWER
GENERATION
 M KWH/YR
   POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
  TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
 INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
 (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
  IN COST OF POWER)
TOTAL       50000           17500000           6957500               31268000
   EQUIVALENT COST,  DOLLARS  PER  TON OF  COAL BURNED                      4.49
   EQUIVALENT COST,  MILLS  PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                             1.79
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED  AT  10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR,  DOLLARS      18110200
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT  WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED             2.60
   EQUIVALENT PRESENT  WORTH, MILLS  PER  KILOWATT-HOUR                    1.03
 CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
 IN COST OF
   POWER,
      $
                             1750000            695800                3108900                  3108900
                             1750000            695800                3049800                  6158700
                             1750000            695800                2990700                  9149400
                             1750000            695800                2931600                 12081000
                             ilSflQttfl ___ 625_EQQ ________________ 21Z2.5aQ _______________ 142535Qfl_
                             1225000            487000                2268900                 17222400
                             1225000            487000                2209800                 19432200
                             1225000            487000                2150700                 21582900
                             1225000            487000                2091600                 23674500
                             U2.5.00Q ____ ifizaaa --------------- 2.fl3.250.Q _________________ 25IQZflflC.
                              525000            208700                1230400                 26937400
                              525000            208700                1171300                 28108700
                              525000            208700                1112200                 29220900
                              525000            208700                1053100                 30274000
                              525QQQ _______ 2CfilQQ ________________ 224.QQQ
                                                                                                                                   ro
                                                                                                                                   U)
                                                                                                                                   o
-------
                                                       Table A-lUl




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  50 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNITt 5.0? S IN FUELi 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.


                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:  *     995300

YEARS
AFTER
POWER. ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION,
START KW-HR/KW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
16 5000
19 5000
2_U 5.0QQ
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
2_5 35QQ 	
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
an 1 5DQ
	 jV_i^^ 	 . — _ Jh^MVi —
TOTAL 50000



POWER
GENERATION
M KWH/YR















250000
250000
250000
250000
25.UO.aQ 	
175000
175000
175000
175000
H5J}Q,Q 	
75000
75000
75000
75000
	 15.fl.UO. 	
2500000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF



POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS COAL/YR















98300
98300
98300
98300
	 2S3.UU 	 .
68800
68800
68800
68800
_&.aauu 	
29500
29500
29500
29500
_225J1U_ _
983000
COAL BURNED
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
(NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
$















502600
488800
475000
461200
. 	 iiiiOQ 	
361000
367200
353300
339500
	 _3252fla__ 	
233700
219900
Z06100
192300
	 liaSUQ 	 .
5172200
5.26

CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$















502600
991400
1466400
1927600
2.225.UUQ.
2756000
3123200
3476500
3816000
ilillflfl
4375400
4595300
4801400
4993700
	 	 _ 51.1220.0_


EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 2.07
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 2953500
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED 3.00
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.18
                                                                                                                                 ro
                                                                                                                                 u>
-------
                                                      Table A-1U2





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  50 MW EX.  COAL  FIRED  POWER  UNIT,  5.0?  S  IN  FUEL,  2.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   *    1332900
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER. ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
Ifl 	 	 	
11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
_2,Q 	 _____5QQQ 	 	
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 35QO
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
30 1500


250000
250000
250000
250000
._2SQflQfl_
175000
175000
175000
175000
1T5QOQ -r- _
75000
75000
75000
75000
15QQO_


99100
99100
99100
99100
	 2210.0. 	 	
69400
69400
69400
69400
	 6.240.0. 	 	
29700
29700
29700
29700
297.00.
TOTAL 50000 2500000 991000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR


707500
689100
670600
652100
. 	 613.6J)0. 	
530600
512100
493600
475100
	 4566.Qfl 	 	
316600
298100
279600
261200
	 242.1QQ
7219100
7.28
2.89
4139200
4.18
1.66


707500
1396600
2067200
2719300
	 3_a5_22QQ
3883500
4395600
4889200
5364300
-5.8.209.0.Q
6137500
6435600
6715200
6976400
7.219J.QJ)

                                                                                                                                 oo
-------
                                                       Table A-1^3


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO. ECON.,  50 MW EX.  COAL FIRED  POWER  UNIT,  5.0*  S  IK  FUEL,  3.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   t    1602600
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POhER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UMT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
20 5000
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
3.Q 1 ?Q°



250000 99900
250000 99900
250000 9990C
250000 99900
25QflQfl 	 _222Qfl
175000 69900
175000 69900
175000 69900
175000 69900
75000 30000
75000 30000
75000 30000
75000 30000
75J3QQ 3QQQQ
TOTAL 50000 2500000 999000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OS TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



892400
870200
848000
825800
665000
642800
620500
598300
	 576100 .
389300
367100
344900
322700
9067100
9.08
3.63
5211300
5.22
2.08
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$



892400
1762600
2610600
3436400
ft2.itQQ.SlQ
4905000
5547800
6168300
6766600
73_42_ZQQ
7732000
8099100
8444000
8766700
2Q6.11QQ

                                                                                                                                LO
                                                                                                                                00
-------
                                                       Table A-lM





DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  50  MM  EX.  COAL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 5-0* S  IN FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY,



                                                FIXED INVESTMENT:   $     1838700
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER. ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10






CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
S


11
12
13
14
15
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
£0 	 _5QQQ 	
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
2.5 _25QQ_
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
1Q 1500
250000
250000
250000
250000
	 iSflCOQ-
175000
175000
175000
175000
1TSO.OO
75000
75000
75000
75000
25QQQ
100700
100700
100700
100700
1UQ1QQ 	 	
70500
70500
70500
70500
	 2Q5QQ_ _ 	 	 	
30200
30200
30200
30200
302QQ 	
TOTAL 50000 2500000 1007000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0? TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
1068700
1043200
1017700
992200
S6&1QQ 	
792900
767400
741900
716400
	 6.2Q2QQ
457500
432000
406500
3BIOOO
	 laasoa 	
10830500
10.76
4.33
6235100
6.19
2.49
1068700
2111900
3129600
4121800
	 SflflflSafl
5881400
6646800
7390700
8107100
BiaaoflQ
9255500
9687500
10094000
10475000
	 10.13.05.00.

                                                                                                                                a>
-------
                                                        Table  A-


DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION, REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  150  MW  EX.  COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0* S IN FUEL, 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.


                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $     1736200
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
J-5
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
2Q 5QQQ
21 3500
22 3500
23 3500
24 3500
25 35DQ
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
•*n 1 "5DQ



750000 294800
750000 294800
750000 294800
750000 294800
»i5£oaa_ zaifiQQ.
525000 206400
525000 206400
525000 206400
525000 206400
525QQQ_ 	 ZQfiiHQ 	 	 	
225000 88500
225000 88500
2Z5000 88500
225000 88500
?25000 flflSQQ
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2948500
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. OX TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



928000
904000
879900
855800
	 __ aaiaaa 	
692600
668500
644500
620400
	 	 52&3.QQ 	 . 	
408500
384400
360300
336300
	 3JL220.Q 	
9423500
3.20
1.26
5413800
1.84
0.72
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$



928000
1832000
2711900
3567700
	 4.2225QQ_
5092100
5760600
6405100
7025500
	 -Z&ZlflQD
8030300
8414700
8775000
9111300
	 24225QQ

                                                                                                                                ro
                                                                                                                                co
                                                                                                                                en
-------
                                                        Table A-lU6




DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED  POwER  CO.  ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL FIREO POWER UNIT, 5.OX S IN FUEL, 2.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    2369500
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED
AFTER RQI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
START KW-HR/Kri M K.WH/YR TONS COAL/YR $
1
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9








CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$


11
12
13
14
16
17
1«
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
5000
DOOO
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
750000
750000
750000
750000
525000
525000
525000
525000
225000
225000
225000
225000
225-Q.Oi)
^7200
297200
297200
297200
208100
208100
208100
208100
89200
89200
89200
89200
&32SQ
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2972500
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL UURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PKtSFNT WHRTH, COLLARS PER TON OF COAL BORNEO
EQUIVALENT PKtStNT WORTH, rtlLLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
1420300
1387400
1354500
1321700
1048700
1015900
983000
950100
596500
563700
530800
497900
14341700
4.82
1.91
8271800
2.78
1.10
1420300
2807700
4162200
5483900
&112.13S
7821400
8837300
9820300
10770400
	 llfcfillQQ
12284200
12847900
13378700
13876600

                                                                                                                                   r

                                                                                                                                   ro
                                                                                                                                   GO
                                                                                                                                   01
-------
                                                         Table  A-1^7


DRY LIMESTONE  INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0*  S  IN  FUEL,  3.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:  t    2926600
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION,
START KW-HR/Kw
POWER
u,ENERAT ION
M KrtH/YR
POWER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS COAL/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
(NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
$
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
1,5
16 5000
17 5000
18 5000
19 5000
2fl 5.J20J2
21 3500
22 3500
23 3bOO
24 3500
2i_ 3.5_iJO_
26 1500
27 1500
28 1500
29 1500
30 1..5.0.0.

750000
750000
750000
750000
Z5.flQ.ilO.
525000
525000
525000
525000
5.25.0.00.
225000
225000
225000
225000
22520.0.

299700
299700
299700
299700
_ 222iQfl
209800
209800
209800
209800
_2 0230.0.
89900
89900
89900
89900
89900.

1914300
1873800
1833200
1792600
	 	 1Z.52.QP_Q
1406500
1365900
1325400
1284800
783400
742800
702300
661700
TOTAL 50000 7500000 2997000 19304000
EQUIVALENT CUST, DOLLARS PF.R TON CF COAL BURNED 6.44
EQUIVALENT CCST, MILLS PER KI LOwATT-HUUR 2.57
PRESENT «ORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0* TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 11153800
EgUIVAL^NT PKtSFNT WURTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF CGAL BURNED 3.72
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR 1.49

1914300
3788100
5621300
7413900
10572400
11938300
13263700
14548500
16576100
17318900
18021200
18682900
._ _ 123.0.4.0.QQ

                                                                                                                                   1\D
                                                                                                                                   00
-------
                                                         Table A-


DKY LIMESTONE  INJECTION,  REGULATEJ  POWER CO.  ECON.,  150 MW EX.  COAL FIAED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IS FUEL, 4.0 INJECTION STDICHIOMETRY.

                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    3376200

YEARS
AFTER.
PUrtER. ANNUAL
L.N1T OPERATION,
START KW-HR/KW
i
2
4
0
7
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
KOI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER)
M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR $





CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
I




  9


"ll"


 13
16 5COO
i7 5000
16 5000
19 5000
20. SflQH
21 3500
2^ 35CC
23 3500
^4 3500
26 1500
27 1500
2o 1500
^9 1500
10 1,500
750000
750000
750000
750000
Z5Q.Q.Q.Q 	
525000
525000
525000
525000
225000
225000
225000
225000
302100
302100
302100
302100
	 .3.0.20.20. 	
211500
211500
211500
211500
	 211500. 	
90600
90600
90600
90600
TbTAL 50000 7500000 3021000
EQUIVALENT COST, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PkESENT *ORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.02 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
tUUlVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
2362800
2316000
2269200
2222400
_ 2J.156.Q.Q 	
1728700
1681900
1635100
1588300
946900
900100
853300
806500
23788000
7.87
3.17
13765400
4.56
1.84
2362800
4678800
6948000
9170400
113.463.23
13074700
14756600
46391700
17980000
20468400
21368500
22221800
23028300

                                                                                                                                OJ
                                                                                                                                00
-------
                                                        Table  A-


DRY LIMESTOME INJECTION,  REGULATED POWER  CO.  ECON.,  250  MW  EX.  COAL FIRED POWER UNITt 5.0% S IN FUELt 1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:   $     2314500
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS INCLUDING REGULATED CUMULATIVE
AFTER ROI FOR POWER COMPANY NET INCREASE
POWFR ANNUAL POWER POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN COST OF
UNIT JPERATIOIM, GENERATION FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN COST OF POWER) POWER,
START KW-HR/KW M KWH/YR TONS COAL/YR , $ $
1
2
3
4
__5 	
6
7
8
9
JU)
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2fl
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30



5000
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
^.^.il^l
1500
1500
1500
1500
15ilil



1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
875000
375000
d75000
875000
375000
375000
375000
375000



491400
491400
491400
491400
_ 4214Q12
344000
344000
344000
344000
147400
147400
147400
147400
TOTAL 50000 12500000 4914000
EQUIVALENT CUST, DOLLAKS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, HILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT MIRTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.0% TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EOUIVALFNT PKESENT WORTH, HILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR



1301100
1269000
1236900
1204800
JLLlZZSfl
964400
932300
900300
86S200
557500
525400
493300
461200
13152300
2.68
1.05
7575100
1 .54
0.61



1301100
2570100
3807000
5011800
7148900
8081200
8981500
9849700
11243300
11768700
12262000
12723200

                                                                                                                                co
                                                                                                                                10
-------
                                                        Table A-150




DRY LIMESTONE  1NJECMON,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON.,  250 Md EX.  COAL FIREO POWER UNIT, 5.0* S  IN FUEL,  2.0  INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.



                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:   $    3221100
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEAKS
AFTFR
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOK POWER COMPANY
POWER ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION,
START K,
1
2
3
4
5 __
6
7
a
9
ifl —
11
12
13
_15 _
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Z5
26
27
28
29
_3Q
TOTAL 5
EQUIVALENT
tgulVALENT
PRESENT v»i.UTH
EQUIVALENT
EQUIVALENT
i-HK/Kri













5000
5000
5000
5000
*t££3.
3500
3500
3500
3500
JiSilii
1500
15uO
1500
1500
liUii
0000
cusr, u
CHST, v,
POWER
GENERATION
M KWH/YR













1250000
1250000
1250000
1250000
Ii.ii20.li
875000
875000
875000
875000
iii5jiiii
375000
375000
375000
375000
ili^iiii _
12500000
DLLARS PER TON OF
POwER UNIT (NET
FUEL CONSUMPTION, [N
TONS COAL/YR













495400
495400
495400
495400
_4.9..5.4.Qi! 	
346800
346800
346800
346800
_ liJifiail 	
148600
148600
146600
14S600
1466QO
4954000
COAL BURNED
ILLS PER KILOwATT-HOUR
IF DISCJUI.TtU AT 10. OS
PhLSENT
PRbSHNT
TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
nURTh, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
WORTH, MILLS PER
KILOWATT-HOUR
ANNUAL INCREASE
COST OF POWER!
$













2095700
2051000
2006400
1961700
J.91710Q
1539000
1494300
1449700
1405000
JJi£0_4.i)0_
857000
812400
767700
723000
678400
21118800
4.26
1.69
12204500
2.46
0.98
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$













2095700
4146700
6153100
8114800
1QQ212QQ
11570900
13065200
14514900
15919900
172SQ3DQ
18137300
18949700
19717400
20440400
21 i i 8800






                                                                                                                                   ro
                                                                                                                                   -ti
                                                                                                                                   o
-------
                                                          Table  A-151





DRY LIMESTONE.  INJECTION,  REGULATED PO«ER CO. ECON., 250 Mw  EX.  COAL  FIRED  POWER UNIT, 5.0* S IN FUEL, 3.0  INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.




                                                 FIXFD  INVESTMENT:   $    3968400

YEARS
AFTER
P0.it R
UNIT
START
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
LO
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
TOTAL
L'JUl
tjU I
PRESENT



ANNUAL
o°FKATini-;,
K.W-HI-./KW











5000
50 JO
5000
5JUJ
j500
3500
3500
j500
1 500
15JO
1500
I SOU
5 0 0 0 ~j
VALFNT CuST, DC
VALi-.\T C'JST, M
W )KTM U DliCO
EQUIVALENT P-'.LS'.\T

VALi:.\iT Pi-K SFM



POrtER
GENERATION
M KwH/YR











1250000
1250000
1250000
123000J
875000
675000
875000
875000
375000
375000
375000
375000
1250JOOO
LLA°S PER TJN
LLS PEK KILGnA
U "1 T t 0 AT 10.0
AJRTH, OGLL^SS
nJHTH, •I ILLS P



PQwER UNIT
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS CCJAL/YR











499400
499400
499400
499400
349600
349600
349600
349600
149dOO
149aGO
149800
149&00
4994000
OF CJAL HUKNFO
TT-H'JU^
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
(NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
$











2838200
2783200
2728200
2673100
2072 300
2017300
1962300
1907200
1127100
1072000
1017000
961900
28537000
5. 71
2. 29

CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$











2838200
5621400
8349600
11022700
15713100
17730400
19692700
21599900
24579200
25651200
26668200
27630100



S. TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS 16526400
PER TON iJF COAL RURNEO
EK KIL'.lwATT-riOUR
3.31
1.32


                                                                                                                                    N>
-------
                                                        Table A-152






DRY LIMESTUN^  INJECTION,  REGULATED  POrtER  CO.  ECON.,  250 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0?  S  IN  FUEL,  4.0  INJECTION STOICHIOHETRY.




                                                 FIXED INVESTMENT:  $    4582000
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS
AFTER
PO*ER
UNIT
START
1
2
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9
ID
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
22
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3J.
TOTAL
INCLUDING REGULATED

ANNUAL
UPbRATIOM,
Krt-HR/Kw













5000
5000
5000
5000
Siiiiii
3500
35CO
3500
3500
A^.Q.11
1500
1500
150o
1500
liiiii
5^u0
EQUIVALENT Ct.ST, U(
EUUI VAL
PRESENT M.I
FOUIVAL
C 0 U 1 V A L

POWER
oENERAT ION
M KrtH/YR













1250000
1250000
1250300
1250000
125222.2
875000
375000
875000
875000
.8.25222
375000
375000
375000
375000
3 75QQO
12500000
ROI
FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION, IN
TONS COAL/YR













503500
503500
503500
503500
50350Q
352500
352500
352500
352500
iiZiuil
151100
151100
151100
151100
151122
5035500
"iLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
F.NT CiiST, MILLS PER KILOHlAT
i
-------
                                                        Table  A-153

DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  FCON., 350 MW EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT, 5.0? S IN FUEL,  1.0 INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    2782700
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEARS
AFTER
POWER
UNIT
START
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
TOTAL
EQL1
L JUI
PREStM
PQUl
LiJUl
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
ANNUAL
OPERATION,
K*-Hk/K*










5000
5000
5300
5000
iilsii! *.
3500
35'OU
« Sou
Jpu
1500
1500
1500
;^j'
50000
VALFNf Ci ST , Di
VALHM C:-!-'»T
TO INITIAL YEAS, DOLLARS
K.JRTH, !>JLLARS PER TUN OF COAL bURNtO
rt'.jpTh, MILLS PER
KILOwATT-HOUR
NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
$










1639600
1601000
1562400
1523800
L^L&5.£.Q.Q.
1209900
1171300
1132700
1094100
688800
650200
611600
573000
16533600
2.40
0.94
9538500
1.39
0.55
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$










1639600
3240600
4803000
6326800
- _ laiZlflfl
9022000
10193300
11326000
12420100
14164400
14814600
15426200
15999200






                                                                                                                                r
                                                                                                                                IV)
                                                                                                                                00
-------
                                                          Table A-15U
ORV LlMESTGl\iF  INJECTl-d\,  REGULATED POWER CO.  ECON.,  350 Mrf EX. COAL FIRED POWER  UNIT,  5.03! S IN FUEL, 2.0  INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.




                                                  FIXEO INVESTMENT:  $    3927000
YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL P'JWFR
UNIT OPERATION, GENERATION
START Kn-HR/KW M KiriH/YR
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
POWER UNIT (NET ANNUAL INCREASE
FUEL CONSUMPTION', IN COST OF POWER)
TONS COAL/YR $
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$
1
2
3
4
6
7
e
9
11
12
13
15. __
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
28
29

5000
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
liUil

1750000
1750000
1750000
1750000
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
525000
525000
525000
525000
iZSjJOO

69 3 60 0
693600
693600
693600
485500
485500
485500
485500
2C8100
208100
208100
208100
TOTAL 50000 17500000 6936000
EQUIVALENT GUST, DOLLARS PER TUN OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT COST, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
PRESENT WORTH IF DISCOUNTED AT 10.02 TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
EQUIVALENT PREScMT wOKTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL BURNED
EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH, MILLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR

2714000
2659600
2605100
2550700
1984700
1930300
1875800
1821400
	 1I662.Q.Q. _
1087300
1032800
978400
923900
27296600
3.94
1.56
15799300
2.28
0.90

2714000
5373600
7978700
10529400
15010300
16940600
18816400
20637800
23492000
24524800
25503200
26427100
2122660.0_

-------
                                                       Table A-155


DRY LIMESTCM- INJECTION,  REGULATED  POWER  CO.  ECON., 350 NU EX. COAL FIRED POWER UNIT,  5.0? S IN FUEL,  3.0  INJECTION  STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                FIXED  INVESTMENT:  $    4766400

YEARS
AFTER
POWER ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION
START K'rt-HP/Kn
1
2
3
4
-5.
6
7
9
10 _
11
12
13
16 5JOO
17 5JOJ
18 50UO
19 ?JuU
2fl iUGy
21 J50U
22 J5UO
23 j5>jo
24 35UO
25 3-5. 00
26 l^OU
27 1500
28 15JU
29 15Ju
TUTAL 'jOOOO
EQUIVALENT CuST,
EQUIVALENT COST,



POWER
, GENT RAT I ON
M KrtH/YR












1750000
1750000
1 750000
1 750JOO
llidiilifl _
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
IZZSiiiia _
525000
525JOO
525000
525000
1 75JOOOO
DOLLARS PER TON GF-



POWER UNIT
FUFL CONSUMPTION
TONS COAL/YR












699200
699200
699200
699200
69V200
489400
489400
489400
469400
4-&24.^Q
209300
209800
209800
209800
6992000
COAL BURNED
M1LLS PER KI LOrtATT-HOUR
PRESENT wOKTn IF DISCOUNTED AT 10. (H
EQUIVALENT PRl-Sh
tuU IVAL EM P.-!:-S !•
TO INITIAL YEAR, D'.
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
INCLUDING REGULATED
ROI FOR POWER COMPANY
(NET ANNUAL INCREASE
, IN COST OF POWER)
$












3691200
3625100
3559000
3492900
34,26.800
2685700
2619600
2553500
2487400
24.Z.1.3..0..Q
1437000
1370900
1304800
1238700
37086500
5.30
2.12
1LLARS 21504200

CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$












3691200
7316300
10875300
14368200
-UJSiJiJi)
20480700
23100300
25653800
28141200
•3.Q.5.&2.500
31999500
33370400
34675200
35913900




NT m.iRTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF COAL bURNEL) 3.08
NT nijivTH, MILLS PFR
KILOWATT-HOUR
1.23

                                                                                                                               r
                                                                                                                               ro
                                                                                                                               en
-------
                                                           Table  A-156


DRY Ll'-ttSTLJNb  i ,MJ EOT 10i\, REGULATED  POWER CO. ECON., 350  MW  fcX.  COAL FIRED POWER UNIT,  5.0? S IN FUEL, 4.0  INJECTION STOICHIOMETRY.

                                                  FIXED  INVESTMENT:   t    5645500
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
YEAKS
AFTFK
POwER ANNUAL
UNIT OPERATION
STAKT K'4 — Hri/KW
1
2
3
-5. _
6
7
9
11
13
16 5000
17 5000
18 500U
19 5000
20 3QQO
21 J.50U
22 3500
23 J500
24 J500
25 -i5.flii
26 1500
n isuo
28 1500
29 15uO
.3J1 	 15iii)
TOTAL 50000
EQUIVALENT COST,
EQUIVALENT CuST,
PRESENT h,jiTH IF 01
EQUIVALENT PRbSi-
EQUIVALKNT PKi.-SH
INCLUDING REGULATED

POWE*
, GENERATION
M KWH/YR









1750000
1 750000
1750000
1750000
l.Z5.Qj2i}iJ
1225000
1225000
1225000
1225000
iZZiJiiv
525000
525000
525000
525000
525.0..Q.Q
17500000
DOLLARS PER TON OF
R(.!
POWER UNIT (
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
TONS COAL/YK









705000
705000
705000
705000
.ZU50_^0_
493500
493500
493500
493500
493500
211500
211500
211500
211500
2115242
7050000
COAL BURNEO
i-tlLLS PER KILOWATT-HOUR
SC(JUNTliD AT 10.0*
TO INITIAL YEAR, DOLLARS
NT KlmTH, DOLLARS PER TON OF CUAL BURNED
NT wDRTH, MILLS PER
KILOWATT-HOUR
I FOI< POWER COMPANY
NET ANNUAL INCREASE
IN COST OF POWER)
t









4708000
4629700
4551400
4473100
4394800
3416000
3337700
3259400
3181100
3102800
1802000
1723700
1645400
1567100
	 1488800
47281000
6.71
2.70
27443100
3.89
1.57
CUMULATIVE
NET INCREASE
IN COST OF
POWER,
$









4708000
9337700
13889100
18362200
22 75 7000
26173000
29510700
32770100
35951200
39054000
40856000
42579700
44225100
45792200
472Q 1QQQ






                                                                                                                                      ro
                                                                                                                                      •P»
                                                                                                                                      01
-------
                                        L-247
I. Title and Subtitle
^itU'ur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack Gas by Dry
Limestone Injection--Full Scale Demonstration  and Support
Projects (Volumes T;  TTJ and ITT)	;
'. Autlior(s)
F. E. Gartrell	
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
 SHEET
                   1. Id-port No,
                    EPA-650/2-73-019-a, -b, -c
                                                               3. Recipient's Accession No.
                                                                5. Report Date
                                                                 August 1973
                                                                6.
                                                                8- Performing Organization Kept.
                                                                 No.
9. Performing Organisation Name and Address
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee  37401
                                                               10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
                                                               11. Contract/Grant No.
                                                               iiteragency Agreement
                                                                  TV-30541A
 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
 Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina 27711
                                                               13. Type of Report & Period
                                                                  Covered
                                                                      Final
                                                               14.
 15. Supplementary Notes
 16. Abstracts ,pne repOrt gives results of a test program of dry limestone injection,
 demonstrated on a 150-Mw pulverized-coal-fired boiler at TVA's Shawnee Plant. The
 program included: equipment shakedown, dust distribution studies, process optimi-
 zation, and long-term injection trials. It identified major process  variables; evaluated
 distribution of lime dust in the boiler, effect of operating variables on distribution,
 and resulting effects on SO2 removal; evaluated  the sensitivity of SO2 removal to key
 operating and process variables; evaluated conditions for optimum SO2 removal;
 studied process effects on boiler operation and maintenance, on solids collection
 equipment, and on water quality; and completed  a process economics  study.  The pro-
 gram is discussed in context with previous investigations and EPA-sponsored sup-
 port activities. Appendices contain test program detail results  and results of EPA
 support projects. Because of low SO2 removal efficiencies and  the potential for major
                                              reliability problems  , it does not appear
                                              that  dry limestone injection will  play an
                                              important role in  controlling SO2 emis-
                                              sions from power plants.
 17. Key Words and Document Analysis.  17o. Descriptors
Air Pollution
Coal
Desulfurization
Limestone
Boiler
Dust
Sulfur Dioxide
Calcium Oxides
Economic Analysis
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Dry Limestone Injection
17c. COSATI Field/Group  13B, 14A
Reliability
Electric Power Plants
Flue Gases
 18. Availability Statement
                       Unlimited
                                                     19.. Security Cla.'is (This
                                                       Report)
                                                     20. Security (,lass (This
                                                        Page
                                                     	UNCI.ASSII-MKO
                                                      21. No. of Pages
                                                           356
                                                                         22. Price
KO«M NTIS-35 IRtV. 3-/2)
                                                                          USCOMM-OC 14952-P72
-------