CONF-800428-V.l
The Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Fluidized Bed Combustion. Volume I. Plenary Sessions
Courtesy Associates, Incorporated
August 1980
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technical Information Service
-------
CONF-800428 — Vol. 1
Volume 1 of 3 Volumes
The Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion
Volume I — Plenary Sessions
April 9-11, 1980
Atlanta Hilton
Atlanta, Georgia
Published August 1980
U.S. Department of Energy
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
Office of Coal Utilization
-------
CONF-800428 — Vol. 1
Volume 1 of 3 Volumes
UC-90e
The Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion
Volume I — Plenary Sessions
April 9-11, 1980
Atlanta Hilton
Atlanta, Georgia
Published August 1980
Sponsored by
U.S. Department of Energy
Electric Power Research Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coordinated by
Courtesy Associates, Inc.
U.S. Department of Energy
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
Office of Coal Utilization
Washington, D.C. 20585
-------
NEITHER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NOR ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES
MAKES ANY WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OR ASSUMES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY
OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, COMPLETEKESS, OR USEFULNESS
OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, PRODUCT, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED OR
REPRESENTS THAT ITS USE DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS.
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
TEE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
II -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VOLUME I - PLENARY SESSIONS
PLENARY 1 - Technology Overview
KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Roger LeGassie, 14
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
OVERVIEW OF U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 17
John Byam, U.S. Department of Energy, 13
Morgantown, West Virginia
Douglas Willis. Coal Research Establishment, 23
Stoke Orchard, United Kingdom
Johann Batsch, Kernforschungsanlage Julich 30
GmbH, Julich, Federal Republic of Germany
Zhana, Xu-Yl, Tsing Hua University, Beijing, 36
People's Republic of China
Michael D. High, Tennessee Valley Authority, 41
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research Institute, 46
Palo Alto, California
D. Bruce Henschel, U.S. Environmental Protection 50
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
PLENARY 2 - Fluidized Bed Combustion Development and Commercial 63
Status Summary
The Technologist - H. Raymond Hoy, National Coal 64
Board, Leatherhead, United Kingdom
The Utility User - Manville Mayfield, Tennessee 65
Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee
The Industrial Operator - David McKee, E.I. DuPont Company, 67
Wilmington, Delaware
The Scandinavian Viewpoint - Vagh Kollerup, B.W. Damp, 68
Virum, Denmark
The Asian Viewpoint - Nagoya Institute of Technology, 69
Nagoya, Japan
The Continental Viewpoint - Johann Batsch, Keratorschung- 69
sanlage, Julich, Federal Republic of Germany
The Coal Combustion Developer - William T. Reid, Consultant, 70
Columbus, Ohio
-------
Page
PLENARY 3 - The Customer Speaks: Panel Discussion
Shelter Ehrlich, Eleccric Power Research Institute, 72
Palo Alto, California
Steven I. Freedman, U.S. Department of Energy, 76
Germantown, Maryland
Robert Statnik, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76
Washington, D.C.
Ronald Read, International Harvester Company, 76
Chicago, Illinois
David McK.ee, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Wilmington, 77
Delaware
Paul Bobo, Mead Corporation, Dayton, Ohio 77
Bruno Brodfeld, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 78
Boston, Massachusetts
Andrew Jacobs, Analytic and Research and Development, 78
American Electric Power Service Company, New York, New York
Jack Apel, Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, 79
Columbus, Ohio
Robert E. Unrig, Advanced Systems and Technology, 80
Florida Power and Light Company, Miami, Florida
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 81
ATTENDEES - Alphabetical Listing 84
VOLUME II - TECHNICAL SESSIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Volume II 118
OPERATING EXPERIENCE SUB SCALE 124
Industrial Coal Fired Fluidized Bed Demonstration 125
Program: A Progress Report: J.I. Accortt, J.R.
Comparato, W.R. Norcross, Combustion Engineering,
Inc., Windsor, Connecticut
The Operation of a Small Industrial Coal Fired j^g
Fluidized Bed Hot Water Heater: C.I. Metcalfe, K.E.
Fegley, T.D. Halnon, A.M. Squires, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
COHQGG. A Self-Cleaning Coal Burner for High Temperature 145
Applications: W.F. Dawson, Alex Wormser, Wormser Engineer-
ing, Inc., Middleton, Massachusetts
Operating Experience with an 18 FT2 Fluidized Bed 160
Combustor: Henry A. Hanson, Darrell D. Kinzler, Douglas
C. Nichols, FluiDyne Engineering Corporation, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
-------
VOLUME II - Continued
Instrumentation and Controls for the 6x6 Fluldlzed 169
Bed Boiler Test Facility: R.P. Apa, Babcock & Uilcox
Company, Alliance Ohio; D.L. Bonk, Babcock & Uilcox
Company, Barberton, Ohio; C.J. Aulislo, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California
BOILER AND HEATER DESIGNS 178
Design of In-Bed Surface for Efficient Turndown: 179
Robert J. Dlvllio, Robert R. Reed, Pope, Evans
and dobbins, Alexandria, Virginia
Unit Performance of the EPRI/B&W 6' x 6'.?luidized 191
Bed Combuator: J.A. Lewis, T.A. Morris, T.M. Modrak,
The Babcock & Wllcox Company, Alliance, Ohio; C.J.
Aulisio, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, California
Industrial and Utility Pluidized Bed Combustion 207
Designs: A.J. Grant, Babcock Contractors Inc.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Combustion in the Circulating Fluid Bed: An 212
Alternative Approach in Energy Supply and Environmental
Protection: V. Petersen, G. Daradimos, H. Serbent and
H-W. Schmidt, Lurgi Chemie und Huttentechnik GmbH,
Federal Republic of Germany
The IEA Grimethorpe Pressurized Fluidiacd Bed Combustion 225
Experimental Facility: E.L. Carls, M. Kaden, D. Smith,
S.J. Wright. A.R. Jack, NCB (IEA Grimethorpe) Limited,
South Yorkshire, England
GAS CLEANUP 240
Investigations on the Leatherhead Pressurised Facility: 241
H.R. Hoy, A.G. Roberts, NCB Coal Utilisation Research
Laboratory, Leatherhead, United Kingdom
Activated Bauxite and Dlatomaceous Earth Used as 254
Granular Sorbents for the Removal of Alkali Vapors
from Simulated Hot Flue Gas of PFBCa: Sheldon H.D.
Lee, William M. Swift, Irving Johnson, Argonne National
Library, Argonne, Illinois
Control of Partlculate Emissions from the Pressurized 264
Fluidlzed Bed Combustion of Coal: R.C. Hoke, M. Ernst,
Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Florham, New Jersey
-------
VOLUME II - Continued Page
Pressurized Fluid-Bed Combustor — Gas Cleaning 270
Turbine Systems Integration for Economic
Electric Energy Cost: D.L. Keairns, R.A. Newby,
D.F. Ciliberti, A.Y. Ranadive, R.A. Wenglarz,
M.K. Ahmed, K.A. Alvin, D.H. Archer, Westinghouse
Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Experiments on Electrostatic Charging of Dust 285
in the PFB Combustor Environment : P.M. Dietz, G.A.
Kallio, General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York
Fabric Filtration at High Temperatures: Dale A. Furlong, 294
Envlrotech Corporation, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, Thomas
S. Shevlin, 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota
Fiber Filter Media for High Temperature. High 300
Pressure Gas Cleanup: M. Shackelton, Acurex, Mountain
View, California
OPERATING EXPERIENCE COMMERCIAL 306
Operation of the Georgetown University Fluidized Bed 307
Steam Generator: Robert L. Gamble, Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation, Livingston, New Jersey
Operating Experience with Prototype Fluidised Bed 318
Boilers: J. Highley, W.G. Kaye, D.M. Willis, National
Coal Board, Stoke Orchard, England
Atmospheric Fluidized Bed for Coal and Wood Waste 334
Combustion, Especially for District Heating: Vagn
Kollerup, Burmeister & Wain Energl A/S, Virum, Denmark
Introduction of a Package Water Tube Fluidized Bed 343
Boiler: Michael J. Virr, Stone Platt Fluidfire Limited,
Brierly Hill, United Kingdom
Operating Experience and Test Results of the Prototype 354
Fluidized Bed Combustion Boiler at BHEL: Y.P. Abbl,
R. Thlrunavukkarasu, S. Srinivasaraghaven, K.T.U. Malliah,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tlruchirapalll, India
INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM DESIGN 364
Application of the Battclle Multi-Solid Fluidized Bed 365
Combustion System to Oil Field Steam Generators: J.P.
Fanaritis, Struthers Wells Corporation, Warren, Pennsylvania,
and H. Nack, C.J. Lyons, Battelie Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio
Plant Auxiliary Systems In the Georgetown University 372
AFB Plant: V. Buck, C. Sala, Pope, Evans and Robbins
Incorporated, New York, New York
Potential for FBC Firing in a Refinery: L-P- Golan, 383
G.M. Matta, EXXON Research and Engineering Company,
Florham Park, New Jersey
-------
VOLUME II - Continued Pa8e
Economic Eval-iatioa oi Irliiidlzed Bed Coal Burning 394
Facilities for Industrial Steam Generation: J.E.
Mesko, Pope, Evans and Robbing Incorporated, New
York, New York
An Anthracite Culm Fired Pluidizcd Bed Steam 405
Generator for the City of Wllkes-Barre. Pennsylvania:
Ian G. Lutes, Frederick C. Wachtler, Foster Wheeler
Boiler Corporation, Livinguton, New Jersey
The AFBC Coal Combuator for CoReneratlon Development 420
Program: P.A. Berman, Westinghouse Electric Corp.,
Concordville, Pennsylvania, J.W. Smith, Babcock &
Wllcox Co., R.S. Holcomb, Union ORNL, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee
BEHAVIOR OF MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION BOILERS 432
In-Bed Corrosion of Alloya in Atmospheric Fluldized 433
Bed Combustora: J. Stringer, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California; A.J. Minchener, D.M.
Lloyd, H.R. Hoy, National Coal Board, Stoke Orchard,
United Kingdom
Heat Exchanger Materials for Pluldized Bed Coal 448
Combustors: T.G. Godfrey, R.H. Cooper, J.H. DeVan,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
K.R. Drake, FluiDyne Engineering Corp., Minneapolis,
Minnesota
A Comparison of the High-Temperature Erosion-Corrosion 461
of Boiler Tube Materials by Pulverized Coal Fly Ash
and by Atmospheric Fluldlzed-Bed Combustion Fly Ash:
I.G. Wright, V. NagaraJan, R.D. Smith, Battalia's
Columbus Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio
Behavior of Heat Exchanger Alloya in Pressurized Fluidlzed 471
Bed Coal Combustion Environments: C. Speuger, J.W. Clark,
Westinghouse Research and Development, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, M.S. Nutkls, Exxon Research and Engineering, Linden,
New Jersey; S.J. Dapkunas, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.
Materials for Pressurized Fluidlzed Bed Air Heater System: 482
J. Mogul, S. Moskowitz, S.M. Wolosln, Curtiss-Wright Corp.,
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey
Effects of Salt Treatment of Limestone on Sulfatlon and on 496
the Corrosion Behavior of Materials in AFBC Systems: O.K.
Chopra, G.W. Smith, J.F. Lenc, J.A. Shearer, K.M. Myles,
I. Johnson, Argonne national Laboratory, Argoone, Illinois
-------
VOLUME II - Continued Page
UTILITY SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS 5Q6
20mw Atmospheric Fluidlzed Bed Combustion (AFBC) 5Q7
Utility Pilot Plant - Design Features Resulting
from Performance Dana of Operating AFBC Units:
C.K.. Sadler, J.D. Fourroux, R.L. Lurapkin, Jr.,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga,
Tennessee
Technology Assessment for an Atmospheric Fluidized- ~, -
Bed Combustion Demonstration Plant: M. Siman-Tov,
J.E. Jones, Jr., Union Carbide Corporation, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee
Fluid Bed Combustion Augmented Compressed Air 529
Energy Storage Systems: A.J. Glrawonti, R.D.
Lessard, United Technologies Research Center,
East Hartford, Connecticut; D. Merric'c, Coal
Processing Consultants, Harrow, England
Preliminary Assessment of Alternativi Atmospheric 530
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Power Plant. Systems: S.
Panico, Burns and Roe, Inc., Wooc'-'mrv . New York;
C.R. McGowin, Electric Ptiwer Re^r^rcb Institute,
Palo Alto, California
Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combust ice Co^l Feeding 55^
Test Program: C.S. Daw, J.F. Thov;..-;.. fi.S. Holcomb,
C.K. Andrews (TVA), Oak Ridge p-t :t.7>_.-u. laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Wet and Dry Limestone Feeding U.^j.r-E en L-Valve: jgj
T.M. Knowlton, I. Htrean, InctJcvt; c: Gas Technology,
Chicago, Illinois
Fuel Feed System for Fluid Sad Sr.i.lj-r: James C. 57^
Short, Fuller Company, Be£b).shci&: ;'fir.'.ii;ylv.inia
OPERATING E3CPERIENCE COMMERCI/0,
578
Operating Experience with a Variety of Low Grade 579
Fuels In Fluidized Bed Combustors: G.G. Copeland,
Copeland Associates, Inc., Oak Srpoh, Illinois
Design and Operation of FBC Hot Gas Producers for jg^
Industrial and Agricultural Drying: J. Highley,
W.G. Kaye, National Coal Board, Stok-> Orchard,
England; P.C. Wheatley, G.P. Worsley ?. Co. Ltd.,
Haydock, England
FBC Packaged Boilers-Accomplishments to Date: 5j6
H.J. "Mike" Michaels, Johnston Bo.ixer Company,
Ferrysburg, Michigan
Performacc and Testing of the R--tv°Fv'.lle 30 MWe 500
Multicell Fluidized Bed Boiler: G.T. Claypoole,
D.L. Hill, T.E. Stringfellov, L.I. Gemer, P.P.
Llpari, J.M. MacNeill; Pope E--FJ«O and Robblns, -Inc.,
University of Maryland, Stone aa_ lOob^ier Engineering
Corporation
-------
VOLUME TI - Continued Page
Atmospheric Fluidlzcd Bed Combustors 35 MW-Flingern ,.^
and 6 MW-Konig LmtaLa Test and Demonstration Facilities:
Herman G. Krlschke, Josef Langhoff, Ruhrkohle Del
Und Gas GmbH, West Germany
Development and Commercial Operation of a Circulating ,„
Fluidized Bed Combustion System: F. Engstrom, Hans
Ahlstrom Laboratory, Henslnki, Finland
COMBUSTION AND BED PHENOMENA FLUIDIZED BED PHENOMENA ,,_
622
Two-Stage Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal: M. Tomita, ,_,
T. Hirama, T. Adachi, H. Yamaguehi, Government Indus-
trial Development Laboratory, Hokkaido Sapporo, Japan;
H. Horio, Nagoya University, Magoya, Japan
Experimental Modeling of a High Temperature Partially ,,_
Defluidized Bed: D.J. Bushnell, N. Sitthiphong, Oregon
State University, Corvallla, Oregon
Cold Slumping Characteristics of a Fluidized Bed: ,,,
M.E. Lackey, H.H. Withers, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Summary of Alexandria PDU Test Results; R.R. Reed, ,-,
P.N. Dunne, N.P. Roasmeisnl, Pope, Evans and Robbins Inc.,
Alexandria, Virginia
Improved Fluid Bad Comhustor Efficiencies through
Fines Recycle: Willia
San Diego, California
Fines Recycle: William S. Rickuan, General Atomic Company,
Bed Carbon Loading and Particle Size Distribution In ,„
Pluidized" Combustion of Fusla of Various Reactivity:
M. D'Amorc, G. Donsl, L. Maaaimilla.Universita Labora-
torio di Ricerche sulla Combustione, Naples, Italy
Pluidized-Bed Combustion Applications: J. Chrostowski, ,_,
R. Davis, J. Zakaria, B. Jazsyeri, Energy Resources Co.
Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
BEHAVIOR OF MATERIALS 0? CONSTRUCTION/GAS TURBINE AND POWER RECOVERY 696
Turbine Materials Performance in Combustion Gases from 597
a Coal-Fired Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustor: S.A.
Jansson, N.G. Nllsoon, B.O. Malm. STAL-LAVAL Turbln AB,
Finspong, Sweden
High Temperature Corrosion/Erosion in the Effluent from 7^2
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustors: D.A. Grey, A.M.
Beltran, R.P. Brobst, R.L. McCarron, General Electric Co.,
Schenectady, New York
Asoeasmant of Gas Turbina Erosion by PFB Combustion Products: 724
R.R. Boericke, R. Hantman, J. Kuo, General Electric Company,
Schenectady, New York; T. Mullen, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, New York
-------
VOLUME II - Continued Page
Fluid Catalytic Cracker Power Recovery Expander 737
Applied to Pressurized Fluidlzed Bed Combustion:
W.G. Mathers, Roger Schonewald, Ingeraoll-Rand
Company, Princeton, New Jersey
Improved PFB Operations: 400-Hour Turbine Test 749
Results: R.J. Rollbuhler, S.M. Benford, G.R.
Zellars, National Aeronautics and Space Adminstra-
tlon, Cleveland, Ohio
Pressurized Fluidlzed Bed Technology Status for 765
Coal Fired Combined Cycle Dtllity Power Generation:
R. Roberts, R.K. Amand, C.W. Knudsen, General Electric
Company, Schenectady, New York
VOLUME III - TECHNICAL SESSIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Volume III " 767
MODELING ' 772
A Mathematical Model for Simulation of AFBC Systems: • 773
J.W. Wells, R.P. Krisbnan, C.E. Ball, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Modeling of Flow Behavior and Finned Tube Performance 734
In the Turbulent Flow Regime: F.K. Staub, M. Kuvata,
A.C. Ku, R.T. Wood, General Electric Company, Schenectady,
New York
A Plume Model for Large Scale Atmospheric Fluidlzed Bed 791
Combustors: D. Park, 0. Levenspiel, T.J. Fitzgerald,
Oregon State University, Corvallls, Oregon
A Technique to Project the Sulfur Removal Performance 803
of Fluidized-Bcd Combustors: R.A. Nevby, N.H. Ulerich,
D.L. Realms, Westinghouse R&D Center, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Cold Fluidlzed Bed Modeling: T.J. Fitzgerald, S.D. Crane, 815
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
COMBUSTION AND BED PHENOMENA LOW GRADE FUEL COMBUSTION 821
Operational Application of Fluldlsed-Bed Furnaces in 822
Burning Low-Calorific and Waste Fuels in Czechoslovakia:
F. -Knor, P. Novotny, Fuel Research Institute, Prague,
CSSR
Combustion Characteristics of Anthracite Culm in a 827
Fluidlzed Bed: A.M. Leon, P.J. Choksey, Dorr-Oliver
Incorporated, Stamford, Connecticut
-------
VOLUME III - Continued
834
Pluldlzed-Bed Combustion of laiacli Oil Shsle:
J.S. Mei, J.Y. Shang, E.L. Rice, Q. Grimm, J.S.
Halov, U.S. Department of Energy, Korgantown,
West Virginia; W.J. Ayers, Jr., EG£.G, Uorgani:3«n,
West Virginia; Y. Keren, IMI, Haifc, Israel
Combustion of Western Coal in a yiuiuiscd Ucd: 340
W.T. Abel, R.L. Rica, J.Y. Shang, O.S. Departnent
of Energy, Morgantown, Wast Virginia; H.J. xiyero,
Jr., EG&G, Morgan town, West Virginia; D.G. Turek,
Science Applications, Inc. , Morgsnto\.n, W=3t Virginia
Atmospheric Fluidizcd Bed Combustlca To.stinK of 850
North Dakota Lignite: G. Goblirsch, Grand Fori-.o
Energy Technology Center /DOE, North Dakota;
R.H. Vandcr Molen, Keith Wilson, Combustion
Power Company, rfenlo Park, Callforuii; D. Eajicek,
Grand Forks Technology Center/DOE, N'orth Dakota
Fluidized-Bcd Combustion of Horuh Dakota U.snJ.ta: 36 3
R.L. Rice, J.Y. Shang, U.S. Department of Energy,
Morgantovn, West Virginia; U.J. Aycarj, EGSG,
Morgantovu, Weoc Virginia
Atmospheric Fluidized Bnd Combuotion ef Municipal 872
Solid Waste: Test Program Results: L.C. Pr2uit,
K.B. Wilson, Combustion Power Coapoiy, T^ic.. Menlo
Park, California
SORBENT UTILIZATION 884
Status of Research oa ABricultuvreJ. Uafcp of Fluidizad 885
Bed Combustion Residue: O.L. Bennett, W.L. Stout, J.L.
Hern, R.L. Reid, U.S. Department of Agriculture in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy
Research Program to Assess thfe lapnci: of the Land 892
Application of Fluidized Bed Combuncion Residue on
Human Nutrition: W.L. Stout, S. Fashandl, M.K. Head,
R.L. Reid, O.L. Bennett, USDA-SKA and West Virginia
University, Morgantowi, West Virginia
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Residue Disposal: Environ- 900
mental Impact and Utilization: C.C. Sun, C.H. Peterson,
Westinghouse R&D Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Utilization of the Sy-Produets from Fluidizad Bed 913
Combustion Systems : L. John Minnick, Research
Consultant, Devon, Pennsylvania ; Richard H. Miller,
Valley Forge Laboratories, Inc., Devon, Pennsylvania
Laboratory and Field Studies of Pressurized FBC Waste 925
Leachate Generation and Aliceauar.lon: T.W. Grimshaw,
D.N. Garner, W.F. Holland, Radian Corp., Austin, Texas;
O.A. Klrchgcssner , EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Park Triougla Park, .torth Carolina
-------
VOLUME III - Continued Page
Use of Fluidized Bed Combustion Spent Sorbent 939
in Energy Forrest Production and Agriculture:
D.A.A. Arthursson, K. Valdmaa, Artnursson-
Laboratoriet, Enkoeplng, Sweden
ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS NO^ AND S02 EMISSIONS 941
NO Formation and Reduction in Fluidized Bed 942
Combustion of Coal: J.M. Beer, A.F. Saroflm,
Y.Y. Lee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
NO^ Control through Staged Combustion in 957
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Systems: T.E. Taylor,
Foster Wheeler Development Corporation, Livington,
New Jersey
Research and Development of NO, Emission Abatement 968
in a Fluidized Bed Coal Combustor in Japan: M.
Horio, Nagoya University, Japan; S. Mori, Nagoya
Institute of Technology, Japan; T. Furusawa, University
of Tokyo, Japan; S. Tamanuki, Japan Coal Mining
Research Center, Tokyo, Japan
Control of Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 979
by Battelle's Multisold Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process:
U. Hack, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio; K.T. Liu, Gulf Science
& Technology Company; C.J. Lyons, Battelle, Columbus,
Ohio
Simultaneous NO., and SO? Emission Reduction vlth 986
Fluidized Bed Combustion: J. Tatebayashi, Y. Okada,
S. Ikeda, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Osaka,
Japan
SORBENT EFFECTIVENESS 996
Sulfur Capturing Effectlvity of Limestone and 997
Dolomites in Fluidized Bed Combustion: H. Munzner,
B. Bonn, Bergbau-Forschung GmbH, Essen, Federal
Republic of Germany
Agglomeration Methods of Improving FBC Sorbent 1004
Utilization and Combustion: P.G. Dunne, Pope,
Evans & Robbins, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia;
L.L. Gasner, University of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland
Hydration Process for Reactivating Spent Limestone 1015
and Dolomite Sorbents for Reuse in Fluidized-Bed
Coal Combustion: J.A. Shearer, G.H. Smith, D.S. Moulton,
E.B. Smyk, K.M. Myles, W.M. Swift, I. Johnson, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
Natural Sorbent Attrition Studies Related to Fluidized 1028
Bed Coal Combustion: J. Franceschl, A. Rolar, G. Miller,
V. Zakkay, C. Ho, W. Skelley, S. Hakim, New York University,
Hestbury, New York
10
-------
VOLUME III - Continued
An Assessment of Advanced Sulfur Removal Systems 1044
for Electric Utility AFBC: R.A. Hewby, D.M. Bachovchln,
C.H. Peteraon, H.D. Rohatgl, N.H. Ulerlch, D.L. Kealrna,
Westingbouse RAD Centar, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Regenerative Portland Cement Sorbenta for Fluidlzed- 1060
Bed Combustion of Cool: A.S. Albanese, D. Sethi, M.
Steinberg, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
New York
MODELING 1069
An In-Situ Model of Fluldiaed Bad Coal Combustion; 1070
S. Rajan, D. Dey, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondalc, Illinois
A Radiative Packet Modal for Boat Transfer in 1081
Fluidiged Bcdo: K.K, Filial, National Coal Board,
Leatherhsad, England
The Effaeta of Devolatiantlon Kinetics on the 1092
Injector Region of Fluidized Beds: R.J. Bywater,
The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California
Ignition and Extinction Characteristics of Atmos- 1103
pherie Fluidized Bed Coal Combuators; J.P.
Congalidis, C. Georgakls, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
A Fluidiatid Bed Combustor Freeboard Model: C.Y. Wen, 1115
L.U. Chen, West Virginia University, Morgantovn,
West Virginia
Char Combustion in the Freeboard Region: S.B. Tung, 1131
T.Z. Chaung, P.K. Sharma, J. Hodges, J.F. Louis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
A Mathematical Model for Char Combustion in a Fluidized 1138
Bed: S.C. Sazena, A. Rehmat, Argcmne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois
HEAT TRANSFER, INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL 1151
Design Relationships for Predicting Heat Transfer to 1152
Tube Bundles in Fluidized Bed Combustors: L.R. Glickaman,
R.A. Decker, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
An Investigation of the Influence of Bed Parameters on 1159
the Varlacion of the Local Radiative and Total Heat
Transfer Coefficients Around an Embedded Horizontal Tube
In a Fluidized Bed Combustor: R. Vadlvel, V.N.
Vedamurthy, Perarignar Anna University of Technology,
Madras, India
High Temperature Heat Transfer Studies in a Tube Filled 1173
Bed: L.P. Golan, G.V. LaLonde, S.C. Welner, Exxon Research
and Engineering Company, Florham Park, New Jersey
11
-------
VOLUME III - Continued Page
Automatic Control of the Georgetown Atmospheric
Fluidized-Bcd Boiler: R.J. Divilio, Pope, Evans
and Bobbins, Alexandria, Virginia; R1L. Crisvell,
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Livingston,
New Jersey
A Transient Sulfur Capture Model for a Fluidizcd
Bed Combustor: K.J. Daniel, S.D. Flnnigan, General
Electric Company, Schenectady, New York
Process Temperature Control Psing A Mixed Phase 12n
Fluidlzed Bed Combustion System: Donald'Anson,
Battelle-Columbus, Columbus, Ohio
Special Control & Instrumentation Considerations 1221
for Pressurized Fluid Bed Applications: A.H. Zoll.
E.J. Garruto, Curtiss-Wright Corporation Power
Systems, Wood-Ridge, Nev Jersey
ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS 1235
Update on Emission Measurements from Fluidlzed-Bed 1236
Combustion Facilities: P.F. Fennelly, R.R. Hall,
C.W. Young, J.M. Robinson, R.J. Kindya, G. Hunt,
GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts
Control of Particulate Emissions from Fluidized-Bed 1245
Combustion: Fabric Filters or Electrostatic
Precipitators: D.V. Bubenick, D.C. Lee, R.R. Hall,
P.F. Fennelly, GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts
The Response of Hot-Side Electrostatic Precipitators 1260
and Fabric Filters to Fluidized Bed Combuators: N.Z.
Shilling, W.J. Morris, Envirotech Corporation, Lebanon,
Pennsylvania
Physical, Chemical and Biological Characterization 1274
of AFB Coal Combustion Effluents: C.H. Hobbs, A.L.
Brooks, R.L. Carpenter, C.R. Clark, P.B. DeNee, R.L.
Hanson, R.F. Henderson, J.O. Hill, G.J. Newton, S.J.
Rotbenberg, S.H. Weissman, B.C. Yeh, Inhalation Toxi-
cology Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Comprehensive Characterization of Emissions from a 1284
6' x 6' Atmospheric Fluidizcd Bed Combustion System:
J.E. Howes, Jr., S.E. Miller, Battelle Columbus Lab-
oratories, Columbus, Ohio; T. Modrak, Babcock and
Wilcox Research Center, Alliance, Ohio; C. Aulisio,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Cali-
fornia
12
-------
TBJE30105E
-------
PLENARY SESSION 1
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Roger LeGassie
D.S. Department of Energy
Thank you.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Energy,
let me welcome you to this Sixth International
Fluidired Bed Combustion Conference. I especially
want to extend • a warm welcome to those who have
traveled here from other countries and other
continents.
I am pleased at the turnout here today — not
only the numbers but particularly the composition
of the audience. I am told that at the First
International Conference, the 40 or so attendees
were primarily scientists and research engineers.
Today, as I look out on 500 or more of you, I see
the largest proportion to be equipment manufactur-
ers involved primarily in producing commercial
fluldlzed bed boners.
That's the way It should be. That's telling me
we are moving in the right direction. This is the
type of program we In the Department of Energy can
be proud to be a part of.
As you have heard, I am here today representing
the Department's Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy, George Fumlch. This is a conference George
wanted very much to be a part of. As many of you
know from personal experience, George has been
advocating fluldlzed bed technology as a clean way
of burning coal since the early 1960s.
Unfortunately, commitments both to a hectic
Washington schedule and to his doctors have pre-
vented him from being here today. But I pass along
his welcome and wishes for a profitable three days.
This conference comes at a particularly appro-
priate tine. We stand today at a pivotal point in
our history. Our nations have just completed a
decade in which the twin shocks of first a quad-
rupling of world oil prices in the first half of
the 70s, then their subsequent doubling again last
year have told us that our energy problem is real,
that its economic and national security ramifica-
tions are severe, and that there is no quick fix.
At the same time, we are entering a new decade
— a decade where fundamental changes will have to
be made in the way we use energy and in the fuels
we must burn to produce It. This transition is
worldwide. It requires cooperation among all the
Industrial nations, and particularly It requires
the maximum In cooperation between industry and
government.
These changes are not going to happen over-
night. They are going to take time, and as indi-
vidual citizens in business, labor and government,
we have to build the momentum now so that our
future vulnerability to decisions made In a par-
ticularly unstable part of the world can be
reduced.
In this country alone, we will be paying almost
$90 billion this year alone for foreign oil —
that's $10 million an hour, every hour of every
day. And with that noney flows jobs and the
ability to maintain control of our economic
future.
The situation facing us is compounded by the
fact that the world's largest producer of oil, the
Soviet Union, is expected to become a net importer
of oil during this decade. That's a complicated
compounding factor with obvious, unfavorable
Impacts.
There will be some Increased production In
Mexico, the North Sea, and here in the D.S. where
more drill rigs are operating today than ever
before. But the picture Is rather clear. World
potential for producing oil will soon begin to
decline.
That means if the consuming nations do not take
concerted and strong actions in the very near
future to substitute alternative energy supplies
for oil, Import prices considerably higher than
today's could become a reality.
We don't have the luxury of making unilateral
decisions about oil. To find a ccramon ground that
serves all of our interests is a step-by-step
process that requires a lot of patience and coop-
eration.
The effort among the Industrialized consuming
nations began at the Tokyo sunmlt last June. That
was followed in the fall by a meeting of energy
ministers In Paris. And that meeting was expanded
In December to a meeting of 20 nations of the
International Energy Agency.
Step-by-step, these sessions are setting the
framework for an international response to our
energy problems. Import callings have been set.
And it is nou the responsibility of individuals
like us — in each coratry — to go about finding
the mechanisms and the technology to meet or lower
these quotas.
-------
Conferences like this are an important part of
the International commitment and cooperation that
will be needed to do just that. Just as our
energy problems are vorldwida, so too can be the
solutions.
For those nations repreoented here today, coal
can be one of the answers. Our countries are not
energy poor. But we have built our social and
economic infrastructures on a foundation of cheap,
easily attainable oil. That is no longer a real-
istic premise. It therefore becomes incumbent on
us to turn to other energy sources, the ones we
have the most of — like cool.
As I have said, vo h£va completed on eventful
decade. Hot only did it display the realities of
the energy problem, but it also revealed several
hints of potential solueiona- From a technology
standpoint, one of those solutions is fluidized
bed combustion.
In the early 1970a, we aa\e fluidizud beds
progress from bench scale engineering concepts to
the fabrication of actual commercial hardware.
From where I scand, that, is the measure of
success — hardware that la ready to operate in a
commercial environment, that ecu hold its own in a
marketplace where regulation*! must be met, permits
obtained, and in which an Investment must be
attractive before it It mads.
It is hardware in which the private sector has
• sufficient confidence -- technologically, economi-
cally and environmentally ~ to begin moving
forward on its own. It la a success measured by
commitments from manufactures/a to produce and
warrant equipment. It is a success measured by the
confidence of users that the technoloy Is advan-
tageous to own and that it can function dependably.
You will be hearing about some of these suc-
cesses during the next three days — developments
resulting from both government programs and private
sector initiative!) uorldwi.de.
You will be hearing about our commercial proto-
type unit at Georgetown University in Washington,
D.C. Since laet summer, it has accumulated more
than 1400 hours of running time and has provided
steam throughout the winter to heat 51 campus
buildings totaling 2.2 million square feet.
We are about reedy to begin operating a second
commercial prototype at the Great Lakes Haval
Training Center near Chicago. And two more units
— these designed specifically to burn anthracite
or anthracite vastes — have begun construction in
Pennsylvania.
You will be hearing about last month's run at
the Rivcsville utility fluidized bed unit, which
achieved 200 hours of continuous operation after
substantial modifications wore made to the coal
feed system.
And you vd.ll bo hearing about activities and
recent successes in cho United Kingdom, the Federal
Republic of Germany, the Peoples Republic of China,
India, and in the Scandanavla countries.
So if I had to subtitle this conference, I think
I would underscore "progress" — progress that is
producing results, progress that has brought
fluidized bed combustion to the threshold of
commercial acceptance.
So where do we go from hare? I prefer to view
this conference not as simply a recitation of
success stories, but as a guldepost to the work
that still needs to be done. And there is still
considerable progress that must be made In the
future if we are truly to have commercially viable
fluidized bed systems.
The question of reliability must still be ad-
dressed — particularly what the government's role
should be In building industries' confidence In
these units. As you know, we Issued a solicitation
last year for firms to come in with proposals to
demonstrate several large industrial fluidized bed
systems. These systems would be operated in energy-
intensive industries where reliability is critical.
Yet a question remains of where government's
role ends and private industry becomes the dominant
player. We requested no additional funds in our FT
1981 budget for this program, but we recently asked
those companies that submhitted proposals to extend
them to June 1. This will enable us to gauge more
precisely whether this is something we in govern-
ment need to do, particularly in a time of Federal
budget restraint, or If so, how many demonstrations
are necessary.
You may be interested to know that last week, a
subcommittee of the House Science and Technology
Committee voted to add $10 million to our fiscal
1981 budget specifically for these industrial
demonstrations. We, along with many of you I'm
sure, will be watching to see if the other authori-
zation and appropriations committees follow suit.
In the utility sector, with the Tennessee Valley
Authority taking the lead in developing the atmos-
pheric fluidized bed system, we have re-focused our
attention on the pressurized concept.
The 1000-hour test run of a pressurized flui-
dized bed linked to a small gas turbine at Curtiss-
Wrlght's testing station last fall was a sig-
nificant milestone in achieving the materials
durability that will be needed for PFB/corabined
cycle operations.
And we are preparing to move ahead with con-
struction of a 13-megawatt fully-Integrated PFB
pilot plant with Curtlss-Wright, beginning probably
by next spring.
It is in the pressurized fluid bed work where
some of our most active and beneficial interna-
tional activities are taking place. At Grime-
thorpe, England we are preparing for firing the
first coal and beginning "hot" shakedown later
this year. As a precursor to this work, the
project is currently performing "link tests" at the
15
-------
Leatherhead facility, and it was there that we
recently completed 1000-hour test with General
Electric and Stal-Laval cleanup systems and cas-
cades. This test achieved favorable results and
confirmed our conclusion that the technology is
ready to move ahead.
This work will be essential to the eventual
commercial success of PFBs in both the U.S. and
Europe, and you will be hearing more about these
activities as the conference progresses.
In all, I think we have a comprehensive flui-
dized 'bed program with government and industry from
several nations playing key roles. Now it's up to
us — representing those governments and industries
— to make that program work. The economic and
national security stakes are very high, and we
don't have the luxury of failure as an option.
With the technical expertise, along with the
marketing ingenuity and the international coopera-
tion, that exists in this room today, we can do
this and still maintain our commitments to a clean
environment and a healthy economy.
Once again, let me say on behalf of the Depart-
ment of Energy that we appreciate your attendance
and commend your interest and support of this new
and important technology. I hope in the upcoming
sessions that you wil be candid about your concerns
and talkative about what you think our future
actions should be.
That's the only way the progress we achieved In
the 1970s will carry over into the 1980s.
Thank you.
16
-------
OVEE?m; 0? U.S. ABB lEmRAXIOHAL PSOGBAMS
17
-------
FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION; A
STATUS CHECK
JOHN W. BYAM
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
MORGANTOWN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SIXTH INTERNATIONAL FLUIDIZED-BED
CONFERENCE -- APRIL 9-11, 1980
Good morning. I would like to
speak to you this morning concerning
DOE's fluidized-bed program, in gen-
eral, a basic talk that I have titled
"Fluidized-Bed Combustion, A Status
Check." This is a review of the status
of DOE's program, where we are and where
we are going in fluidized-bed technology.
DOE, as you know, has been active in
fluidized-bed combustion of coal since
the late 60' s when it was known as the
Office of Coal Research. The work was
originally started with the Alexandria
facility, and in the early 70' s the
Rivesville project was undertaken and
the Rivesville unit built and operated
since 1976.
The question comes up as to why
DOE is interested in fluidized-bed com-
bustion. The primary reason, of course,
is the advantages over conventional
combustion. 1 am sure that many in the
room know these advantages; but for the
interest of those who may not, I will
briefly review the FBC advantages as we
in DOE see them.
The primary advantage of fluidized-
bed combustion is the reduction of S02
emissions during the combustion process.
There is also a reduction in NO emis-
sions and the capability to burn a very
wide range of fuels. Other advantages
include a modest reduction in cost for
the capital, equipment, and operations
of a fluidized-bed plant versus a con-
ventional steam plant; the fact that
fluidized-bed technology can be used to
burn the high ash western coals and
lignites as well as the Anthracites
and high sulfur bituminous coals of
the east; and the fact that FBC tech-
nology can burn low-grade combustibles,
not only coals, but industrial waste.
DOE has therefore established a program
to address these various objectives and
our program goals are shown in figure 1.
• IKUSTRIAL WE teoeTRATion
IN A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
- SHOW PROCESS PLIABILITY
- feVELOP DERATING COST D»TA BASE
• UTILITY OT APPLICATION
- ADDRESS TEOMQLCGY ISSUES
- COORDINATE KITH TVA ACTIVITIES
• PHI APPLICATIONS
- tevELOP CcPFCNB»r tejABILITY/D=ERABILITY
- DBOCTRATE tax RISK CYCLE
- SYSTDC CONTROL PROCESS TIIJQMI
• THXOJOGY BASE
- IEVELOP COPRBOOIW PROCESS &STA BASE
ImcvED PROCESS COFIGUUTIONS
Figure 1 - FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION PROGRAM GOALS
AFB PROGRAM
In the area of Industrial Atmospheric
Fluid -Bed Boilers (AFBB), DOE is
attempting to demonstrate in a very wide
variety of industrial applications,
AFBC reliability. We are also attempt-
ing to develop and are in the process
of, at this time, developing a very
good operating cost data base.
In the area of AFB application to
Utilities, we are assisting TVA in
addressing the technology issues and
are coordinating and working with TVA
who has the lead in applying AFB tech-
nology to Utilities.
In PFB applications, we are working
in the areas of developing component
reliability, operability and demonstrat-
ing a low-risk cycle, optimizing the
system process for turndown, and finally
in the area of developing a wide tech-
nology base. In this last area, we
are looking ahead at advanced technolo-
gies as well as establishing additional
data to answer some of the questions
that exist today. In addition, we are
developing very comprehensive data base;
and are working to define improved proc-
ess configurations.
18
-------
From these projects we have devel-
oped a series of design development
goals for the fluidized-bed program,
and this is basically where we see our-
selves going. We feel that we must
develop a fuel flexibility multi-fuel
firing capability and a high combustion
efficiency and overall plant efficiency.
Of course, it must be within environ-
mental compliance at all times. Work
on reliability, safety, ease of mainten-
ance for the plant, a rapid start-up
and shutdown for the larger units so
that they are comparable with the exist-
ing utilities, and good load following
turndown capabilities is also required.
Figure 2 shows a summary of the
AFBC facilities that DOE has available
to it plus those that are available in
private industry. These are the sites
that are available now to address the
issues. As you can see, there is a
large number of sites that are in the
range of 10 square feet or lea's. We
are now beginning to get in place the
larger units, the demos, which will
give us an expanded data base at the
next step up, around the 100 to
1,000 square foot range.
We have a group of facilities that
are capable of addressing all phases of
AFBC work, the AFB utility phase, the
AFB industrial phase which are repre-
sented by the demonstration units, tech-
nology support base units, and units to
support the pressurized fluidized-bed
work.
I would like to now give you a
brief overview of the activity in each
of these areas. I have intended this
to be a very brief overview and hope
you will attend the various sessions
that will follow which will cover each
of these projects in detail.
The first unit, as mentioned by
Mr. LeGassie, is the Georgetown unit
which has been operating since August
of 1979. It produces 100,000 pounds an
hour of saturated steam at 250 psig with
the capability to go to 625 psig. To
date, it has exceeded 1,400 hours of
operation and has produced a maximum of
80,000 pounds per hour of steam.
Figure 3 is a 1wout of the equip-
ment at Georgetown. Of general interest
is the fact that :' «• '""ilizes a stoker
overbed feed system for fuel feed and a
gravity flow in-bed limestone feed sys-
tem. Figure 4 gives you a better idea
of the overall major components of the
facility. The facility utilizes a bag-
house for dust collection.
The next facility is the Great Lakes
unit being built by Combustion Engineer-
ing. Figure 5 is an artist's concept
of the site as it will look once it is
complete. They are in the construction
phase right now. The building steel is
up, the boiler is in place, and that
boiler is due to come on line and be
operational in January of 1981.
Another ongoing project is the
Exxon Crude Oil Heater Project which
investigates using a fluidized-bed
boiler to heat crude feed stock for a
refinery. In the studies that were done
during Phase I, it was determined that,
in fact, very efficient heat transfer
was accomplished; and the process was
viable from a crude heating standpoint.
However, the problem became, one of
logistics. Because of the large number
of units that would be required in a
refinery, 80 to 90 units, there is a
very serious problem with coal and lime-
stone transportation. When the overall
economics involved were evaluated, it
appeared that this process was not eco-
nomically feasible for a refinery appli-
cation and therefore DOE chose not to
proceed with the demonstration unit.
Figure 2 • AFBC FACILITIES
Figure 3 • GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AFB FACILITY MODEL
-------
DOE has, as Mr. LeGassie mentioned,
two anthracite projects underway. The
anthracite culm project at Shamokin will
provide 20,000 pounds an hour of steam
to an industrial park. That facility
is in the construction phase now and
will be starting up in April of 1981.
The Wilkes-Barre facility will pro-
vide 100,000 pounds per hour of heating
steam to the downtown area of the City
of Wilkes Barre. The facility is in
the final design stages and construction
will be starting this fall with opera-
tion in late 1981.
The utility program includes the
Rivesville unit which has now completed
a 200-hour run after making several
modifications to the fuel feed system,
which has been one of the major problems
encountered at Rivesville. That was a
very successful run, and no major prob-
lems resulted. Currently, Rivesville
is in a maintenance evaluation phase
looking at the details of what happened
and what was the exact performance of
the unit. One thing to note, the stack
during this run was clear at all times;
and it appears the unit had better than
99 percent efficiency in the hot electro-
static precipitator. So from that, it
appears that ESP may yet be an accepta-
ble approach to stack gas cleanup for
fluidized bed.
Figure 6 represents a model of the
AFB-CT1U which was under construction
to be used as a component test facility
for AFB. Shown are the bunker system
out back as well as the equipment as it
was to be located in the building. It
included a three-cell stacked boiler
with a multi-clone primary cleanup and
a baghouse for final cleanup. Figure 7
shows the building as it now appears
with the unloading facility located out
'if.
\
Figure 4 - GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AFB MAJOR EQUIPMENT
Figure 5 - GREAT LAKES AFB EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
back. For those of you who have not
been reading the papers or "Energy Daily"
lately, this project has been terminated.
DOE felt that the industrial phase of
AFB has accelerated faster than antici-
pated, and the problems that were to be
addressed in this facility in conjunc-
tion with the industrial AFB have really
been answered. With regards to applica-
tion of this facility to the utility
side, TVA has taken the lead and the
demonstration of Utility AFB and after
discussions with them, it was felt that
the 20 MWfi pilot plant program would
provide the answers they required and
that this facility would not have any
direct benefit for TVA. DOE is there-
fore reevaluating the use for the facil-
ity and the need for an AFB test facil-
ity within the fluidized-bed program.
That is one of the inputs we are looking
for during this three-day conference.
Finally, there is the DOE technol-
ogy support program. The Alexandria
unit is providing good basic data in a
3 foot by 3 foot unit. We have the METC
work which consists of two 18-inch units
and the 6x6 cold unit, providing some
good solid data on the burning of a wide
variety of fuels. The Grand Forks Lab-
oratory unit is providing data on lig-
nites and the western coals, and the
MIT math modeling program is providing
a good process model as well as a data
base for all the data which has been
collected at numerous units. There is
also a program being handled by the Davy
McKee Corporation where the data from
the various demonstration units is being
collected and collated and will be made
available to industry at their request.
PFB PROGRAM
Next, let us look briefly at the
PFB program. This is where DOE's
emphasis for the future will be. Some
of the added advantages of pressurized
20
-------
Figure 8 - COMPONENT TEST AND INTEGRATION UNIT MODEL
fluidized combustion are of course high-
combustion efficiency, a higher volu-
metric heat release, a higher in-bed
heat transfer rate, fewer coal feed
points, improved S02 capture, and suita-
bility for gas turbine combined cycle
systems.
The various facilities shown in
figure 8 are what we have available to
us now. The Curtiss Wright 13 MW pilot
plant has completed the design stage.
There is the IEA Grimathorpe Facility,
the technical base units, Curtiss Wright.
the National Coal Board CURL Facility,
General Electric Materials Program, the
hot gas cleanup work, and the Argonne
National Laboratory Scale Unit. Our
program is phased as shown in figure 9.
We currently have operating the smaller
technology base units. This will expand
to the pilot plant units, the Curtiss
Wright, and the Grimethorpe units. From
there we will go into a repowering demon-
stration unit. This will be in the 100
MW range and will be operational in
thS 1986-87 time frame.
Figure 10 shows the Curtiss Wright
pilot plant, construction of which is
to begin shortly. It will be about two
years to operation.
Figure 8 - PFB FACILITIES
The international projects include
the IEA Grimethorpe, as mentioned, where
the DOE objective is to work with the
International Energy Agency to build
and operate a PFB facility to obtain
data on prototype boilers including com-
bustion characteristics, emissions, and
turbine materials. The CURL facility
is being operated now with the objective
of supporting the IEA project and defin-
ing PFB combustion characteristics on a
pilot scale. Again, these facilities
will be discussed more in detail at
later sessions.
In summary, looking at our achieve-
ments to date, there are the industrial
demonstrations; we have demonstrated
process flexibility on a larger number
of coals and refuge materials and the
utility concept has been demonstrated
at Rivesville. In the area of technol-
ogy base, there is a modest base avail-
able to DOE right now, and we are mod-
eling to expand both the design data
available and the data base.
CALENDAR YEAR
1
• 1 MW WO*
• 10 MW PILOT
PLANTS
AEPfSTAL-LAVAL
CONVENTIONAL
« a
Mf
o f
s
i i
s
1 1
c-w
am
'
o
3 *
•AH
MET>
^
ESKJ
1XED
i a
coo
^
OBP
S
,
F f
LED
E S-
i r
1AM
OTC
r *
COM
Mn
OPI
1 f
LED
3N
=RAT
l
ION
Figure 7 - COMPONENT TEST AND INTEGRATION UNIT BUILDING
Figure 9 • PFB PROJECTS PHASING
:
-------
Figure 10 • CURTISS WRIGHT PILOT PUNT
However, it is not all success.
There are some problems that remain to
be addressed and a few of them include
the following: Demonstration of long-
term reliability - industry continues
to state they want to see a unit that
can start up and run for a year. We
need to reduce the complexity of the
fuel feed system especially on the
larger units. The long-term perform-
ance of materials in the fluidized bed
has yet to be demonstrated in the
10-20,000 hour range. There is a need
to continue to develop a firm data base
for design and scaleup in the area of
heat transfer, combustion efficiency,
and emissions. There is a need to
develop methods for utilization of the
spent-bed materials. On a system basis,
a definition of the best power genera-
tion and cogeneration systems for first
generation commercial plants is required.
From an economic standpoint, confirma-
tion of the economic advantages of
fluidized bed on a demonstration scale
is needed.
The DOE is interested in your ideas,
your discoveries, and your concerns. We
look forward to this conference as a
forum to exchange ideas, define poten-
tial problems that remain, and identify
a means to solve these problems. We of
DOE thank you for participating. May
the conference be beneficial to us all.
22
-------
AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRESS IN FLUID BED
COMBUSTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
D.M. WILLIS
NATIONAL COAL BOARD
COAL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT
STOKE ORCHARD CHELTENHAM GLOUCESTERSHIRE GL52 4HZ UNITED KINGDOM
Introduction
It is a groat personal pleasure for me to be
here speaking to you today representing the
United Kingdom before such a distinguished
gathering. AT: the 1977 Conference, Dr. W.G.
Kaye presented this overview but, unfortunately,
he cannot be with you today as ha is among the
bulb fields of Holland making the major
presentation to a symposium on New Coal Technology
at the Hilton Hotel, Rotterdam. (I should have
bought shares in the Hilton).
He sends his best wishes to you as do Joe
Gibson, David Dainton and Jack Owen. My
colleagues from NCB, John Highley and Alan
Roberts, are with me and will be presenting
papers on the detailed work In which we, In the
Coal Research Establishment of the National Coal
Board, have been involved.
There is no need to send Raymond Hoy's good
wishes as he is with us. He might be considered
the mother of pressurised fluidised bed
combustion, Doug Elliott, perhaps, being the
father, and he nurssd a sometimes sickly child
to its present healthy atate. (I will not
pursue the analogy further.). I would say that
we in the U.K. regard it as an honour that you
have invited him to be 'the technologist' on the
panel on Friday morning.
The keynote of Bill Kayo's talk two years
ago waa that fluidised bed combustion had arrived.
In retrospect, that was not an overstatement.
There are now some nine companies in the U.K. who
are prepared to offer on a commercial basis a
fluidised bed boiler or furnace. Two years is
not long, but the pace of development is such that
in those two years much has been learnt and much
accomplished.
We, in the National Coal B^ard, like to feel
that we are at the forefront 01 this development
through the work of the Coal Research-
Establishment and the Coal Utilisation Research
Laboratory, but it is a great encouragement to us
that so many British firms are now investing their
own resources in development and production.
Let me now very briefly look over the U.K.
scene, starting firstly with pressurised fluidised
beds.
Pressurised Fluidised Beds
You will learn about the continuing work
whi'ch goes on in the CURL laboratory from the
paper by Raymond Hoy and Alan Roberts, but what
is more important you will hear this afternoon
about the IEA project at Grimethorpe and, as an
engineer, one of the pictures which brings home
to me the reality of the advantages of this
technology is a picture of the 85 MW^n boiler
arriving in one piece on a low loader. This
plant is now near to commissioning.
Another project about which we shall hear
more in the future is the British Columbia Hydro
scheme which is now being designed by Coal
Processing Consultants, (the National Coal Board's
organisation for selling knowhow). This is a
major and very interesting project and we are
confident that it will lead to more of the same
type and scope.
Atmospheric Pressure Fluidised Beds
Now to the atmospheric pressure developments-
and if there are those in the audience who do not
know the difference, stay tuned to this show
through till Friday and you will learn.
Starting first with the larger end of the
market, the British Babcock boiler at Renfrew has
continued to notch up an impressive total of
operating hours as a boiler supplying heat to the
works, but also as a test bed to provide the
British Babcock Organisation with a vast amount
of information on burning a wide range of fuels,
some of which so strange we might not have
considered them as fuels a few years ago. I do
not think they have tried camel dung yet though.
One of the commercial expressions of this is, of
course, the retrofit installation by Babcock
International Combustion at the Central Ohio
Psychiatric Hospital.
Installation of the high pressure Mitchell
coil boiler with an output of 30 MWtn and 40 bar
is now virtually complete and though events in the
British Steel Corporation have delayed its
completion, cold commissioning tests have been
carried out.
23
-------
The Energy Equipment retrofit system on a
small industrial water tube boiler has been
installed and proved.
There is a number of other projects in the
early design stages with a number of
manufacturers, one such being the retrofitting
of a high pressure 50,000 kg/hr steam boiler
which was installed a few years ago, oil fired
but with an eye to possible future conversion
to coal fired fluidised bed. Subject to
satisfactory funding, that future has arrived.
Smaller Boilers
The small vertical fire tube boilers for
the tomatoe (or should I say tomatoe) greenhouses
at Harden (a hot water boiler) and the other steam
boiler at the Antler Luggage factory at Bury have
continued to operate for the last three years.
The last of these two has been the only boiler
on site for two years and has carried the load.
Both have been used as test installations, not
only for burning different coals but also for
trying different methods of start-up. You will
hear more of this work in Thursday morning's
session on operating experience from John Highley.
This particular vertical fire tube boiler
approach has been taken up by Vosper Thornycroft
Combustion, a division of British Shipbuilders
and commercial prototypes of around 5 MW^n (steam
or hot water) at pressures of around 10 bar are
being manufactured. The first of these has now
been delivered to a site in London. It is
expected that about half a dozen will be
installed by the end of the year, whilst other
manufacturers are developing somewhat similar
designs. The Stone Platt Fluidfyre small
package water tube boiler for steam at about
3 MW thermal is now installed at a factory in
Yorkshire for proving trials. You will hear of
this development from Michael Virr on Thursday
morning.
On the horizontal fire tube boiler a number
of people are active using 'conventional' and
'unconventional' designs. Along the conventional
approach is the Northern Engineering Industries
(perhaps still better recognised by individual
names within the group, such as John Thompson,
International Combustion,Cochrane and Clark
Chapman. Three or four of these boilers are now
sold for installation in sizes up to about 6 MWtn
for steam or hot water and will be installed
towards the end of the year after substantial
proving in one of NEI's manufacturing works.
Energy Equipment have also sold their system
for installation in three Robey boilers and the
first of these is now on test in their works.
Similar equipment has been sold for installation
in a boiler in Hungary.
Parkinson Cowan GWB Ltd. have also sold
three boilers at 2 MW thermal each for
installation later this year or early next year.
On more unconventional lines the Vosper
Horizontal Open Hearth boiler which is going into
our boiler test house at CRE this month (rated
at 5 MWth steam at 10 bar) and the Babcock
(Packaged Boilers) Compo boiler which is going
into the test house some time in August. This
latter design, though initially at 3 MW thermal as
a steam boiler, has the potential of going up to
30 MW thermal in one unit and possibly pressures
of 40 bar.
Finally, I must mention the successful
Johnston boiler in the USA, for whilst this is a
British overview, the fluid bed technology is
based upon work by the National Coal Board
licensed to Johnston Boilers through Combustion
Systems Ltd. This boiler will be described in
the paper by Mike Michaels on Thursday afternoon.
Atmospheric Fluidised Dryers
Before I finish my lightning overview, I must
quickly look at the non-boiler scene and in
particular the field of dryers. Quite a bit of
energy is simply used for drying and obviously
hot gases from a fluidised bed can be used for
this purpose. Again John Highley, this time on
Thursday afternoon (busy day John) will cover
the work in more detail.
The grass dryers are pretty well established
and by their operating experience have shown the
favourable economics. G.P. Worsley have sold
five and another two are on order. All of these
have thermal outputs of 5 MW. Energy Equipment
have also sold three (two in the U.K. and one in
France).
At the larger end of the direct drying market
the 15 MW thermal clay drying plant at the cement
works has been very successful in showing a
substantial saving over the former oil fired
furnace.
Conclusions
I have, because of the time factor, left out
reference to the work on tailings combustion,
reference to the support and contract work done
for many organisations on such important matters
as corrosion and erosion, on fluid bed gasification
to produce a gas for burning in furnaces or gas
turbines, etc.
There is so much going on and yet all the time
we can see new ideas to try, new developments to
pursue.
Bill Kaye concluded his 1977 overview by
saying that fluidised bed combustion had arrived.
I have come back into research and development
after many years in technical marketing. I can
see that fluid bed combustion has arrived, but
moreover, 1 can see that it can, with the right
financial structure, be sold on a commercial basis
and I believe that in the U.K. we should be in a
damn good position to do some selling of British
coal, British ideas and British equipment.
24
-------
I must, however, end on a sombre note and
set fluidised bed combustion in perspective
against the world energy situation. If we
do not speedily develop the new techniques of
coal burning, and I believe fluidised beds to be
a most important one, and persuade people to
revert to coal firing, thus relieving the
pressures on a precarious world oil situation,
the results for the industrialised western world
may be horrendous.
Fig.
I.E.A. Grimethorpe
85 MW reactor being delivered
Fig. 3 Fluidised bed coil boiler by
ME Boilers U.K.
National Coal Board project
Fig. 2 Fluidised bed retrofit to Central
Ohio Psychiatric Hospital
Babcock International
-..
-------
Fig. 4 Babcock boiler for proposed retrofit
conversion from oil to fluidised bed
coal firing U.K.
Fig. 5 Clonsast 3 MV vertical fluidised bed
hot water boiler
National Coal Board project
Fig. 6 Clonsast 2.8 MW vertical fluidised bed
steam boiler
National Coal Board project
Fig. 7 Vosper Thornycroft 5 MW vertical
fluidised bed pressurised hot water
boiler being delivered in London
Vosper Thomycroft/NCB project
26
-------
Fig. 8 Schematic section Northern
Engineering Industries horizontal
shell
Fig. 9 Energy Equipment fluidised bed
combustion unit in a 3 MW Robey
steam boiler for NCB site
Fig. 11 Vosper Thornycroft 5 MW
horizontal fluidised bed fired
boiler
Joint Vosper Thornycroft/NCB
project
Fig. 10 GWB Boiler with development
fluidised bed
Joint Parkinson Cowan/NCB project
-------
Fig. 13 Johnston Boiler Company
Ferrysburg, Michigan 49409
Fig. 12 Babcock (Shell Boilers) 4-3 MW
composite boiler with fluidised bed
Joint Babcook/NCB project
Fig. 14 G.P. Worsley 5 MW fluidised bed
for grass dryers
Joint G.P. Worsley/NCB project
28
-------
Fig. 15 Energy Equipment fluidised bed furnace
test unit for design of commercial
units
Fig-
16 G.P. Worsley 15 MW fluid bed furnace for
clay dryer
-------
Overview of the Fluidized Bed Combustion
Programme of the Federal Republic of Germany
R. Holighaus
J. Batsch
Kernforschungsanlage JUlich GmbH
5170 Julich
The basic goal of the energy research
programme of the Federal Republic of Ger-
many is the development of technologies
which can contribute to a reliable future
energy supply for our country in an eco-
nomically favourable and environmentally
acceptable way.
The development of suitable techno-
logies for increased and more efficient
utilization of coal plays an important
role within this programme, as coal is
the only domestic primary energy source
which is available in large quantities
in Germany.
Accordingly, about half of the go-
vernment funds for non-nuclear energy
research is being consumed for coal re-
search. In the area of direct combustion
of coal, for heat and power generation,
the efforts are concentrated on the im-
provements of conventional power plants
with respect to environmental protection
and advanced technologies which combine
high efficiency, utilization of low grade
coal and environmentally acceptable ope-
ration. Here, fluidized bed combustion
(FBC) represents the largest area of de-
velopment.
Before entering into details of our
fluidized bed combustion research and de-
velopment programme I would like to sum-
marize some basic advantages of FBC.
- The furnace temperature is kept low and
uniform. Consequently,
low.
NO., formation is
- Because SOp-emission can be reduced by
the addition of limestone or dolomite,
an expensive and efficiency consuming
flue gas desulphurization plant is not
required.
- Heat transfer coefficients are high.
This means, that the heat-exchanger
areas and consequently the boilers can
be smaller than in pulverized fuel
firing.
- Low grade fuels can be used.
Pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC)
offers special advantages with respect to
environmental protection, combustion effi-
ciency, geometric size and, if combined
with a gas turbine, to thermal efficiency
of the total plant (Fig. 1 and 2).
200
Fig. 1: S0_-Concentration as a function of
excess air
Serious development problems have to
be overcome in the case of PFBC. Therefore,
atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC)
was incorporated in our FBC research pro-
gramme because it can be developed for com-
mercial application within a considerably
shorter time than PFBC. In addition a re-
latively simple concept is favourable for
small plants, such as industrial boilers
and small power station units, where a
complex technology leads to comparatively
high investment costs.
30
-------
ppm
HO
MO
200
.
•^
<
,
iSa£
'^.
- — .
i. «t2ai>
c«/».o— —
Ca/S. 1 •*
^C
_J
^^^1
J
914 • • 10 12 *0j
Luf1ut>«nchga t«" AkfM
Pig. 2: NO -concentration as a function of
excess air
In the Federal Republic of Germany a
considerable part of the primary energy
demand is being consumed in industrial
boilers. In this area primarily oil and
natural gas are being used at the present
time. The development of AFBC can reduce
the dependence on these energy sources,
as this technology offers similar advan-
tages with respect to automatic operation
and environmental protection.
The projects on conventional APBC
as executed in the Federal Republic of
Germany cover a range of thermal capa-
cities from 6 MW to 12U MW.
AFBC-Projects
At the power station in Dflsseldorf-
Flingern an existing boiler was converted
from travelling grate firing to fluidized
bed combustion. This plant, with a thermal
capacity of 35 MW, has been in operation
since the second half of 1979- It produces
superheated steam of 17 bar pressure and
400 C which is supplied to the steam sy-
stem of the power station. The superheater
is located above the bed. Fig. 3 shows the
flow scheme of this plant. A preraixed coal
and limestone mixture is fed pneumatically
into the bed. The produced heat is trans-
ferred to in-bed-heat-transfer-surfaces
and to tube banks outside the bed. The
flue gas is cleaned in the cyclones and in
baghouse filters. The dust collected in
the cyclones can be recirculated into the
bed to improve combustion efficiency.
nun? A H
Fig. 3: Flow scheme
35 MW Fluidized Bed Combustion
Plant
A newly constructed second plant with a ther-
mal capacity of 6 MW, located in Reckling-
hausen, entered into operation in 1979-
It produces saturated steam which is fed
into a district heating system. Its flow
scheme (Fig. U) shows that for this snail
unit a simpler technology especially with
respect to coal preparation and feeding has
been applied. Coal and limestone are con-
veved by a screw feeder into the fluidized
bed.
Both projects are being performed by
Ruhrkohle AG in cooperation with the Deut-
sche Babcock group and the consortium
Thyssen Engineering, Standard Kessel,
respectively. Details of these projects
will be presented later during this con-
ference.
Fig. U: Flow scheme 6 MW - AFBC Plant
31
-------
R. Holighaus
J. Batsch
An additional plant with a thermal
capacity of about 12k MW will be construc-
ted in Hameln. The contractor is the Elek-
trizitatswerke Wesertal GmbH, a local uti-
lity. The boiler will be supplied by the
Vereinigte Kesselwerke AG, which also supp-
lied the boiler for the lEA-Plant Grime-
thorpe. This plant will have a part of the
superheater within the bed. The FBC boiler
at Hameln will supply steam for combined
heat and power generation.
PFBC-Projects
As already mentioned, pressurized
fluidized bed combustion has by far greater
potential than atmospheric fluidized bed
combustion. Pig. 5 shows the flow scheme
of the PPBC plant concept which promises
the highest efficiency. Air is passed to
the fluidized bed via the compressor of
a gas turbine. Coal and limestone are fed
premixed into the fluidized bed. The com-
bustion gases leave the cpmbustor with a
temperature of about 850 C, are dedusted
in suitable equipment and then passed to
the gas turbine. Heat is transferred to
the watersteam circuit from heat exchan-
ger within the combustor and from the waste
heat of the gasturbine. According to pre-
liminary studies this concept will have an
efficiency of about 39 % based on the lower
heating value.
Pig. 5: Pressurized Fluidized Bed Ccotoustion
with Combined Cycle
The problem areas which have to be
solved before commercial application can
be divided into problems of the combustion
process and its optimization and into pro-
blems which arise by the combination with
a gas turbine.
The first problem area is being in-
vestigated within the framework of the
well-known lEA-Project. The construction
of the PPBC plant in Griraethorpe, UK, is
nearly complete and cold commissioning
is being performed. It is envisaged to
start the experimental programm in early
1981.
Germany is one of the three partners in
this project. This project will be pre-
sented in detail later during this con-
ference.
Our national projects in the PFBC
area are concentrated on problems connec-
ted with the combination of the PFBC with
a gas turbine.
A project which is being carried out
by a consortium of Bergbau-Forschung GmbH
and Vereinigte Kesselwerke AG (VKW) and
others deals with a pilot-plant with a
thermal capacity of about 32 MW for testing
this combination. In the original concept
it was envisaged to use an electrostatic
precipitator for hot gas cleaning at a
pressure of i»,5 bar.
During the engineering evaluation it
became clear, that this system cannot be
used without special development devoted
to the designed gas conditions. Therefore,
a different concept for this plant is now
under consideration (Fig. 6). It is now
planned to used three stage cyclone gas
cleaning. To compensate for the relative-
ly high dust load in the gas after the
cyclones, a special dust resistant turbine
will be used, which was developed for ener-
gy recovery after fluidized bed cat crackers.
The pressure in the combustor will be rai-
sed to about 8 bar.
OWFRESSED ADSTSIBH
Fig. 6: Plow scheme of the AGW-Plant
32
-------
R. Holighaus
J. Batsch
As it cannot be expected that the above
concept offers the optimum economical and
technical solution , further work is being
done in the development of high temperatu-
re/high pressure gas cleaning equipment.
Two projects of the University of Essen
deal, in laboratory scale, with electro-
static precipitators and high temperature
fabric filters. Up to now the results in-
dicate that operation of an electrostatic
precipitator with pressures above 7 bar is
possible at 850 C and that filter mate-
rials for temperatures up to 1.000 C can
be manufactured. With this in mind regard-
less of the difficulties we encounter in
the development of high temperature elec-
trostatic precipitators at low pressures,
it is still our opinion that this concept
offers a promising possibility for higher
pressures. Therefore, a design study for
an electrostatic precipitator based on
the results of the experiments at the Uni-
versity of Essen was started in January
1980.
Parallel to the experiments at the
University of Essen, KWU is performing
laboratory scale experiments to improve
the efficiency of the tornado cyclone.
It can be expected that the optimum
technical and economic solution for the
problems of the combination of pressuri-
zed fluidized bed combustion with a gas
turbine will be a compromise between
highly efficient gas cleaning and highly
dust resistant gas turbines. Therefore,
it appears sensible to develop both tech-
nologies, as is planned in our programme.
Pig. 7• Basic Fluid Bed Combustion Systems
Because of the special advantages
found in fast or circulating fluidized
bed combustion, we have recently added
this concept zc our research programme.
Fig. 7 compares the different states of
fluidized bed.
- The classical or stationary fluidized
bed with a relatively well-defined
surface of the fluidized bed and only
a small carry-out of solids.
- The circulating fluidized bed with a
very high carry-over, which results in
a very intensive internal and external
recycling of solids.
In Pig. 8 the flow scheme of an atmosphe-
ric circulating fluidized combustion plant
is illustrated. In the recycling cyclone
the two heat carriers, flue gas and solids,
are separated. Heat is extracted from the
flue gas in a waste heat boiler and from
the solids in a fluidized bed heat exchan-
ger. Because the heat transfer from the
two heat carriers can be influenced sepa-
rately, the control and part load behaviour
of this concept is more favourable than
that of the stationary fluidized bed. Ad-
ditional advantages of the circulating
fluidized bed are
- improvements with respect to SO, and MO
emissions achieved by finer grained sor-
bent and staged combustion,
- considerably smaller bed areas than in
classical fluidized bed, enabling larger
capacities per unit,
- Combustion and heat transfer can be se-
parated, enabling a very sensitive con-
trol of heat transfer.
OCSTDNE COW.
her
Fig. 8: Plow Scheme of a Circulating
Pluidized Bed Combustion Plant
In Ltinen.at the Vereinigte Alurainium-
werlce (VAW) a circulating fluidized bed
plant with a thermal capacity of 77 will
be constructed. It will serve for heating
molten salts in the fluidized bed heat
exchangers and for producing process
steam. The molten salt will be used as
the heat carrier for the Bayer hydrolizing
process. The project started in early 1980.
-------
R. Holighaus
J. Batsch
A design study for a 200 MW (th) cir-
culating fluidized bed boiler located in
Duisburg, also started in January 1980.
It is intended that this plant will be
used for combined heat and power generation.
The heat will be fed into the heating sy-
stem of the city of Duisburg. Because of
its location the advantages of the circu-
lating fluidized bed principle are of spe-
cial importance. Stringent environmental
standards have to be met and only a rela-
tively small area is available for the
plant. A similar problem would arise with
a conventional fluidized bed plant becau-
se of its large bed area. Therefore circu-
lating fluidized bed combustion seems to
be the logical technical solution for such
a locaction in a densely populated area.
More details of the circulating fluidized
bed technology will be presented later
during this conference.
I would like to mention a further po-
wer station concept in which the conven-
tional fluidized bed plays an important
role. As is shown in the flow scheme
(Pig. 9) the concept is characterized by
the following
- combination of fluidized bed combustion
with pulverized coal firing.
The flue gas of the PBC which can be
operated with low grade coal is passed
to the pulverized fuel burners. By do-
ing this in a suitable way NO -forma-
tion can be reduced considerably.
- combination of AFBC with an open cycle
gas turbine. The air coming from the
compressor of the gas turbine is pre-
heeted in the in-bed tube bank before
entering the combustion chamber. In
this way a part of the energy which
is supplied to the gasturbine is provi-
ded by coal. The risk of erosion and
corrosion of the turbines blades by
dustladen exhaust gases is eliminated
in this method.
- the flue gas desulphurization plant is
incorporated into the natural draft
cooling tower. The power plant doesn't
need a stack. In this way, no reheating
of the desulphurized flue gas will be
necessary, thus increasing the efficien-
cy of the power station.
A power station of this type with a elec-
tric capacity of 220 MW is under construc-
tion by the Saarbergwerke AG.
The Pig. 10 lists the major projects that
the Federal Republic of Germany has under-
taken.
The total cost of all PBC-projects
including the development hot gas cleaning
and dust-resistant gas turbines amounts to
82H Mio. DM (or more than ilOO Mio. US-Dol-
lar). The governmental funds for these pro-
jects amounts to about 315 Mio. DM (or more
than 150 Mio. US-Dollar).
This sura is an indication of the im-
portance that my government attaches to
these developments.
Figure 9: Prototype Power Plant Volkllngen
34
-------
R. Holighaus
J. Batsoh
?ig. 10: PBC-Projects in the Federal
Republic of Germany
35
-------
THE PROGRESS OF FLUIDIZED-BED BOILERS
IN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Zhang Xu-Yi
Tsingbua University
Beijing, People's Republic of China
FORWARD
Early in the 1960's, based on the broad
adoption of successful fluidized-bed calcin-
ation technology, China began its research
work on fluidized-bed combustion boilers.
In 1965, Mourning Petroleum Company, Tsinghua
University, and several other institutions
cooperated to design the first fluidized-bed
combustion boiler in China. It was con-
structed and put into operation in Mounting.
In 1969, Tsinghua University installed a
fluidized-bed combustion boiler for her
Experimental Power Plant, and that boiler
has been used for power generation studies
for several years. . These successes gave
impetus to the -progress of fluidized-bed
combustion boilers in China.
Presently, there are over 2,000 fluidized-
bed combustion (FBC) boilers in China. Many
boilers have- capacities of 4-10 T/b and are
used for generating saturated steam, while
others with capacities of 10-50 T/h/are used
for power generation and industrial appli-
cations. FBC boilers with a capacities of
130 T/h are now being tested.
The fuels used in China for most FBC boilers
are low-grade fuels such as shale fines,
low-grade bituminous coal and anthracite,
coal washery waste, stone-like coal, lignite,
etc. The heating value of the fuels now
being used, ranges from 1,000-1,500 Kcal/kg.
The boilers are being used either for indus-
trial purposes or for generating electricity.
Many boilers possess more than 40,000 hours
of accumulated operational experience.
In China, there are a number of organizations
taking part in the research and development
of fluidized-bed combustion-fired boilers.
Many technical institutes, such as Tsinghua
University, ZheJiang University, Harbin Tech-
nical Institute, etc., are the major insti-
tutions conducting research work. Shanghai
Boiler Works, Dungfang Boiler Works, and
Kuangchow Boiler Works, etc., are the chief
FBC boiler designers and manufacturers.
Extensive research work has been done on the
fluidized bed operating parameters selection,
combustion of low-heating- value fuels,
improvement of thermal efficiency, desulfuri-
zation with limestone, and boiler structures.
The following are a number of selected repre-
sentative fluidized-bed boilers:
1. 16.5 Tons/Hour Steam Industrial Boiler.
Mourning Petroleum Company -- The boiler
is designed by Mourning Petroleum Com-
pany, Fushuen Designing Institute of
Petroleum, Tsinghua University, etc.
This boiler burns shale fines with a
heating value of 1,034 Kcal/kg as fuel;
the steam pressure is 13 kg/cm2 and the
superheated steam temperature is 250°C.
This is the first • demonstration
fluidized-bed combustion boiler 'in
China, with a circular bed of 2.25 m
diameter and a superficial air velocity
of 2.7 in/sec through the bed. The bed
temperature is about 800°C. This boiler
was commissioned in December 1965.
2. 14 Tons/Hour Tsinghua University FBC
Boiler -- This is the first demonstra-
tion fluidized-bed combustion boiler in
China for power generation. It is
designed by the staff of Tsinghua Uni-
versity and commissioned in July 1969,
its steam pressure is 24 kg/cm2 and a
superheated steam temperature of 390°C.
The main fuel used is anthracite from
the Beijing district; a mixture of low-
grade bituminous coal and coal washery
waste with a heating value of 2,500 Kcal/kg
was also used in the test.
.' This boiler has two independent beds to
achieve a good turndown ratio between
35-110 percent. When burning coal with
low volatile content, the bed combustion
temperature is roughly 1,000°C.
The total operating time of this boiler
has already reached 20,000 hours; much
valuable experience has been acquired. .
Host of the research work has been in
the area of in-bed heat transfer sur-
faces and the prevention of erosion of
the in-bed surfaces.
36
-------
3.
130 Tons/Hour Fluidized-Bed Boiler --
This ia the largest power generating
fluidized-bed combustion boiler in China
at present. It has six beds with six
screw feeders. The fuel used is coal
washery waste with a heating value of
1,500 Kcal/kg. The inersed surface
has an inclination of 15° to the hori-
zontal. This boiler is now in the proc-
ess of shakedown testing for power gen-
eration. Figure 1 is the 130 T/h FBC
boiler designed for power generation.
of particles inside the bed, especially
those near the distributor plate, have
revealed that to maintain identical
fluidizing conditions, the following
relationship represents the hot and cold
air superficial velocities:
(1)
where U. , U are the superficial air
velocities during combustion and cold
condition; p. , p are the gas densities
during combustion and cold condition.
The data obtained by cold-bed testing
and the calculation are being used in
the design of Chinese fluidized-bed
boiler*.
Table 1 lists the heat release race
per unit bed volume, as a function of
superficial air velocity, and maximum
size of fuel particle:
Bed volu
TABLE 1
OPERATING PARAMETERS
heat release rate (Kcal/n3h) (2-3.3)
x 10«
Figure 1 -- 130 T/h Fluidized-Bed Boiler
RESULTS OF SOME RESEARCH
1. Determination of the Optimum Super-
ficial Bed Air Velocity and Bed Parti-
cle Size —' In order to achieve a high
bed volume beat release rate, the
Chinese are trying to burn coarse par-
ticles in fluidized-bed combustors.
For a given size fuel, there is a miai-
nuB bed superficial air velocity
required to insure vigorous heat and
•ass transfer between the bed materials.
To avoid high-temperature clogging or
particle-size segregation which may lead
to the formation of "cold slag," Tsinghua
University has carried out the cold-bed
testing with controlled-size bed parti-
cles. Research findings on the movement
Superficial bed air velocity (a/sec) 2.8-4.2
Fuel particle size (•»)
lignite 30
other fuels
Q > 4,000 Kcal/kg < 35
Q = (2,000-4,000) Kcal/kg 8
Q < 2,000 Kcal/kg < 6
Q = lower heating value of the fuel.
2. The Arrangement of In-Bed Surfaces and
Prevention of Erosion — For small boilers,
the immersed in-bed surfaces are the side
walls; therefore, the erosion rate is
insignificant. For ordinary carbon steel,
the wall erosion rate is only about
8 x 10"5 BB/h. As the boiler capacity
increases, side water walls are insuf-
ficient for heat absorption and in-bed
heat transfer surface must be employed.
The erosion rate of the in-bed surfaces
is very fast, nearly 1.3 x 10 3 mm/h.
By adopting some protective mechanism,
in PRC, the life of these steel pipes
may be extended by nearly 20 fold.
In China, all the fluidized-bed boilers
are using natural circulation. For FBC
boilers of the capacity range of 10-130 T/h,
the most common in-bed surfaces are
arranged at 15° to the horizontal.
Although within the bed there is a much
better heat transfer due to intensive
disturbance of the bed particles, unsat-
-------
isfactory arrangement of the immersed
in-bed surfaces can cause large tempera-
ture dirferences within the fluidized
bed. Figure 2 shows the relation
between the in-bed temperature differ-
ence along the tube length when the tube
is placed at 15° to the horizontal.
0 / 2 4 4 5
Figure 2 — Relation Between Transverse
Temperature Difference and Length
of the Bed
1000
2000
3000 40QO 5000
Figure 3 — Relation Between In-Bed Surface
Area and Fuel Heating Value
For large size, low-heating value, and
high ash content fuel particles, the
ash crust hampers the diffusion of gases;
therefore, it is hard to burn out the
inside carbon. For example, no matter
how long it stays in the fluidized bed,
the thickness of burned out scale for
hard stone coals is only about 1.5 mm.
For ash-rich and heavy fuel, it is easy
to fora "cold slag" at the bottom of
the fluidized bed. This will disturb
the normal operation of the boiler, and
it is necessary to discharge this slag
for smooth operation. The air distribu-
tor should be designed to induce movement
of the bed materials and improve the
availability of the FBC boiler operation.
3. Combustion of Low-Heating Value Fuels —
Fuels with different heating values
affect the in-bed heating surface area.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between
the heating surface area and the fuel
heating value of some boilers. When
fuel heating value is larger than
3,000 Kcal/kg, the curve gradually
flattens out, as the fuel heating value
drops to less than 1,500 Kcal/kg, the
curve drops abruptly. For most boilers,
the adaptability for fuel heating vari-
ation is a very important problem for
FBC burning of low-grade fuels. The
work on improving the adaptability of
low-grade fuels in some Chinese fluidized-
bed boilers is under intensive study.
4. Improvement of the Combustion Efficiency —
In China, fuels of wide-size distribu-
tion are used in fluidized-bed boilers.
Sometimes, the amount of particles of
sizes less than 1 mm exceeds 40 percent.
The carry over of the fines by the flue
gas, many fuel particles elutriate out
without adequate combustion, results in
a great amount of unburned carbon loss
in the fly ash. In 1971, Tsinghua Uni-
versity did research work on fly ash
carbon burn-up in a low superficial
velocity fluidized bed (carbon burn-up
cell). For low volatile content fuels,
the total combustion efficiency attained
90 percent. Presently, the fly ash
burn-up fluidiaed bed used in China
operates at a superficial air velocity
of 0.6-1.4 m/sec. According to publi-
cations, high bed temperature and more
excess air will be beneficial to the
improvement of combustion efficiency.
Owing to the low heat load of fly ash
38
-------
5.
burning in a fluidized bed, the super-
ficial velocity can be relatively low.
It has also been shown that bottom fly
ash reinjection can improve combustion
efficiency. Therefore, it is quite safe
when the bed temperature is only 50-100°C
higher than that of normal bed. Accord-
ing to the research findings, no sig-
nificant improvement of combustion
efficiency is observed for fly ash rein-
jection into a high superficial velocity
FBC bed.
When feeding high-volatile content fuels,
the evolution of volatile natter is
excessive near the feeding points.
There is a great amount of unburned
volatile loss due to the starvation of
oxygen near the feed port. By proper
arrangement, a combustion efficiency of
94-98 percent can be attained with fuels
of high volatile content.
Desulfunzation with Limestone — In
1973, Tsinghua University began the
research on the absorption of S02 by
limestone in a fluidized bed. The
efficiency of S02 absorption is deter-
mined by the concentration of CaO in
the outer shell. By experiment, this
relation may be expressed as:
= 1 - e-l-97WcH/V
(2)
where r\ is the absorption efficiency of
S02 in flue gas, percent; W is the con-
centration of CaO in the Bed, percent;
H is the bed height, meters; and V is
superficial air velocity in the bed,
meters per second.
Figure 4 shows the testing result. This
empirical equation shows that the kind
and size of limestone has exhibited no
influence on sulfur dioxide absorption.
The fraction, 5, of CaO absorption in
the outer shell of limestone particles
(calcium utilization) with different
sizes of limestones from the Tanli dis-
trict of Beijing has been determined.
Figure 5 shows the result. Limestone
particles with different sizes have
nearly the same depth of sulfate pene-
tration. It is about 32.5 |Jn for Tanli
limestone. The fraction of calcium-
utilization, 4, is not influenced by
the type of coal or superficial velo-
city. It also shows that when the par-
ticle diameter is larger than 3 mm, the
calcium utilization is very poor. The
sulfur contents of coals used in the
experiment are quite different, Hebi
coal has 3 percent sulfur; and Shangsi
coal is 8 percent sulfur.
-Jin ('-
Figure 4 -- Relation Between S02 Absorption
Efficiency and the Concentration
of Reactive Surface Layer of
the Limestone Granule in the Bed
6. Utilization of Ash and Spent Bed Material
China focused much attention to the
utilization of the ash and slag from
fluidized-bed boilers. Low combustion
temperature and low carbon content of
the ash and slag enable good utiliza-
tions. The methods of utilization are
different for each district. It is
being used as an additive for cement to
improve cement's color and strength.
It has been used to make bricks, tiles,
and medium-sized blocks for building
constructions. The extraction of vana-
dium from south China stone coal ash
has already been achieved. Use of
fluidized bed for calcination of light
construction materials has also been
successful.
CONCLUSION
The rapid progress of fluidized-bed boilers
in China has made possible the use of a wide
variety of energy resources. China has also
acquired many hours of operation experience
in fluidized-bed boilers. The study of large
fluidized-bed boilers has already begun. It
will play an important role in the moderni-
zation of China's FBC development.
The author acknowledges with gratitude to
those organizations in China for the permis-
sion of using their experimental reports and
data.
-------
f
so
*o
30
20
to
Coal
HeU
Het.
/.83
2.67
Dqptti of reactive
layer 325 u
Figure 5 — Fraction of CaO Absorption Outer
Shell of Limestone Particles
(Calcium Utilization) Versus
Granule Size
-------
TVA'S AFBC PROJECTS
Michael D. High, Acting Director
Energy Demonstrations and Technology
Tennessee Valley Authority
demonstrated that AFBC could generate electricity.
Each year, the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) bums an average of 36 million tons of
coal In 12 central station steam plants. This
coal-fired generation produces 17,796 KW or
nearly 60 percent of our total aystern capacity
of 29,867 MW. Nuclear and hydro plants provide
a total of 30 percent of tha system's capacity
with the rest consisting of combustion turbines
and imported power. From thesa figures it is
easy to understand TVA's strong interest In
coal.
This interest will not diminish in the
future. Although TVA has embarked upon the
nation's largest nuclear power plant construc-
tion program, we will continue to burn massive
quantities of coal for many years to come. In
the mid 1990's, when the final nuclear reactor
is placed in service, our total system capacity
will be approximately 44,400 MM. Of this figure
nuclear will provide 45.6 percent, or nearly
half of the system capacity. Coal will come in
second with 37.2 percent, and the rest of our
capacity will be provided by hydro and combus-
tion turbine generation.
Even though coal will not be our main
generation source in the future, we will conti-
nue to use a substantial amount of coal. There-
fore, TVA is heavily committed to developing
new coal technologies that will enable us to
augment or replace existing coal-fired steam
plants. One coal technology that offers
reliable, efficient, and environmentally
acceptable operation is Atmospheric Fluidized
Bed Combustion (AFBC).
Like other developing coal technologies,
AFBC is nor new. The concept of a fluidized
bed has been employed extensively in the
petrochemical industry for many years. Other
industries with steam requirements in the range
of 150,000 pounds per hour are also beginning to
use fluidized bed concepts.
However, the concept of using AFBC for
large-scale utility use is relatively new. The
major thrust of AFEC development foe utility use
to date has been in bench-scale studies, re-
search, and hot/cold AFBC modeling. This
research has resulted in a degree of progress.
The 30-MH Rivesville AFBC unit, for example,
Since Rivesville was a converted steam plant,
however, it did not have the capability of experi-
menting and testing new AFBC designs as they
became available. Nor did the Rivesville AFBC
unit provide much in the way of data collection
on its operation. The EPRI-supported Babcock
& Wllcox 6' x 6' AFBC unit was a significant
advancement on both counts since it permitted the
inclusion of design changes and provided much
needed operating and performance data. Even with
the success of this unit, it became apparent that
a larger plant having the capability of retrofitting
design changes was needed to test new hardware and
to resolve uncertainties concerning plant operation.
After all, it would be a very difficult task to
scale up from a small prototype with a 36 sq. ft.
bed to a full-scale utility power plant having
literally thousands of square feet of fluid-bed
area.
TVA's 20-MW AFEC pilot plant will address
uncertainties concerning peripheral hardware
systems and plant operation. By late 1981, TVA
will have a 20-MW AFBC pilot plant and is consid-
ering constructing a 200-MW AFBC demonstration
plant that would commence operation in late 1985.
These two plants would be the culmination of
research and development that dates back to 1974
when TVA first became interested in AFBC develop-
ment. At that time, load forecasts Indicated a
need for additional generation in the late 1980's
and 90's. Also, it became apparent that some of
TVA's aging coal-fired units, some of which have
been In service since the early 1950's would need
to be replaced. Furthermore, AFBC appeared to be
a cost effective way to both use the high sulfur
coal (of which the Tennessee Valley region has
tremendous reserves) and to protect the environment.
In 1976, TVA's involvement In AFBC went into
full swing with a project authorization to prepare
a conceptual design of a 200-MW AFBC demonstration
plant. Preliminary conceptual design was
completed in mid-1978 and information from this
design work aided in the development of design
specifications for the 20-MW pilot plant.
Followon contracts have been placed with three
boiler manufacturers to prepare a final conceptual
design for the 200-MW demonstration plant. Design
completion is slated for late this year. In
addition, TVA has a contract with Combustion
Engineering, who is subcontracting with Lurgi, to
41
-------
prepare a conceptual design of a second generation
AFBC plant.
Initial funding for the 20-MW AFBC pilot plant
design and fabrication was authorized in April 1979
by the TVA Board of Directors. In September of
that same year, the Board of Directors authorized
construction and operation of the pilot plant.
Because of TVA's large generating capacity and
its engineering capability, TVA is in a unique
position to demonstrate and develop AFBC for large
scale commercial use on the TVA system and possibly
by the utility industry.
TVA's 20-MW AFBC Pilot Plant
At the risk of repeating what my colleague
Hoy Lumpkin will say in his presentation, I will
now turn our attention directly to the TVA pilot
plant project.
TVA's 20-MW AFBC pilot plant will be located
on the Shawnee Steam Plant reservation near
Paducah, Kentucky. Site preparation for the
pilot plant has Just begun this month with
initial construction to begin this summer and
fall. Plant start-up and testing should begin
by the latter part of 1981 or early 1982.
As I mentioned earlier, the AFBC pilot plant
will be used to resolve many of the uncertainties
concerning full-scale AFBC development. Specifically,
the plant will be used to test and evaluate control
equipment and procedures, to investigate key
systems for performance and reliability, and to
train personnel la operating and maintenance
procedures. Testing at the pilot plant will
Involve a cooperative effort between TVA and
Electric Power Research Institute. Since AFBC
is a completely different type of coal combustion
process, It will obviously require different
modes of operation than a conventional steam plant.
Like any generating facility, a commercial-sized
AFBC must be able to respond to changes in
electricity demand. Start-up, turn-down, load
control, shutdown procedures, and the safety
related systems will be tested and developed.
One area of uncertainty in AFBC development
that will hopefully be alleviated by work at the
pilot plant will be the testing of coal/limestone
feed systems. Supplying these materials to a small
unit is no significant problem, but In full-scale
units with thousands of square feet of bed area,
the distribution is something of a mechanical
nightmare. To date, no feed system has been proven
to be reliable and durable enough to withstand the
torture of prolonged plant operation. Because of
the large uncertainty Involved, the development of
adequate feed systems is a must for any
commercial-sized AFBC unit.
The pilot plant itself will be highly
flexible and able to operate under a wide variety
of operating conditions; consequently, it la
necessary to monitor these conditions. A
sophisticated data acquisition and computer system
will be installed to completely monitor all aspects
of the pilot plant operation.
The 20-MW AFBC pilot plant will not generate
electricity. It is not a commercial plant, and
thus, no turbogenerator is currently planned.
Instead the steam produced by the pilot plant will
be routed through a surface condenser. This will
allow us to simulate actual utility load demand.
It will provide us with operating experience and
will enable us to scale up to commercial scale
units.
TVA's 200-MW AFBC Demonstration Plant
As I stated, TVA is also considering
constructing a 200-MW AFBC demonstration plant.
If approved by the TVA Board of Directors, the
present plans call for the 200-MW AFBC demonstration
plant to go into operation during late 1985.
Unlike the 20-MW AFBC pilot plant, the demonstration
plant would be operated as a commercial plant; that
is, It's Job would be to produce electricity for
the TVA power system.
When steam from the 200-MW AFBC boiler goes
to the turbogenerator, it would be the culmination
of nearly 10 years of work. We are now at the
half-way point In that decade of AFBC development.
In 1976, TVA authorized the preparation of concep-
tual designs of a 200-MW AFBC demonstration plant.
Combustion Engineering. Babcock & Wllcox, and
Fluldized Combustion Company were contracted to
provide both a preliminary conceptual design and
cost estJjuate. Phase I conceptual design took
two years to complete.
Babcock 6 Wilcox chose a top-supported
stacked-bed arrangement of four main beds and
a separate carbon burnup bed. B&W's feed systems
mixes coal and limestone, pneumatically transports
and splits the mixture, and injects the mixture
Into the beds through the grid plate.
Combustion Engineering chose a "ranch-style"
design la which all beds are on a single elevation
supported from the bottom. A top-supported hood
above the beds collects and directs the hot gases
to the convection pass. The feed system is based
on the Fuller-Klnyon solids pump which introduces
a coal-limestone mixture into a dense-phase
pneumatic transport system and then splits and
feeds the mixture into the bed through the grid.
Fluidized Combustion Company's steam generator
Is a top-supported stacked-bed arrangement of four
beds. Coal is fed from above the beds with
spreader-stokers whereas limestone is fed by a
gravity feed.
Despite the differences in the three Phase I
conceptual designs, the cost per kilowatt for
each design was comparatively similar.
Phase I preliminary design for the 200-MW
AFBC demonstration plant was completed in mid-1978.
In early 1979, TVA authorized three contractors to
complete final conceptual designs (Phase II) by
the final months of 1980. These designs will be
finished at the end of 1980.
42
-------
These designs are well underway at this
time. Combustion Engineering, Babcock 4 Wllcox,
and Babcock Contractors, Inc., were the three
contractors chosen for the design contracts.
The objectives of the Phase II conceptual
design are to refine previous designs and to
provide additional information needed for ongoing
environmental evaluations and to make decisions
on how to proceed to demonstration plant construc-
tion and operation. Each contractor will: prepare
cost estimates; determine the probability of
successful operation of the 200-MW plant and
its inherent risks; define major problems and
areas requiring additional research and development;
prepare detailed schedules for all proposed Phase III
activities; establish a conceptual design of the
200-MW AFBC boiler and related systems; and finally,
determine the structural steel requirements for boiler
and related equipment to permit structural steel
procurement.
Design of the 200-MW AFBC boiler and
related systems Is geared to the following
specifications:
Gross Turbogenerator Rating, MW
Continuous Rating, pounds of steam
per hour
Turbine Throttle Pressure Q
Superheat/Reheat Temperature, V
200
1,325,000
2,450
1,000
Also, each contractor is to keep In mind the
relationship between their particular design of
the 200-MW demonstration unit and the design of
a steam generator in the 600- co 800-MW size range.
This will hopefully ensure the feasibility of
the design of the larger units.
Following the completion of Phase II
conceptual designs, TVA will make a decision on
whether or not to proceed with Phase III. If
approved by the TVA Board of Directors, detailed
design and site preparation will begin In the
summer of 1981.
Environmental and Technical Support Work by TVA
Because of the size of the AFBC demonstration
plant, it is necessary for additional work to be
performed. Preparation of environmental Impact
statement (EIS) and completion of the necessary
technical support work are required. Secondly,
it is necessary that technical support work be
finished In several different areas. First let's
address the preparation of the EIS.
It Is a new experience for TVA to have to
prepare an EIS on a coal-fired plant. The last
large coal-fired steam plant that TVA built,
which was Cumberland Steam Plant, was completed
in 1973, and no EIS was required. Another
significant point is that this will probably be
the first EIS written for a fluidized bed unit.
Even for those of us at TVA who have had the
fortune of preparing an EIS in the past, there are
other changes and requirements that make this EIS
unique. For one thing, the final version of the
EIS is to be concise. EIS's In the past were
often multi-volumed publications that were as
complicated as the projects that they attempted
to explain.
Work on the demonstration plant EIS is well
underway at this time. We have completed a
description of the process itself, an extensive
description of the site, and the background
Information needed for screening possible sites.
While no firm decision has been made on site
selection, the Shawnee Steam Plant reservation
has been named the "preferred site." The Shawnee
site will be the scope of the most detailed portion
of the EIS, but the final selection of a site
will not be made until the environmental work has
been completed and the environmental constraints
of the Shawnee and other candidate sites are made
known.
We have performed the first formal step In
the EIS process by holding a scoping meeting to
determine what will be covered in the EIS. A
public meeting was held in Paducah, Kentucky, to
outline our EIS plans to other agencies,
individuals, citizens, and groups who were in
attendance at that meeting. Questions, suggestions,
and comments submitted at this meeting and In
writing have been tabulated, summarized, and
will be appropriately addressed in the EIS.
The draft of the demonstration plant EIS will
be completed in September of this year. That draft
will be submitted for review and comment to
interested individuals, groups, and agencies. After
TVA evaluates the comments it receives, the EIS
will be finalized. Incidentally, more than 18
subgroups within TVA are involved In the writing
of the demonstration plant EIS. After the final
EIS is released to the public, the TVA Board of
Directors will be asked to approve construction
of the 200-MW plant.
It Is obvious that a large plant, such as
the 200-MW demonstration plant, will have some
Impacts upon the environment during construction
and operation. However, because of the inherent
environmental benefits of AFBC, we believe it
can easily meet the New. Source Performance
Standards as set by the Environmental Protection
Agency. We feel that the environmental benefits
of this technology will outweigh any associated
Impacts.
Technical Support
One point that I have made several times in
this discussion Is the need for additional technical
research and development on AFBC. While our
projects continue to reach maturity, we are at the
same time addressing some of the technical problems
related to AFBC. As I have mentioned previously,
one of the problems with AFBC Is In the develop-
ment of coal/limestone feed systems. We hope to
get some answers to these problems In a program
that we have recently Initiated that Involves
the testing of a Fuller-Kinyon feed pump at an
existing TVA steam plant. TVA has awarded the
Fuller Company a turnkey contract to build a
coal-feed test facility at the Watts Bar Steam
Plant. Construction will be completed In six
months with a six-month testing period co follow.
The Watts Bar coal-feed test will be the
only large scale demonstration of a feed system
that Is applicable to the 200-MW AFBC demonstration
plant. Also, since the 20-MW pilot plant will use
a Fuller-Kinyon pump, the test facility will
provide the added advantage of proving the
-------
effectiveness of Che pump and splitter prior to
construction. Clarence K. Andrews, of TVA's
FBC staff, will provide more details on coal-feed
systems in his presentation.
Other technical support includes work with
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In a program
with the Department of Energy, TVA and ORNL are
working together on a number of task programs
that use an AFBC bench-scale combustor to test
coal and limestone, a cold flow model for
slumping tests, modeling and simulation, materials
research, and other miscellaneous technical support
activities.
TVA is now investigating the recycling of
elutriated'particulates from the AFBC process
that includes fly ash and unburned carbon. The
idea is to devise some way to recycle the elutriated
solids back into the main bed rather than using a
separate carbon burnup cell. General Atomic
was chosen for the investigation because of its
experience in recycling and burning graphite.
While the major thrust of AFBC development
by TVA is of the "bubbling bed" type of atmospheric
fluidized bed combustion, TVA is also keeping track
of other fluidized bed concepts. These include
alternates to first generation (bubbling bed) AFBC
such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion,
intermediate pressurized fluidized bed combustion,
and second generation AFBC (circulating bed).
Scenario for the Future
Following a complete demonstration of AFBC
in a large-scale mode, full-scale units in the
range of 600- to 1,000-MW range may be-built by
TVA in the mid- to late 1990's. AFBC will not
replace existing conventional coal burning in
steam plants but it will offer an excellent
alternative for new plants as load forecasts
indicated. This near-term alternative may offer
an interim method of producing bulk power from
coal to carry us to the day when advanced
technologies come into widespread commercial
availability.
-------
The contents of this paper do not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority, nor does mention of
trade names, commercial products, or companies constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION - AN EVOLUTIONARY
IMPROVEMENT IN ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
Kurt E. Yeager
INTRODUCTION
Electric Power Research Inst.
than larger furnaces.
Over the past year major technical ad-
vances in the commercial application of
fluidized bed combustion (FBC) have occur-
red. These advances are particularly dra-
matic for the electric utility industry
where FBC represents an evolutionary im-
provement in coal utilization providing re-
duced fuel sensitivity and simplified e-
mission control capabilities. Both Atmos-
pheric FBC and Pressurized FBC may .fill
important roles in the electric utility in-
dustry: AFBC to lower the cost of elec-
trity generated from the conventional
steam-electric power plant; PFBC for the
high efficiencies available from the more
complex combined-cycle power plants.
Sixty years ago the use of pulverized
coal combustion was pioneered in the elec-
tric utility industry. This evolution in
coal-burning technology was set in motion
by a number of considerations which par-
allel the issues of today. The then .gen-
erally applied stoker furnace was not well
suited to these new conditions. Specifi-
cally, utilities needed much larger fur-
naces, fuel conservation became more signi-
ficant and the use of coal fines, pre-
viously considered a waste, was econom-
ically desired. In addition, pulverized
coal firing was considered environmentally
superior because it could reduce smoke and
ground level concentrations of particulate
matter.
As we move into a new era with greatly
expanded needs for coal-fired power gene-
ration, EPRI and the utility industry are
accelerating the development and appli-
cation of fluidized bed combustion as a
further evolutionary improvement in coal
utilization to meet the new requirements
of today. The improvements which excite
this utility interest include reduced sen-
sitivity to fuel quality thus permitting
the use of a much broader fuel supply,
from anthracite -to municipal refuse, with-
out suffering large loses in efficiency and
reliability in a single boiler design.
Second, less cost sensitivity to unit size
in a period when load growth and siting
restrictions may prefer smaller rather
A third primary advantage of FBC that
may lead to the displacement of pulverized
coal boilers is environmental performance.
The invention of pulverized coal boilers
occurred at a time when all that was ex-
pected of a furnace was to burn out carbon.
Today, environmental requirements for the
control of sulfur and nitrogen oxides add
substantially to the complexity and cost
of current power plants and have adversely
impacted plant reliability. By comparison,
our experiments with fluidized combustion
of coal confirm that it is possible to
economically control sulfur and nitrogen
oxides without parasitic post-combustion
cleanup devices.
Thus, fluidized combustion of coal
provides a promising response for today's
new requirements on power production.
Development has successfully progressed
from the process confirmation stage to
engineering prototype making commercial
utility scale systems a distinct possi-
bility within this decade.
It is our position that utility FBC
boilers in the U.S. will have to be cap-
able of the following performance with an
average bituminous coal:
o Combustion Efficiency
o Thermal Efficiency
o Sulfur Dioxide
o Nitrogen Oxides
o Steam Conditions
o Load Following
o Tube Life
Over 99%
>90%
90% removal
with Ca/S <1.5
Less than 0.4
lbs/!06Btu
2400 psi/1000°F
/1000°F or
higher
>1% per minute
Low corrosion
and erosion to
allow > 15 year
life
The purpose of EPRl's RSD is to develop
the process flow sheet and the needed
hardware to achieve these objectives.
ATMOSPHERIC FLUID BED COMBUSTION
Over the past year EPRI efforts in
-------
Kurt E. Yeager
Page 2
atmospheric fluid bed comhstuion (AFBC)
have focused on testing a 6 ft x 6 ft
(2 MWe) pilot unit with Babcock and Wilcox
incorporating bed recycle. The results
have shown that recycle of bed material
will be applicable for utility APBC de-
signs. This has successfully eliminated
a major factor restricting utility appli-
cations; i.e., the need for large quan-
tities of limestone to maintain adequate
sulfur oxide sorption. In addition,
this test facility incorporates a large,
18 ft. freeboard which has permitted car-
bon burnup within the furnace thus elim-
inating the need for an auxiliary carbon
burnup cell. NOX formation has also been
significantly reduced relative to pulver-
ized coal combustion. A final area of
process improvement achieved this year has
been at least a fourfold reduction in coal
feed points within the bed, thus simpli-
fying the fuel supply and control problem
in large scale fluidized beds.
Based on these promising process re-
sults, the utility industry and its boiler
suppliers have agreed that a cost effective
utility-scale AFBC design is likely, but
important hardware issues remain that
should be resolved in an engineering pro-
totype in the 20 MWe size range. These
- hardware issues involving feeding and con-
trolling the process reliably result from
the specific utility requirements for large
boiler size, high efficiency, rapid load
following, high superheat and reheat,
stringent emission standards and a pre-
mium on availability. Recognizing these
requirements, TVA has taken the lead for
the utility industry, with EPRI support, in
implementing a 20 MWe engineering prototype
at the Shawnee power station. This proto-
type being built by Babcock and Wilcox
will in turn provide the technical basis
for a 20 MWe commercial scale demonstra-
tion also planned by TVA. EPRI's R&D pro-
gram is aimed at making it possible (and
desirable) to start construction of a 600
MWe AFBC boiler in 1990 after operating
this 200 MWe demonstration by 1987.
In addition to this aggressive devel-
opment of classical fluid bed technology
operating at low gas velocities in the 4
to 12 foot per second range, EPRI is also
exploring higher velocity, circulating bed
designs. These are under development in
differing forms by several manufacturers
including Lurgi and General Electric.
Lurgi test results have been particularly
impressive in producing high combustion
efficiencies as well as very high lime-
stone utilization for up to 95% S02 remov-
al. Furthermore, this system has shown it-
self capable of reducing NOX emissions to
the 100 ppm range. This encouraging tech-
nology is now in active engineering evalu-
ation for the United States under license
with Combustion Engineering.
PRESSURIZED FLUID BED COMBUSTION
In pressurized fluid bed combustion,
attention during the past year focused on
resolving the key hurdle which the tech-
nology must pass for commercial utility
consideration, i.e., achieving practical
gas turbine reliability. During this
year, 1000 hour reliability testing of
turbine components and hot gas cyclones
has been successfully completed under
joint DOE/EPRI sponsorship at the PFBC
pilot facility of the British Coal Utili-
zation Research Laboratory (CURL). A
second successful EPRI project activity
has been the screening of promising ad-
vanced hot gas cleanup devices on a large
PFBC simulator operated by Westinghouse.
This project has demonstrated extended
operation of ceramic bag filter units at
1500°F and 11 atm while maintaining a
particulate collection efficiency of 99.5%.
This may provide the means to achieve a
much larger reliability margin for PFBC
gas turbine systems. This has encouraged
PFBC/combined cycle prototypes of suffi-
cient size to incorporate actual rotating
gas turbine machinery. A proposed near
term commercial approach is the develop-
ment of a coal-fired gas turbine for re-
powering existing power plants. This
could be the simplest and most rapid PFBC
utility application.
The next critical development step*
from the user standpoint, is the demon-
stration of extended operation of complete
PFBC gas turbine/hot gas cleanup combi-
nations at a sufficiently large scale to
permit engineering extrapolation to util-
ity service. Both the International Ener-
gy" Agency (IEA) Grimethorpe PFBC test
facility and the Curtiss-Wright PFBC pilot
sponsored by DOE may provide the necessary
vehicle for achieving this development
milestone. EPRI has also recently initi-
ated a joint project with Brown-Boveri and
Babcock and Wilcox to perform engineering
evaluations- and design of alternative PFBC
combined cycle power plants. This effort,
together with the successful achievement
of gas turbine/hot gas cleanup reliability
is intended to provide the basis for ac-
tive utility industry participation in
large scale PFBC demonstration .and commer-
cialization programs. American Electric
Power (AEP) has provided much of the ini-
tiative in bringing this technology for-
ward for serious utility consideration.
ADVANCED COAL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS
In order to judge the commercial po-
tential of both K.r~- --d PFBC f-r utility
use, they must be considered not only in
terms of conventional power plant design
but other advanced options as well. The
-------
Kurt E. Yeager
Page 3
following comparison is therefore offered
as an example showing their relative mer-
its and the status of the "horse race" in
which they are involved.
The conditions assumed are as fol-
lows:
- Plant location - Kenosha, Wisconsin
- Capacity factor - 70% (1000 MW capa-
city)
— • Coal-Illinois bituminous: 4% S, 16%
ash, 10,000 Btu/lb
- Environmental control requirements
o SOX - 90% removal
o Particulate - 0.03 Ib/MBtu
o NOx - 0.6 Ib/MBtu
o Water quality - Zero discharge
o Solid waste - RCRA "special waste"
requirements
- Plant Availability - 75% or greater
The 1979 EPRI Technical Assessment
Guide (TAG) was used as a basis for this
comparison; it was updated where appro-
priate by more recent, published EPRI R6D
results.
All options can meet the environ-
mental control requirements specified,
with the gasification combined cycle (GCC)
having the highest inherent capability for
SOx control without process modifications.
Both the GCC and PFBC should inherently
control to 0.2 Ib/MBtu of NOX while the
advanced PC and AFBC should control to 0.3
Ib/MBtu or better. Although the GCC has
excellent air pollution control potential,
the possibility that toxic and/or carcin-
ogenic hydrocarbons will be produced under
the reducing conditions present in the pro-
cess may make workplace control as well as
control of wastewater and solid wastes in-
herently more expensive and, at this time,
more risky than for the other options.
The following results for the four
advanced coal options are assembled in de-
creasing order from best to lowest for
each criterion. The baseline for com-
parison is present-day, conventional super-
critical PC/FGD.
A. Capital Cost 5/kW
1. PFBC $700
2. AFBC $710
3. GCC $765 **815
4. Baseline $804
5. Adv. PC/FGD $800
B. Busbar Costs (mills/kWh-30 yr lev-
elized)
1. PFBC 58
2. Adv. PC/FGD 59
3. GCC 60
4. AFBC 61
5. Baseline 64
c- Net Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) and Net Effic-
iency (%T '
(Adv. Pc/FGD 8460 40
1- (GCC 8465 **8980 40 **38
(PFBC 8467 40
5. Baseline 9450 36
4. AFBC 9650 35
D. Water Consumption (gal/hr/MW)
1. (PFBC
3. (GCC
2. (Adv. PC/FGD
4. AFBC
5. Baseline
490
490 ** 523
507
620
675
E. Limestone (tons/hr/1000 MW)
1.
(GCC o
(Adv. PC/FGD 10 Regenerable FGD
3. Baseline 76
4. AFBC 132
5. PFBC 145 Dolomite
F. Solid Waste (dry tons/hr/1000 MW)
1.
(GCC 70
(Adv. PC/FGD 70
3. Baseline 170
4. PFBC 185
5. AFBC 193
G. Land Requirement(acres/1000 MW/30 yrs)
1. GCC 750
2. Adv. PC/FGD 1050
3. PFBC 1150
4. AFBC 1450
5. Baseline 1650
H. Auxiliary Environmental Control Cost
(% of plant capital cost)*
1. GCC 14
2. AFBC 21
3. PFBC 24
4. Adv. PC/FGD 33
5. Baseline 35
NOTE: * Does not include heat rejection
control
** Lower temperature (2000OF) gas
turbine capability
A number of considerations evolve
from this comparative analysis. A sum-
mary of several of the more striking are
summarized as follows.
The several technologies considered
all have potential merit for improving
coal-fired power production relative to
present conventional pulverized coal
plants. The present economic and techni-
cal base is inadequate to either eliminate
any of these advanced options or identify
one as clearly superior. They all should
48
-------
Kurt E. feager
Page 4
be developed to the point of proving or
disproving their potential benefits. It
is again emphasized that the information
summarized here represents a performance
forecast based on the current technical
status of each option for a specified set
of conditions. Developments can be postu-
lated for each option which could further
improve its performance and relative merit.
Improvements in the environmental,
cost and efficiency performance of the ad-
vanced coal options relative to current
pulverized coal practice are likely but
are generally in the range of 10%, with
the exception of NOx emission control
where a 50-70% improvement is possible for
every option. The improvements are 'gener-
ally within the range of development un-
certainty and could also erode completely
during the further course of development.
Therefore, a decision to apply any of
these options commercially is more likely
to be made on the basis of confidence in
availability and operability, siting flex-
ibility and fuel flexibility. These are
all factors which should favor fluidized
bed combustion.
From a practical standpoint, the po-
tential improvement in plant availability
is at least 2 to 3 times larger than im-
provement in efficiency, and the R&D risks
are probably smaller and less costly.
Accordingly, power plant cycle development
and improvement should place corresponding
priority on availability.This importance
Is reflected in an implicit improvement
factor incorporated in advanced coal op-
tions relative to current practice, i.e.,
minimization of auxiliary environmental
control. The payoff is primarily reduced
complexity and failure modes which, in
turn, tend to improve availabilty and op-
erability.
CONCLUSION
alternatives are also undergoing vigorous
development in the "horse-race" for the
coal-fired power plant market of the
1990'a and beyond. Thank you and Good
Luck.
In conclusion, fluid bed combustion
offers promise of providing a substantial
but evolutionary improvement in the utili-
zation of coal for electric power pro-
duction. Flexibility to burn alternative
fuels with minimum performance and reli-
ability penalty has been established.
The stringent emission standards existing
and proposed in the United States should
be met without complicated and parasitic
post-combustion cleanup device;;. These
significant improvement opportunities have
fostered major utility industry develop-
ment efforts for both AFBC and PFBC. In
the final analysis, however, the utility
market potential of these technologies
will depend primarily on demonstration of
power plant reliability and availability
advantages over the alternatives. As we
move forward we must remember that these
-------
CONCLUSIONS OF THE EPA FLUIDIZED-BED
COMBUSTION PROGRAM
D. Bruce Henschel
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
The purpose of this paper 1s to summarize
the current conclusions of the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC (IERL-RTP), concerning the
ability of atmospheric and pressurized fluidized-
bed combustion systems to meet currently iden- •
tified environmental requirements. In summary,
based upon available data, 1t is anticipated
that both atmospheric and pressurized systems
should be capable of meeting the recently revised
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) covering
air emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO?), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and partlculates from electric -
utility steam-generating units. NSPS for indus-
trial boilers have not yet been proposed by EPA;
however, fluldized-bed boilers should be able to
meet the industrial boiler standards as well,
if these standards are not significantly more'
stringent, or are less stringent, than the stand-
ards covering utility steam generators. The EPA
standards should be achieved In fluidized-bed
combustion systems in a manner which is economi-
cally competitive with the alternative of a
.conventional boiler with flue gas desulfuriza-
tion; the greatest economic uncertainty concerns
the control of participates at elevated tempera-
tures and pressures In pressurized combustors.
Additional data from large fluidized-bed combus-
tors, representative of commercial-scale
systems, are necessary to confirm these
conclusions.
Solid residues from atmospheric and pres-
surized fluidized-bed combustors, In general,
should not be considered as "hazardous" wastes
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). based upon RCRA procedures as cur-
rently defined. However, the properties of
leachate from the residue will necessitate some
attention in the design of a "sanitary landfill0
under-RCRA, for disposal of the residues as non-
hazardous wastes.
Introduction
In parallel with the efforts by the U. S.
Department of Energy, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), and other organizations to develop
fluidized-bed combustion technology, EPA Is con-
ducting a contract research and development pro-
gram aimed at complete environmental characteri-
zation of the technology. The EPA program has
been described previously (References 1,2).
. Objectives of the EPA fluidized-bed combus-
tion program are to Identify any potential
environmental problem areas, and to develop any
necessary environmental control technology,
while the fluid1zed-bed combustion process Is
under development. Identifying any problem
areas as early as possible during the develop-
ment phase should allow any necessary environ-
mental controls to be integrated Into the process
on the most timely and cost-effective basis.
Results from the R&D program are Intended
primarily to ensure the availability of an ade-
quate research data base to enable the develop-
ment of standards and guidelines by EPA's regula-
tory offices, and to enable the Issuance of
permits for fluidized-bed boiler plants by EPA's
permitting offices. The results are also to
assist the developers and builders of fluidized-
bed boilers In the selection and application of
control alternatives.
The EPA program currently consists of seven
projects with a variety of contractors. Many of
the projects are discussed in detail In other
papers presented at this conference by the indi-
vidual contractors. For further reference, some
of the published reports generated by EPA con-
tractors since the Fifth International Confer-
ence are listed as References 3 through 20.
Emission Sources and Applicable Federal Legis-
lation
. There are four major general sources of
emissions from fluidized-bed boiler plants.
These sources are: (l) the storage, handling,
and feeding of coal and sorbent; (2) the steam
cycle (e.g., cooling tower drift, liquid efflu-
ents from boiler blowdown, and feedwater treat-
ment): (3) stack gas emissions; and (4) emissions
of solid residue, in the form of bed material
(spent sorbent, with some coal ash) withdrawn
from the combustor, and In the form of carry-over
(largely flyash. with some elutriated spent
sorbent) that 1s removed from the flue gas by
the particle control devices.
Emissions resulting from the solids storage
and handling system, and from the steam cycle,
are not unique to ftuldized-bed combustion, but
should be reasonably typical of any coal-fired
combustion system driving a steam turbine.
Accordingly, subsequent discussion will focus
on the stack gas and solid residue emission
sources.
so
-------
0. B. Henschel
The stack gas emissions will be covered by
applicable regulations developed by EPA under
the Clean Air Act, as amended. There are a
number of requirements under this Act which can
affect the ultimate siting and control levels
for a fluidized-bed boiler plant. The specific
type of regulation of most meaning for the dis-
cussion in this paper is the NSPS, which speci-
fies acceptable emission concentrations from
new or substantially modified sources, and which
is based on best available control technology.
Revisions to the NSPS for large utility steam
generators (larger than 73 MWt), promulgated 1n
1979, are: for SO?, an absolute maximum emission
of 1.2 Ib S0?/106 Btu heat input (520 ng/J), with
at least 90 percent SOg reduction required so
long as the emissions remain between 0.6 and
1.2 lb/105 Btu (260 and 520 ng/J). and at least
70 percent reduction requlred.so long as emis-
sions, do not exceed 0.6 lb/106 Btu (260 ng/J);
for NOX, 0.6 lb/106 Btu (260 ng/J) for most
coals, 0.5 lb/106 Btu (210 ng/JJ for subbitumi-
nous coals, and 0.8 lb/106 Btu (340. ng/J) for
some lignites In some,furnaces; and. for par-
ticulates, 0.03 lb/106 Btu (13 ng/J). These
standards are based upon a 30-day rolling aver-
age. Utility-scale fluidized-bed boiler plants
would have to be designed in order to achieve
these emission standards; however, the operators
of the initial plants may apply for a commercial
demonstration permit allowing 85 percent SO?
removal instead of 90 percent, under the philoso-
phy that, without previous experience in the
design and operation of utility-scale fluidized-
bed plants, the goal of 90 percent may not be
achieved in the initial installations. Under
the revised utility NSPS, the first 400 to
3,000 MWe of cumulative installed atmospheric
fluidized-bed boiler capacity, and the first
400 to 1,200 MWe of pressurized capacity, may
be issued such commercial demonstration permits.
NSPS for industrial boilers are currently under
development.
The solid residue generated by the process
can have the following environmental effects:
fugitive air emissions from disposal sites, in
the form of wind-blown dust, which would be
covered under the Clean Air Act; rainwater perco-
lation through the disposal piles into the soil
and groundwater, which would be covered under
RCRA; and rainwater runoff into surface water
systems, which would be covered under the Clean
Water Act and RCRA. Under RCRA, EPA has recently
promulgated criteria for determining whether a
residue is to be considered "hazardous" for the
purposes of the Act: EPA must promulgate standards
covering the generation and the treatment/stprage/
disposal of "hazardous" wastes. If a waste is
not hazardous, it would, in general, be disposed
of in a "sanitary landfill" in accordance with
solid waste management plans developed by the
individual states. EPA has promulgated some cri-
teria defining "sanitary landfills," and has pro-
posed (but not yet promulgated) additional
criteria.
Sulfur Dioxide Control
Sulfur dioxide removals of 90 percent and
higher can be achieved in both atmospheric and
gressurized fluidized-bed combustion, thus ena-
ling compliance with the revised EPA New Source
Performance Standard for utility steam generators.
These removals should be achievable with reasona-
ble sorbent feed rates, and in a manner which is
cally competitive with the alternative of
a conventional boiler with flue gas desulfuriza-
tion. However, in order to achieve high SOg
removals economically, fluidized-bed boilers may
have to be operated with increased contact time
between the SO? and the sorbent, and with reduced
sorbent particle size. Increased S0?/sorbent
contact time and reduced sorbent particle size
can significantly increase sorbent effectiveness
in S02 removal, and hence'significantly reduce.
sorbent feed requirements.
In traditional dense-phase fluidized-bed
systems. Increased S02/sorbent contact time is
achieved through increased gas residence time in
the bed. Increased gas residence time trans-
lates Into a decrease in gas velocity through the.
bed, and/or an increase in bed height. There has
been an Incentive for designers to attempt to
minimize gas residence time, In order to maxi-
mize DOIier throughput, and to reduce boiler
size and capital cost. However, EPA's studies
suggest that, at high levels of SOg removal.
the cost penalty (the Increased capitalization
cost) associated with a larger boiler is more
than offset by the reduction in operating costs
associated with the reduced sorbent feed require-
ments. The reduction in sorbent feed require-
ments achievable through increased gas residence
time/reduced sorbent particle size, becomes
more pronounced as the required level of SO?
removal increases.
This point is Illustrated by an en
study conducted by Uestinghouse for utility-
scale boilers (Reference 10), some results of
which are summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1
presents the cost of electricity as a function
of sorbent cost for an 800 MW atmospheric fluid-
ized-bed boiler plant operated to obtain 90 per-
cent SO? removal. Projected costs for a conven-
tional boiler with a scrubber are also plotted
for comparison. The sorbent feed rates shown
in Figure 1 (expressed as the calcium-to-sulfur
mole ratio, or Ca/Sj were projected by Uesting-
house using a fairly simple kinetic model based
upon laboratory thermograyimetric kinetic data
for the sorbent/SO? reaction.
The bottom curve for atmospheric fluidized-
bed combustion in Figure 1 was developed assuming
a gas residence time of 0.67 second (a gas
velocity of 6 ft/sec, or 1.8 m/sec, and a bed
depth of 4 feet, or 1.2 meters). The curve also
assumes a 500 um surface mean sorbent parti-
cle size in the bed (which corresponds to a mass
mean of perhaps 700 vm); the actual size of the
fresh sorbent feed, of course, could be coarser
than this 1n-bed value. These.values for resi-
dence time and particle size, although not nec-
essarily representing the economic optimum, are
felt to represent reasonably good selections
for these variables from the standpoint of cost-
effective SOg removal. The values for velocity,
bed depth, and in-bed particle size are, individu-
ally, within the ranges considered in various
design and experimental programs conducted by
other organizations. As indicated on the curve,
for a 0.67 second residence time and a 500 ym
particle size, the sorbent feed rate projected
by the Uestinghouse model is a calcium-to-sulfur
mole ratio of 2.9, assuming a sorbent of represen-
tative reactivity.
The top curve for fluidized-bed combustion In
the figure was developed assuming a gas resi-
dence time of 0.4 second (gas velocity of 10
ft/sec, or 3.0 m/sec, and a bed depth of 4 feet,
or 1.2 meters); sorbent particle size in the bed
was assumed to have a surface mean value of 1000
wm. At this lower gas residence time and larger
particle size, the model projects (somewhat
51
-------
D. B. Henschel
pessimistically) that the required calcium-to-
sulfur ratio is 7.0.
The comparison of the top and bottom curves
indicates that—despite the higher annualized
capitalization cost associated with the larger
fluidized-bed boiler represented by the bottom
curve—the reduced sorbent feed requirements for
this boiler result in a several mill/kWh net sav-
ings in the cost of electricity at a typical
sorbent cost of $10/ton ($9/metric ton). Even
if sorbent feed requirements for the smaller
*211erJr?pl£sentS° b> tne toP curve) were less •
than the Ca/S of 7.0 projected by the model, the
larger boiler would continue to be economically
more attractive than the smaller one unless the
model is over-estimating the sorbent requirements
of the smaller boiler by a factor greater than
two. As shown in Figure 1, the cost of elec-
trrCMy J1"?" th? 1ar9er fluidi zed-bed boiler, with
a Ca/S of 2.9, is projected to be less than that
from the conventional boiler/scrubber at all
but the highest sorbent costs.
* .1 i.S1n£e tne sorbent feed requirements projec-
ted by the Westinghouse model play a key role in
this cost comparison, it is important to assess
the reliability of this fairly simple model.
The model has been tested against the available
data rrom experimental fluidized-bed combustors,
and has been found to represent most of the
combustor data very well. Rigorous comparison
of model projections against data at specific
conditions from Individual fluidized-bed combus-
tion units is presented in References 10, 14 and
17. Unfortunately, most of the data from atmos-
pheric fluidized-bed combustion facilities are
f?r S0?.,removals be1ow 90 Percent, since the pre-
/1 X'lt'&J6? Source Performance Standard for SO?
(1-2 lb/10& Btu, or 516 ng/J)«which served as tfie
guideline for most previous testing—represents
a percentage removal of only 83 percent with a 4
percent sulfur coal. Accordingly,-the model can-
not be extensively confirmed at removals of 90
percent and above. However, EPA is currently
conducting a carefully designed matrix of tests
on the 40- by 64-inch (1- by 1.6-meter) atmos-
pheric combustor at Fluidyne aimed at generating
data which can be used to help confirm the
model at removals of 90 percent and above. Con-
firmation of the model is ultimately required
on operating fluidized-bed boilers sufficiently
large to provide data representative of commer-
cial-scale units.
Rather than attempting to repeat the rigor-
ous model-versus-data comparisons In this paper,
a more generalized approach will be employed
which, although less rigorous, provides overall
perspective regarding how model projections
compare against the mass of S02 removal data
which have been generated to date. Figure 2
presents percentage.S02 removal at atmospheric
pressure as a function of sorbent feed rate, as
projected by the Westinghouse model at the condl-
^1oI!Lof ga? res1denc? t1me (°-67 second) and
in-bed particle size (500 Um1 felt to be desirable
Jh~f H?£1ve f°2 "H"10™1- turves are shown for
three different sorbents: carbon limestone,
representing one of the more reactive of the
approximately 25 sorbents tested to date on the
Westinghouse laboratory thermogravimetric analy-
?«A\Grove U"16?*0"6 (referred to as limestone
1359), one of the less reactive sorbents; and
Greer limestone, representing an intermediate
reactivity. The cakium-to-sulfur feed require-
ments of 2.9 for 90 percent removal, used for the
bottom curve of Figure 1, can be read off the
curve for Greer limestone in Figure 2. Some
sorbents have been tested which are significantly
less reactive than 1359 limestone: however, such
unreactive sorbents would generally not be util-
ized in fluidized-bed combustors, since they
would make the process economically unattractive.
A potential user of fluidized combustor technology
should be able to site his plant in order to have
available, within reasonable distance, alterna-
tive sorbents having a reactivity not substan- .
pally less than that of limestone 1359. Accord-
ingly—although the curves in Figure 2 do not nec-
essarily encompass the entire range of sorbent
reactivities that might be considered for commer-
cial fluidized-bed combustion applications—the
curves are. felt to illustrate a reasonable range
of commercially achievable reactivities.
These model projections from Figure 2 are
compared against available experimental atmos-
pheric combustor data in Figure 3, which is
adapted from Reference 14. . The upper curve in
Figure 3 is the curve for carbon limestone,
partially redrawn from Figure 2; the lower curve
Is the curve for 1359 limestone. The data shown
1n. Figure 3 were obtained from a variety of bench-
and pilot-scale combustors over a wide spectrum
of gas residence times, sorbent particle sizes.
sorbent types, and other combustor conditions;
these data are not limited to data obtained at
conditions nearTfie 0.67 second residence time/
500 vm sorbent size that served as the basis for
the curves from Figure 2. The units from which
the data were obtained ranged in size from 6 inches
(15.2 cm) i.d. to 10 by 10 feet 3 by 3 m) in
cross section.... The data shown in Figure 3 are
Ti"pm: the Babcock & Wilcox 3- by 3-foot (0.91- by
0.91-m) unit at Alliance. Ohio; the 6-inch *
( 15. 2-cm) diameter atmospheric combustors at
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and at the
National Coal Board (NCB) in England; the 1.5-
&BS:foot (0'56: bjM'8-»0 Fluiciized-Bed Module
I[BM) operated by Pone, Evans and Robbins (PER):
the I'5: b£ 2'fooM2>4£- b> °-91-m) un1* at NCB;
*«e 6; ^i?'foot ^I'^Jy 1'8-"1 EPRI/BSW combus-
p2u ,a*/7la?ce; the 10' b> 10-Toot (3- by.3-m)
BiW Ltd. boiler at Renfrew, Scotland and the
I;5! b£ ]:5-fo°J i°-46- ^ 0.46-m) and 40- by
64-inch (1- by 1.6-m) combustors at Fluidyne.
, ,As shown in Figure 3, the mass of data gen-
erally fall within the boundaries of the curves
projected by the model. Some data even suggest
P?I!I2rinance superior '0 that projected for carbon .
nn^lr"??; Ih°?eJa£? "j!ich SIJ99est performance
poorer than that within the curve boundaries are,
JJ, many cases, either from the small 6-inch
(15.2-cm) units, or from the B&W 3- by 3-foot
(0.91- by 0.91-m) unit; this unit has a low free-
board and no recycle, so that a high carry-over
rate and a higher-than-normal sorbent feed rate
would be expected.
Figure 3 1s not intended as a rigorous con-
firmation of the model, but rather is meant to
Illustrate that. In general, the model projec-
tions do not represent a major divergence from
available data.
.« The data in Figure 3 suggest that the projec-
tion in Figure l~tfiat a Ca/S of 7 would be nec-
essary for a 90 percent SOg removal in the boiler
with lower gas residence time— 1s probably pessi-
misJ1c;fc Ihe £re5d 1n the data 1n "9ure 3 sug-
gests that a Ca/S much lower than 7 would
probably be adequate.
atmnh •d13cIJs51 on has considered only
atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion. In general,
the achievement of 90 percent and greater
52
-------
0. B. Henschel
removals in pressurized fluidized-bed combustion
has been possible with relatively low sorbent
feed rates (calcium-to-sulfur mole ratios of
1.25 to 2) (References 7 and 16). One reason
for the effectiveness of 303 removal in pres-
surized systems might be that pressurized
systems require comparatively deep beds, in
order to accommodate the heat transfer sur-
face necessitated by the high volumetric heat
release rate; deep beds inherently result
in gas residence times (generally 1 second
or longer) significantly greater than those nor-
mally obtained in atmospheric combustors.
Figure 4 presents expected desulfurization as a
function of sorbent feed rate for a 9 atm
(910 kPa) combustor being fed with 2000 Mm
mass mean Pfizer dolomite, based upon results
from EPA's 500 Ib coal/hr (227 kg/hr) pres-
surized fluidized-bed combustion Minlplant,
and based upon a model developed by Exxon
(Reference 16). Cost projections are pre-
sented in Figure 5 for a utility-scale pres-
surized fluidized-bed combustor, based upon
Westinghouse estimates (Reference 10), analo-
gous to Figure 1. As illustrated in Figure 5.
a pressurized fluidized-bed combustor Is
projected to have lower costs of electricity
than a conventional boiler with a scrubber,
over the full range of fluidized-bed Ca/S
ratios (1.25 to 2.0) suggested in Figure 4 for
90 percent SO? removal at gas residence times
of 1 second and longer.
Comparing Figures 1 and 5, it Is apparent.
that the need to further increase gas residence
time In order to reduce sorbent feed rate in
pressurized fluidized-bed combustors, is less
critical than 1n the case of atmospheric
units. In Figure 1, an increase in gas residence
time from 0.4 to 0.67 seconds—an Increase of
0.27 seconds—had a significant Impact on
projected sorbent feed requirements for atmos-
pheric combustors..and could be the determining
factor regarding whether or not atmospheric
fluidized-bed units are competitive with
conventional boilers. However, as suggested
in Figures 4 and 5. an increase, from T second
to 3 seconds, in the gas residence time for
pressurized units should have a comparatively
small impact.
The S02 removal performance of both
atmospheric and pressurized fluidized-bed
combustors may be improved by reducing the
mean sorbent particle size, as discussed
previously. As the particle size is reduced
to smaller and smaller values, the particles
will have an increased tendency to elutriate
out of the bed, depending upon the gas velocity.
Even In a fluidized-bed system where the
particle size/gas velocity relationship is
such as to maintain basically traditional
dense-phase fluldization, there will be some
carry-over of fine particles, due to fine
material in the sorbent feed and/or due to
attrition. Recycle, back to the bed. of the
elutriated sorbent fines should result in a
reduced mean particle size in the bed, thus
improving In-bed capture; fines reclrculation
should also result in an increased concentration
of fine sorbent in the freeboard, providing
additional capture after the gases leave the
bed. As the sorbent feed becomes relatively
finer, the quantity of fines being redrew la ted
will, of course, become greater. As the
particle size/gas velocity relationship moves
toward even finer particles, the system moves
out of the traditional dense-phase fluidlzation
mode and toward more advanced fluldization
concepts—"turbulent" fluldization, "fast"
fluldization, and. in the extreme, entralned-
phase operation. High-recycle operation, and
the advanced fluldization concepts, may prove
to be more effective at S02 removal than is
low carry-over, dense-phase operation. The
fine particle size associated with these other
operating modes, combined with adequate (or per-
haps even increased) gas/solIds contact time,
may provide superior SOg capture performance;
further operating data are required concerning
these other modes. It should be re-emphasized
that.for these other modes of operation, the key
variable affecting SO? removal— gas/solids contact
time—no longer translates into gas residence
time in the bed, as it does for traditional dense-
phase fluidization. The previous discussion in
this paper has been based upon the low carry-over,
dense-phase case.
Thus, high levels of sorbent attrition or
carry-over are not necessarily bad, so long as the
carry-over is recycled and so long as a stable
system can be maintained without excessive sorbent
feed rates. Attrition and recycle might result
in effective sorbent utilization and high SOg
removals. The capture of SO? in the freeboard,
which may be achieved with high-recycle systems,
may be Important for boiler designs in which coal
is fed above the bed: with above-bed coal feed,
some of the SO? may Be released above the bed,
and hence may nave no residence time in the bed
itself.
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Nitrogen oxides emissions are character-
istically below 0.5 lb/106 Btu heat input
(210 ng/J) for large atmospheric fluidized-bed
combustors. and below 0.4 lb/106 Btu (170 ng/J)
for pressurized units. These emissions may be
reduced further through the use of two-stage com-
bustion and other NOX control options which are
just starting to be explored. Thus both atmos-
pheric and pressurized systems appear capable
of meeting the current EPA New Source Perform-
ance Standard for N0x,emiss1ons from utility
boilers, of 0.5 lb/106 Btu (210 ng/J) for sub-
bituminous coals and 0.6 lb/106 Btu (260 ng/J)
for other coals.
As discussed below, many NOX emission
measurements from experimental combustors are
below the values (0.5 and 0.4 lb/106 Btu)
Indicated above. However, the data are so
scattered, and our understanding of the variables
which control NO. emissions is so limited, that
it would be difficult to guarantee that a given
fluidized-bed combustor would never exceed
those levels on a 30-day rolling average.
Until recently, NO, emissions from fluidized-
bed combustors were of limited concern.
Fluidlzed combustor NOX emissions are inherently
lower than the EPA emission standard (which is
based upon emissions from conventional boilers);
hence no major effort had previously been initi-
ated to reduce the fluidized-bed NOX emissions
further. However, a number of combustion modi-
fication techniques are being tested for conven-
tional boilers (e.g., low-NOx burners, and staged
combustion) which could enable greatly reduced
NOX emissions from conventional systems (as low
as 0.2 lb/10b Btu. or 86 ng/J). Even pressurized
fluidized-bed combustion systems—which fre-
quently show emissions below 0.2 lb/10° Btu—do
not achieve that level universally. Therefore,
it is Important that studies be conducted con-
53
-------
D. B. Henschel
cerning the applicability of combustion modifi-
cation techniques for reducing NO. emissions from
fluidized-bed combustors so that rluid1zed-bed
combustion can continue to be competitive with
conventional boilers in future years, if the low
NO. emissions from conventional units are Indeed
achieved. EPA has conducted some preliminary
testing in this regard.
Available data from experimental atmospheric
fluidized combustors, 6 Inches (15.2-cm) In diam-
eter and larger, are shown in Figure 6. The
units represented 1n Figure 6 Include most
of the units represented in Figure 3. The NO,
data from the Argonne 6-1nch (T5.2-cm) unit
include only those date for which the unit was
operating with a sorbent bed.
The bulk of the emission data within the
typical expected operating temperature range for
the primary combustion ceils—1500 to 1600"F, or
815 to 871*C—lie between 0.2 and 0.6 Ib NOX/10°
Btu (86 and 260 ng/J), expressed as NO?. This
emission is no greater than the current emission
standard of 0.6 lb/106 Btu (260 ng/J). Many of
the data points on Figure 6 which exceed the
current standard were obtained at bed tempera-
tures representative of those which might be
expected in a carbon burnup cell—2000"F (1094eC)
and above.
Large atmospheric fluidlzed-bed combustors
exhibit Tower (and less variable) NOX emissions
than do small laboratory units. This fact Is
demonstrated in Figure 7 (Reference 14), where
the data from Figure 6 are re-plotted as a func-
tion of unit size. The bars In Figure 7 repre-
sent the range of NOX emission data from the
indicated units in tfie 1500-1600°F (815-871°C)
temperature range. The range shown for the
Argonne 6-inch (15.2 on) unit reaches levels
higher than those shown in Figure 6, since Figure
7 includes some results from Argonne tests.with
non-sorbent beds not included in Figure 6. As
illustrated in Figure 7, all of the emission data
higher than 0.6 lb/106 Btu (260 ng/J) in the
typical primary cell temperature range, resulted
from the two smallest experimental units. Most
of the variability, causing the data scatter in
Figure 6, also results from the smaller units.
Emission data from the two largest atmospheric
boilers (the EPRI/B8W 6- by 6-foot, or 1.8- by
1.8-meter unit, and the Renfrew unit) hold con- ,
sistently within the range of 0.15 to 0.45 lb/106
Btu (65 to 190 ng/J). This range 1s felt to be
more representative of the emission levels and
variability that might be expected from commer-
cial-scale atmospheric units.
As shown In Figure 6, emissions of NO.
from atmospheric units are generally above the
level that would be predicted from thermodynanrlc
equilibrium considerations, based upon the reac-
tion of atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen. One
explanation for this fact is that, at primary
cell bed temperatures, probably 80 to 90 percent
of the observed NOX results, not from fixation
of the atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen, but
from oxidation of a portion of the organic
nitrogen compounds in the coal.
NO. emissions from pressurized fluidlzed-
bed combustors are represented by Figure 8. which
presents all of the data that have been collec-
ted on the 500 Ib coal/hr (227 kg/hr) pressurized
Mini pi ant combustor (Reference 16). ,As Indicated,
some of the data are below 0.1 lb/106 Btu
(43 ng/J), although a few measurements are as
high as 0.4 lb/106 Btu (170 ng/J). Thecfact that
so much of the data are below 0.2 lb/106 Btu
(86 ng/J) gives rise to a hope that—if NOX
emissions from pressurized units decrease with
increasing unit size in the same manner as shown
in Figure 7 for atmospheric combustors—
pressurized units larger than the 1.8 MHt Mini-
plant might reliably achieve 0.2 lb/106 Btu with-
out combustion modifications.
Efforts have been made to correlate NO.
emissions against combustor variables for both
atmospheric and pressurized fluidized-bed combus-
tors (Reference 18). There does appear to be
some correlation suggesting that NOX decreases
with decreasing temperature, decreasing excess
air, and increasing gas residence time. However,
the correlation is not sufficiently strong to
suggest that these variables might be utilized
as an effective means of NOX control.
EPA has conducted some preliminary testing
in order to assess whether NO. emissions from both
atmospheric and pressurized fluidized-bed combus-
tors can be reduced by means of combustion modi-
fications. In limited testing on the 100 Ib
coal/hr (45 kg/hr) atmospheric combustor at EPA's
laboratories in the Research Triangle Park, emis-
sions below 0.2 lb/105 Btu (86 ng/J) were
achieved through the use of two-stage combus-
tion. In these runs, the primary combustion air
flow to the base of the bed contained about
5 percent excess air; the remaining air (to bring
the total to 20 percent excess) was injected
just above the bed. Tests on a 28 Ib coal/hr .
(13 kg/hr) pressurized combustor at Exxon (Ref-
erence 16) Indicated that NO. emissions could
be reduced by about 50 percent through the use of
two-stage combustion, with the primary air being.
75 to 90 percent of stoichiometric, and with
secondary air (raising the total to 15 to 30
percent excess) being Injected Into the bed, near
the top. Reductions in NOX of 30 to 50 percent
were achieved on the Exxon combustor through ammon-
ia Injection, when the ammonia was injected
near the top of the bed. Simulated flue gas
reclrculatlon tests yielded no significant NOX
reductions.
Thus potential does appear to exist for
obtaining reductions in fluidized-bed combustor
NOX emissions through the application of combus-
tion modification techniques. However, substan-
tial additional work is necessary In order to
confirm and optimize the Initial results.
Furthermore, additional studies are necessary
in order to determine the effect of combustion
modifications on other aspects of the combustor
system (e.g., two-stage combustion could increase
emissions of other pollutants, decrease combus-
tion efficiency, and create corrosion concerns).
Participate Emissions
Particulate control, adequate to reliably
meet the current New Source Performance Standard
for utility boilers of 0.03 lb/106 Btu (13 ng/J),
has yet to be demonstrated on both atmospheric
and pressurized fluidlzed-bed combustors. How-
ever, adequate control .should be possible at
atmospheric pressure through suitable design and
operation of conventional particle control tech-
nology.
For atmospheric fluidlzed-bed combustors,
control of particulate emissions should be simi-
lar to control from conventional boilers burn-
ing low-sulfur coal. Cyclones alone will not be
-------
D. B. Henschel
adequate; control will probably Include one or
more stages of cyclones followed by an electro-
static predpltator or a fabric filter. Electro-
static precipltators will have to be designed and
operated considering the high resistivity of the
fTuldlzed-bed flyash (and low flue gas SCto/SOa
content).. Fabric filters may be subject to such
problems as: bag blinding (the flyash In some
cases exhibits caking properties); bag fires (If
sufficient residual carbon remains 1n the flyash
entering the filter); and base attack (resulting
from the high pH of the lime-containing flyash).
However, it would be anticipated that, by care-
ful selection of design and operating conditions
following further experience on flu1d1zed-bed
combustors, these conventional particle control
devices should provide sufficient removal and
operating reliability.
Most experimental experience on atmospheric
units to date has been with cyclones, on rela-
tively small combustors. Fabric filters (and. In
the case of the 30 MW Rlvesvllle boiler, an
electrostatic precipltator) have been Installed
as the final stage of particle cleanup on the
large atmospheric combustors that are now in
or near operation. However, extended test data
from these final-stage devices are not yet
available.
Particle control at high temperature and high
pressure, capable of meeting the emission standard
in pressurized fluidlzed-bed combustion systems,
1s still In a-developmental stage. Fairly promis-
ing results were observed In the Mini pi ant where,.
during extended testing, three stages of conven-
tional cyclones at high temperature/pressure
reduced flue gas loadings to as low as 0.03 lb/106
Btu (13 ng/J) with a mass mean particle size
of 1 to 2 urn (Reference 16). Good results
were-also -obtained on the Mini pi ant with an
experimental ceramic filter. Other options con-
sidered by various investigators Include
advanced cyclone designs, granular bed filters,
and high temperature/pressure electrostatic
precipltators.
It 1s conceivable that pressurized systems
might utilize particle control at atmospheric
pressure. In addition to high temperature/pres-
sure controls, 1n order to meet the particulate
emission standard. The high-pressure controls
.will have to remove enough of the parti cul ate to
protect the gas turbine from erosion; this
requirement will probably translate into removing
virtually all of the paniculate larger than 5 to
10 uffl* However, even when all particles above
5 um are removed, the mass loading In the pres-
surized off-gas may still exceed 0.03 Ib/l6° Btu
(13 ng/JJ. If, Indeed, the environmental require-
ments are more stringent than the gas turbine
erosion requirements, then a decision will have
to be made regarding whether to achieve the
additional particle removal, required by environ-
mental regulations, using high temperature/pres-
sure controls, or whether to Install an atmos-
pheric-pressure control device following the gas
turbine. (The very high-levels of high tempera-
ture/pressure particle control, once thought nec-
essary In pressurized systems in order to pro-
tect the gas turbine from corrosion, may not be
required; recent tests indicate tnat much of the
corrosion-causing alkali is present in the gas
phase at turbine inlet temperatures, so that
alkali corrosion may have to be handled in some
manner other than through efficient particle
removal.)
Solid Residue
Solid residues from atmospheric and pres-
surized fluldlzed-bed combustors will require
some care 1n handling and disposal. The resi-
dues will, 1n general, probably not be con-
sidered "hazardous" under the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, the char-
acter of the leachates will require special atten-
tion 1n the design of a "sanitary landfill"
under RCRA for disposal of the residues as non-
hazardous materials.
Extensive laboratory leaching tests have been
conducted on residues from a wide variety of
experimental fluidlzed-bed combustors (Refer-
ences 5, 8 and 19). Field cell studies are Just
beginning. When the residues are shaken in a
flask containing distilled, de-Ionized water as
the leaching medium, the primary potential prob-
lem areas appear to be the following (Refer-
ences 5, 19 and 21).
0 The pH of the leachate at equilibrium is In
the range of 8 to 13, which 1s above EPA's
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
(NSOWR) range of 6.5 to 8.5.
" Total dissolved solids (TDS) In the leachate
at equilibrium are 1n the range 1000 to 4000
mg/t, above the NSDWR level of 500 mg/i.
' Sulfate concentrations at equilibrium are
generally In the range 1000 to 2000 mg/i,
above the NSDWR of 250 mg/i.
The above factors result primarily from the'spent
sorbent which Is present In the.residue. Note
that the equilibrium concentrations observed In
laboratory "shake" tests of this type probably
represent the worst case that could be expected
In an actual disposal site. Heat release,
resulting from hydratlon of the calcium oxide
fraction of the spent sorbent upon initial
exposure to water, Is another potential problem
area; this heat release could necessitate some
care in handling the residue, but Is not expec-
ted to be a major environmental concern.
Sulfide and total organic carbon are below detec-
tion limits 1n the leachates, and are not expec-
ted to be problems. None of the 15 trace
metals—for which some form of drinking water
standard/regulation/criterion exists--exceeds
that concentatlon in the leachate. when distilled
water Is the leaching medium; trace metals are dis-
cussed In greater length later.
The residues will, In general, probably
not be found to be "hazardous" under RCRA,
according to the RCRA procedures recently prom-
ulgated. Four criteria have been established
to determine whether a material 1s to be con-
sidered "hazardous": toxidty. IgnitablHty,
reactivity, and corroslvlty. A laboratory leach-
Ing test, referred to as the Extraction Pro-
cedure, has been proposed for determining whether
a material is "hazardous" due to the toxidty
criterion. The Extraction Procedure employs
an acetic acid solution as the leaching medium;
a material is considered "hazardous" due to
toxidty if the leachate contains any one of
eight trace metals (or certain other materials)
at a concentration greater than 100 times the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regu-
lation (NIPDWR). Six fluidized-bed combustion
residues (including both atmospheric and pres-
55
-------
D. B. Henschel
surlzed spent bed materials and flyash/carry-
over materials) have been tested by Uestingnouse
according to the Extraction Procedure (Refer-
ence 22). None of the eight trace metals
exceeded the threshold of 100 times the NIPDWR
for any of the residues; hence the residues
tested were not "hazardous" due to toxicity.
The other three criteria (ignitability, reac-
tivity, and corrosivity) are not considered at
this time to apply to fluidized-bed combustion
residues (Reference 21).
Although fluidized combustion residues in
general do not appear to be "hazardous," it is
possible that, in some limited specific cases.
residues from an individual plant may be found
to be "hazardous" according to the Extraction Pro-
cedure (depending upon the specific coal burned
or the specific sorbent used). However, it
would be expected that the number of cases where
the residues might be "hazardous" would be small,
since in the six residues tested with the Extrac-
tion Procedure, the concentrations of the eight
trace metals were, in all cases, more than an
order of magnitude less than 100 times the
NIPDWR.
If fluidized-bed combustion residues are
not "hazardous," they will not have to comply
with the regulations being developed under RCRA
to cover the generation and disposal of "hazard-
ous" wastes. However, even if they are not
"hazardous." the residues will in general
(depending upon state requirements} still have
to be discarded in a "sanitary landfill," in
accordance with RCRA provisions. One require-
ment proposed for "sanitary landfills" is that
they should not degrade groundwater to cause con-
taminant levels in excess of the NSOWR. The
fact that fluidized-bed residue leachate exceeds
the NSDWR for pH, TDS and sulfate does not, of
course, indicate that a landfill composed of the
residue would necessarily raise groundwater con-
centrations above those levels. The actual
Impact on the groundwater concentrations will
depend upon a Targe number of site-specific
parameters. However, the fact that the leachate
exceeds the NSDWR does indicate that a potential
groundwater contamination threat might exist, and
this possibility will have to be considered in
the design and operation of the disposal facility.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA is
responsible for development of effluent limi-
tation guidelines and new source performance
standards for liquid effluents from steam elec-
tric plants and other industrial categories.
Runoff from a solid residue disposal site would
generally be covered by any such effluent stand-
ards which are developed. The current guidelines
and standards for conventional power plants
specify, among other things, that effluents from
the plants should be maintained in the pH range
of 6.0 to 9.0. Since fluidized-bed residue
leachates frequently have pH levels higher than
9, some effluent control technology could be
necessary, depending upon the specific circum-
stances. In addition, under CWA, EPA is consid-
ering the need for effluent standards covering
129 substances commonly referred to as the
"priority pollutants," which were-defined as
the result of a judicial consent decree. The
priority pollutants include primarily complex
organic compounds, but also include 13 trace
metals. EPA is screening a variety of effluents
for these pollutants; the current minimum con-
centration being quantified is 10 parts per
billion (ppb). The 13 trace metals are gen-
erally present in fluidized-bed residue leachate
in concentrations of 10 to 100 ppb or less when
distilled water is the leaching medium. The
fact that the metals are present above 10 ppb in
some cases does not necessarily mean that
effluent controls may be required.
Other Potential Pollutants
The previous discussion of air pollutant
emissions and solid residue focuses on those
pollutants for which standards or regulations of
some type already exist or are being considered.
However, in a more anticipatory role, EPA is
also addressing potential pollutants which may
become of concern in the future. Comprehensive
analyses—including chemical and biological test-
ing—are being conducted, or are planned, on the
large fluldized-bed combustion units which are
currently in operation or under construction.
These comprehensive analyses will consider up
to 850 different potential pollutants. This
list of substances to be considered at this stage
has been made deliberately long in an effort to
ensure that no potential problem pollutant is
overlooked.
In order to assess the results from such
extensive comprehensive analyses, the observed.
emissions for the substances Identified are
compared against conservative emission goals,
which have been developed Independently for
each of the 850 substances based upon fairly sim-
ple application of available health and ecolo-
gical effects data. If the observed emission
exceeds the Independent goal level for a specific
substance, then that substance warrants further
consideration in the R&D effort.
Complete comprehensive analysis results are
currently available from only one. fluidized-
bed combustion facility, the pressurized Mini pi ant.
Briefly, the key conclusions from this comprehen-
sive analysis are:
0 The fraction of the flyash/carry-over smaller
than 10 um, gave a positive result on the
Ames test for mutagenlcity. This result
suggests that the TO vm flyash is mutagenic,
and hence possibly carcinogenic. Similar
positive Ames results have been observed
on flyash from conventional boilers, so that
this effect may be associated with coal com-
bustion in general, and thus not necessarily
a reflection on flu1d1zed-bed combustion in
particular. EPA 1s conducting further tests
to confirm and explain this result.
0 Certain trace metals In the bed material,
the flyash and the leachate from the bed
material and flyash, exceeded-the con-
servative health/ecological emission goals
mentioned previously. This result does
not necessarily indicate a problem, since
the goal levels are so conservative.
The results suggest only that further analy-
ses are required as part of EPA's R&D program.
For example, if the element Se is identified
in the analyses (by spark source mass
spectrometry, which does not indicate the
compound form of Se), it is assumed in apply-
ing the goal levels that all of Se Is present
as the most toxic Se compound that 1s
included in the list of 850 substances.
Since the Se Is probably actually present as
a much less toxic species, this method of
data interpretation really Indicates only
that further analyses are necessary to
define the compound form of the Se, so that
the actual level of environmental hazard can
56
-------
0. B. Henschel
2.
be assessed more accurately.
0 Organic substances did not exceed the
goal levels in any streams.
Conclusions
Both atmospheric and pressurized fluldlzed-
bed combustors should be able to meet the current
revised NSPS for large utility steam generators.
Specifically:
1. S02 removals of 90 percent and higher can
probably be achieved in both atmospheric
and pressurized combustors at reasonable
sorbent feed rates, and in a manner eco-
nomically competitive with the alterna-
tive of a conventional boiler with flue
gas desulfuMzatlon. However, In order
to achieve these removals, the combus-
tors mav have to be designed and opera-
ted with sufficiently long gas/sorbent
contact time and with suitably small sorb-
ent particle size. In general, pressur-
ized systems inherently are designed with
relatively long gas/sorbent contact time;
this fact is one major reason for the
improved SO? removal efficiencies of
pressurized systems.
NOv emissions are characteristically
befow 0.5 lb/106 Btu (210 ng/J) for
large atmospheric fluid1zed-bed combustion
units, and below 0.4 lb/10° Btu (170 ng/J)
for. pressurized units. These emissions
may be reduced further through the use
of two-stage combustion and other NOX
control options. Although these emis-
sions are below the current revised
NSPS for utility steam generators, they
are above the levels that-may ultimately
be achievable in conventional boilers
employing combustion modification
techniques.
3. Flue gas particulate control to meet
environmental requirements must yet be
demonstrated, but should be possible
at atmospheric pressure through suitable
design of conventional particle control tech-
nology. The technical performance and costs
of high temperature/pressure controls for
pressurized systems are uncertain; however,
the high-pressure particulate control
required to protect the gas turbine (from
erosion) may be less than that required to
meet the revised utility NSPS of 0.03 Ib/lO^
Btu (13 ng/J), so that some of the particle
control in pressurized systems may be accom-
plished at low pressure, following the turbine.
The solid residue from fluidized-bed com-
bustors may require some care in handling and
disposal. The levels of pH. total dissolved
solids, and sulfate in the leachate are typi-
cally above drinking water regulations. The
residue should not normally be found to be "haz-
ardous" under RCRA, according to the RCRA test
procedures recently promulgated. However, the
leachate properties will necessitate some atten-
tion in the design of a "sanitary landfill"
for disposal of the residue as a non-hazardous
material.
REFERENCES
1. Henschel. D. B., "The U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Program for Environ-
mental Characterization of Flu1d1zed-Bed
Combustion Systems," in the Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on
Fluldized-Bed Combustion, sponsored by
the U. S. Energy Research and Development
Administration. McLean. Virginia (December
9-11, 1975).
2. Henschel, D. B.. "The EPA Fluidized-Bed
Combustion Program: An Update." in the
Proceedings of the Fifth international
Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
sponsored by the U. S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D. C. (December
12-14; 1977).
3. Newby. R. A., and D. L. Keairns, "Alterna-
tives to Calcium-Based SO? Sorbents for
Fluidized-Bed Combustion: Conceptual
Evaluation," Uestinghouse Research and
Development Center (January 1978) EPA-600/
7-78-005 (NTIS No. PB 278-332).
4. Newby, R. A.. S. Katta, and D. L. Keairns,
Regeneration of Calcium-Based SO? Sorbents
for Fluldlzed-Bed Combustion: Engineering
Evaluation," Westlnghouse Research and
Development Center (March 1978) EPA-600/
7-78-039 (NTIS No. PB 281-317).
5. Sun. C. C., et al., "Disposal of Solid
Residue from Fluidized-Bed Combustion:
Engineering and Laboratory Studies," West-
lnghouse Research and Development Center
(March 1978) EPA-600/7-78-049 (NTIS No.
PB 283-082)..
6. Alvln, M. A., E. P. O'Meill, L. N.
Yannopoulos, and D. L. Keairns, "Evaluation
of Trace Element Release from Fluidized-
Bed Combustion Systems." Westlnghouse
Research and Development Center (March 1978)
EPA-600/7-78-050 (NTIS No. PB 281-321).
7. Hoke, R. C., et al., "M1n1plant Studies of
Pressurized Flu1d1zed-Bed Coal Combustion:
Third Annual Report," Exxon Research and
Engineering Co. (April 1978) EPA-600/7-78-069
(NTIS No. PB 284-534).
8. Stone. Ralph and R. L. Kahle, "Environ-
mental Assessment of Solid Residues from
Fluidized-Bed Fuel Processing: Final
Report," Ralph Stone and Co. (June 1978)
EPA-600/7-78-107 (NTIS No. PB 282-940).
9. Crowe, J. L., and S. K. Seale, "Charac-
terization of Solid Residues from Fluidized-
Bed Combustion Units." Tennessee Valley
Authority (July 1978) EPA-600/7.-78-135
(NTIS No. PB 288-584).
10. Newby, R. A., et al., "Effect of SO? Emission
Requirements on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
. Systems: Preliminary Technical/Economic
Assessment." Westlnghouse Research and
Development Center (August 1978) EPA-600/
7-78-163 (NTIS No. PB 286-971).
57
-------
D. B. Henschel
11. Dehne, H. J., "Design and Construction of
a Flindized-Bed Combustion Sampling and
Analytical Test Rig," Acurex Corp. (August
1978) EPA-600/7-78-166 (NTIS No. PB 290-914).
12. Ryan, L. E., R. G. Beimer, and R. F.
Maddalone, "Level 2 Chemical Analysis of
Fluidized-Bed Combustor Samples." TRW, Inc.
(February 1979) EPA-600/7-7§-063b (NTIS
No. PB 295-462).
13. Vogel, G. J.. et al., "Regeneration of
Sulfated Limestone from FBC's and Corro-
sive Effects of Sulfation Accelerators in
FBC's: Annual Report," Argonne National Lab-
oratory (July 197§T EPA-600/7-79-157
(NTIS No. ANL-CEN-FE-78-13).
14. Young, C. U., J. M. Robinson, C. B. Thunem,
and P. F. Fennelly, "Technology Assessment
Rep9rt for Industrial Boiler Applications:
Fluidized-Bed Combustion," GCA/Technology
Division (November 1979) EPA-600/7-79-178e
(NTIS No. PB 80-178288).
15. Johnson, I., et al., "Support Studies in
Fluidized-Bed Combustion: 1978 Annual
Report," Argonne National Laboratory
(August 1979] EPA-600/7-79-203 {NTIS No.
ANL-CEN-FE-7&-10 or PB 80-112758).
16. Hoke, R. C., et al.. "Miniplant and Bench
Studies of Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Coal
Combustion: Final Report," Exxon Research
and Engineering Co. (January 1980) EPA-600/
7-80-013 (in press).
17. Ulerich, N. H., U. G. Vaux, R. A. Newby,
and D. L. Keairns, "Experimental/Engineering
Support for EPA's FBC Program: Final Report-
Volume I. Sulfur Oxide Control." Westing-
house Research and Development Center
(January 1980) EPA-600/7-BO-015a (in press).
18. Ciliberti, D. F., et al., "Experimental/
Engineering Support for EPA's FBC Program:
Final Report—Volume II. Particulate,
Nitrogen Oxide, and Trace Element Control,"
Westinghouse Research and Development Center
(January 1980) EPA-600/7-80-015b (in press).
19. Sun, C. C., C. H. Peterson, and D. L. Keairns,
"Experimental/Engineering Support for EPA's
FBC Program: Final Report—Volume III. Solid
Residue Study," Westinghouse Research and
Development Center (January 1980) EPA-600/7
-80-OlSc (in press))
20. Hamm, J. R., et al.. "Experimental/Engineer-
ing Support for EPA's FBC Program: Final
Report—Volume IV. Engineering Studies,"
Westinghouse Research and Development Center
(January 1980) EPA-600/7-80-015d (in press).
21. Henschel, D. B., "Assessment of Fluidized-
Bed Combustion Residues," unpublished paper
(October 1979).
22. Keairns, D. L., et al., "Fluid-Bed Combus-
tion and Gasification Solids Disposal," in
the Proceedings of the Workshop on Solid
Waste Research and Development Needs for
Emerging Coal Technologies, sponsored by
the Electric Power Research Institute and
san
58
-------
70
(M
]
E w
5
i
40
30
(
1 1 1
100 MW BOILER PLANT
EASTERN COAL (4 «t% SULFUR. 10 wl* ASH)
ATMOSPHERIC FLUIDIZED-BED BOILER PLANT
CONVENTIONAL PLANT WITH LIME /
SLURRY SCRUBBING IC./S - 1.1) /
STACK REHEAT OF 7»°C /
GAS RESIDENCE .'
TIME: 0.4 SEC /
PARTICLE SIZE:/
1000pm /
CWS - 7jy '
— x* —
/
~x*" ^^^
^ X' OAS RESIDENCE
..^ TIME: O.S7 SEC
^ -^ PARTICLE SUE: 500 pm
C./1-J.*
1 1 1 1 1 1
I 10 20 30 40 BO 60
S/MUfctOlt
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 60 SO
S/U.S. tan
SOHKNT COST
M
II
n
1'
1 "
J"
is
ts
II
s
'xt:.^*-^
// /'
If i
i: i
•• i
£ !
/ /
// FLUID SEO
1 OFEHATIIIB COKOH10M:
t 1 1.I.IH1 ur.)
S 1 SfOMEWMT4ft.(1.2»a IICIU
1; S VELOCITY 1 fl/MC 111 .W-0
'; / IMS*F inrti
'; • ~tSN EXCESS AM
I// CAHtMLMEnOM
' " «lttl(l LMESTUE
LNUnOIEIIfS (SHOVE)
.
' 1 1 1 1 1
21 4
Ca/S MOLAR RATIO
Figure 1. Effect of gat residence time *nd sortMnt particle tize
on cost of 800 MW atmospheric fluidized bed boiler plant, for
90% SO2 removal (colt projections prepared by Westinghouse).
Figure 2. Projected deiulfurization performance of atmospheric fluidized bed
coal combtntor. based upon model developed by Westinghouse.
-------
100
g
MODEL PROJECTION - ol *
CARBON LIMESTONE*
O MODEL PROJECTION
.IMESTONE ISM*
cf
(•) CURVES PROJECTED
BASED UPON 0.67 SEC
GAS RESIDENCE TIME.
~ 800 ion SORB EN T
PARTICLE SIZE
OBftW-3x3ftUNIT
DANL-dnLd. UNIT
A PER - 1.5 x 8 (t UNIT
ONCB-6lni.d UNIT
• NCB • 1.8 x 3 ft UNIT
• EPRI/B ft W • 6 x • ft UNIT_
4 B ft W, LTD • 10 x 10 ft UNIT
• FLUIOVNE • 1.6 X 1.5 ft AND
40 x 64 In UNITS | I
100
3466
Ci/S MOLAR RATIO
Figure 3. Comparison of desulfurization performance projected
by Westinqhouse model, against measured performance of
experimental atmospheric fluidized bed combustors.
70
60
50
40
30
T I
0.5
3.0 SEC. f>
2.0 SEC. 4-
1.0 SEC.
0.6 SEC.«-
GAS
RESIDENCE
TIME IN
BED
PRESSURE:~9 atm (910 kPa)
SORBENT PARTICLE SIZE: 2000 fjm
MASS MEAN
SORBENT: PFIZER DOLOMITE
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
CWS MOLAR RATIO
Figure 4. Expected desulfurization performance of
pressurized fluidized-bed coal combustor, based upon
Miniplant data and model developed by Exxon.
-------
bO
40
~T T T T TT
MO MW BOILER PLANT
EASTERN COAL (4 wt % SULFUR, 10 »t % ASH)
PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED
BOILER PLANT
-CONVENTIONAL PLANT WITH LIME
SLURRY SCRUBBING (C./S - 1.1)
STACK REHEAT OF 79°C
I I
30
S/us i
CO
so
CORBENT COST
Figure 6. Effect of Mrbent teed requirements on cost of 900 MW
pressurized fluidized bed boiler plant, compared to conventional boiler
plant with scrubber (adapted from cost projection! by Wettinghouse).
OB&W-3x3ft UNIT
a ARGONNE 6 in i.d. UNIT
A PER • 1 x 1 ft AND 1.6 x 6 ft UNITS
• NCR-1.6 x 3ft UNIT
OB|_ ejEPRI/B&tt-6xaftUNIT
A B & W. LTD • 10 x 10 ft UNIT
EQUILIBRIUM NOx FOR THE .
REACTION: N2 + Oj«» 2 MO
I
1400 1600
760 816 871
BED TtMPLBATURE.
2100 2200
1194 1206
Figure 6. Nitrogen oxides emissions (expressed as N02) from
atmospheric fluidized bed combustion units.
-------
250
20
40 60
EXCESS AIR, percent
Figure 8. Nitrogen oxides emissions from the pressurized fluidized-bed
combustion Miniplant
DUB
400
•*
'300
§
§
i TOO
JS zuu
2
100
o
r ~r
_\
V
\
1
\
\
. NI
"I
L --
B&W
**? EPRI/
:B
c3'
ANL
"»Y B&
PI
"--.._ 6'x
:Q
6" "
i.d. I I I
0246
W B&W, LTD
6* 10'xlO'—
^^
1 1
1.1
1.0
0.9
3
0.8 £
0-7 |
0.6 tn
Q
0.5 Z
0.4 I
01
2
0.2
0.1
0
8 10 12
BOILER CAPACITY, MWt
Figure 7. Nitrogen oxides emissions from atmospheric fluidized-bed
combustion units, as function of unit size.
62
-------
PLENARY - 2
FLUIDI2ED BED COMBUSTION DEVELOPMENT
AND
COMMERCIAL STATUS SUMMARY
63
-------
PLENARY SESSION - 2
FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL STATUS SUMMARY
Session Chairman: Steven I. Freedman
Department of Energy
This conference had six technical sessions that
were occurring in parallel and we realize that it'
was difficult to attend all the sessions that one
wished to attend. We do expect to have the proceed-
ings printed soon for distribution to all of you.
The purpose of the first panel this morning is
to present' to 'the meeting as a whole, the results
of the conference as seen from people with varying
perspectives and we will get a comprehensive view
of what was going on in the various technical
sessions from an appropriate variety of viewpoints.
We have technologists, users, researchers and
people with international interests in the tech-
nology. With that, I will turn the microphone over
to Raymond Boy, who has been the technologist in
fluidized bed combustion and he will let us know
what he knows now, on Friday, that he didn't know
on Tuesday.
H. Raymond Hoy — The Technologist
National Coal Board
Leatherhead, United Kingdom
It has been an interesting session -- our
eastern friends have caused us to rewrite the
history of atmospheric fluidized bed combustion —
but the most notable feature, however, is that we
are seeing the beginnings of- commercialization of
the fluidized combustion system, at least.those for
the industrial steam raising in plant sizes up to
about 100,00 pounds per hour of steam. The list of
commercial and field test units that are either on
order, in service or shortly to be in service is
impressive. We have people like Johnson Boiler
with orders for IS boilers; Foster, Wheeler and
Babcock, who have their first commercial installa-
tions and their field test installations along with
Combustion Engineering and, on the other side of
the water, there will, by the end of this year, be
about 30 installations either in use or at an
advanced state of construction. In the Federal
Republic of Germany, there are some two major ones
now in use and another large one on its way. This
list seems rather small compared with the 2,000
they talk about in China. There are areas for
further development and this is particularly so for
the utility application and I don't think there is
any cause for complacency in relation to the other
applications either. I think the Tennessee Valley
Authority's 20 megawatt pilot plant will be a
significant contribution to developing the tech-
nology for the utility field. I would expect by
now, however, that in the industrial steam raising
field, application of the development of the
technology would proceed from experience gained
from the commercial and the field test units and,
from this point of view, you see your sort of
technology analysis groups, which include anything
from the people who actually monitor the results to
'those who create the mathematical models will have
an important part to play.
Turning now to the development of the areas for
the atmospheric pressure fluidized bed combustor,
the various detailed things that have cropped up
are roughly as follows. I think that in the area
of coal distribution and feeding, the development
of the overbed system for large coal, and the
direct firing system for the crushed coal, there
have been very notable advances since our last
meeting, and these promise to go a long way to
overcoming some of the criticisms that are justi-
fiably leveled against the fluidized combustion. I
think it is important, however, to remember that a
system of firing can have an impact on the design
of the combuster and it is important, I think, to
consider the nature of the coal that is being
fired. Coal does vary. It must be a great problem
to those who axe developing the mathematical models
to have a variable feed-stock. The coal ash varies
both in quantity and in its nature, and in our
endeavors to reduce the cost of coal feeding, we
can end up with projecting large pieces of stone
into the bed and, therefore, it is very important
to take into account in the design of the bottom
end of the bed the means for removing oversized
material. There is always a great incentive to
improve the efficiency of the sulfur retention and,
during the course of the meeting, we've had some
interesting developments 'in the way of using
additives and, at the same time, there seems to be
a plea for better methods of predicting the behav-
ior of the additives. In the endeavors to Improve
combustion efficiency, we also have the scope, I
think, to improve the sulfur retention efficiency.
The Alliance plant In particular has demonstrated
that, by making better use of the freeboard and
recycling, there Is significant scope for improving
both sulfur and retention efficiency and combustion
efficiency. We are faced with a greater challenge
it seems as far as NOX emission is concerned. I
think it is inevitable when a new technology comes
along that the protagonists of the old technology
will do their best to make life difficult. We hear
of these burners which can reduce the NOX emission,
thereby Increasing the target that we've got to
meet with fluidized combustion; and so we hear
-------
B. R. Hoy
about two-stage combustion. Indeed, In order to
achieve efficient two-stage combustion, this can
possibly face us with some problems too. The other
technological issues that crop up in relation to
atmospheric pressure fluidized combustion concern
the removal of the solid residues* What can we do
about that to make it a simpler means and cost
less? Then the other side that is mentioned these
days is the question of design1 of tube banks to
minimize the stresses.
As far as fluidized combustion is concerned, it
is a title covering a range of systems — there's
no unique system — in the similar applications and
many versions will continue to emerge to meet
specific requirements. I think a feature of this
conference has been the solids circulation type of
equipment. We have had an interest, ourselves, in
that. At times this does seem to offer consider-
able advantages where there are a wide range of
fuels to'be burned, particularly from the point of
view of having a wide range of ash content or
mostly moisture content, ash content and size
consist. In the question of materials,. I think
since the last conference, the amount of operating
time for materials testing oust be quite consider-
able. I did a rough check; I think we must be
covered on the various rates, something like 15,000
hours between us on the point of view of obtaining
data on materials and I get the Impression there is
cause for cautious- optimism.. . We-were ,a .bit sur-
prised to find, after, our Intial .thoughts on
fluidized combustion and all its benefits, that
there could be corrosion problems, and I think we
can see that we do have the materials that are
likely -to give the sorts of life we want. • But,
above all, this needs to be proved. I think there
is significant confidence to proceed anyways at the
moment and I hope there won't.be any delay in
authorizing the beginning of the longer term tests
so that there are no excuses later on which would
reduce the rate of the assimilation of this know-
ledge into commercial plants.
Now I turn to the pressurized fluidized combus-
tion and I. think as far as pressurized fludldized
combustion is concerned, it has been quite a
notable year or so. I think that the data obtained
on the rigs has given us greater optimism as to the
possibility that the combustion gases can be
cleaned to the extent that is necessary. Gas tur-
bines operate satisfactorily that have reasonably
'low inlet temperatures, say about 1400°P, perhaps
even 1SOO°F, and It should be possible to get good
life out of the blades. But again, this is some-
thing' that will need to be proved, and the sooner
we can have gas turbines of a reasonable size
operating with pressurized fluidized beds, the
sooner we shall know whether we can exploit to the
full, the combustion system. Now, as far as
pressurized fluidized combustion Is concerned,
there is a lot of work remaining in making sure
• that the cyclones perform satisfactorily and to
their optimum conditions. I think It is one thing
to have a train of cyclones working under optimum
conditions on the test rigs and another thing to
make sure that they are -going to do this in the
field, particularly if there are parallel groups
of them. And there is a need, of course, for
development of Instrumentation which will detect
when the cyclones are not functioning properly, so
that the necessary corrections can be adopted.
In the interest of time, I will not dwell at
great lengths upon the various other aspects of
development for pressurized fluidized combustion.
It is a system, of course, which achieves high
combustion efficiency and the sulfur retention
efficiency and NOX emission levels are a slight
improvement over the non-pressurized. But, again,
there la scope for improvement, just as there is
scope for Improvement in the ability to use a wider.
range of coal,' from the point of view of minimizing.
coal preparation costs. I think we have obtained a
lot of data for operation under the steady states
and the main means now is to obtain more informa-
tion on the ways to improve start-up, load follow-
ing abilities, and data for the transient condi-
tions.
It has been a very worthwhile occasion and I'd
like to congratulate the organizers of the confer-
ence and thank them for inviting me. Let me take
this opportunity to remember some of those who have
contributed greatly to the technology,.but didn't
quite finish the course. In particular, there is
Douglas Elliott, who started in the game before
most of us, although he didn't know he had at that
time; and then across in the United States, the
pioneering team of Pope, Evans and Robbins had John
Bishop; who was a great engineer; and:I'd'Just like.
to pay my respects to them. . Thank, you for inviting
me- and congratulations on "a 'good 'conference.'
Steven I. Freedman - Session Chairman
Our next speaker is Manville May field from the
Tennessee Valley Authority, who will address us
from the perspective of the group that is engaged
in building a utility acale plant. With expcecta-
tions of building their 200 and then, hopefully, at
a later date, a full 800 megawatt scale commercial
plant. Be should have some very good insights as
to what benefits his group has obtained from this
conference to aid them in their, endeavor.
Manville Mayfleld — The Utility Uaer
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Looking at the viewpoint of commercialization
and the development of fluidized bed combustion
from the utility standpoint. It seems pretty clear
that from a commercial standpoint, obviously,
further development is going to be necessary. The
use of the pilot plant demonstration concepts where•
you're talking about I OX scale-ups, seems to be the-
prudent, route and the direction that will probably
be followed by utility Industry. Obviously, from
the conference, there is considerable interest in
both pressurized fluidized combustion and atmos-
pheric fluidized bed combustion.. The atmospheric.
fluidized bed combustion offers the advantages of
simplicity^ while the pressurized fluidized bed
combustion offers cycle efficiency and size reduc-
tion as some of its major advantages. Nevertheless,
I think that with the need in the U.S. and in the
world, to burn coal more efficiently, we need to
65
-------
M. Mayfield
pursue the commercialization of fluidized bed
technology as rapidly as is practical and prudent.
We, representing at least one utility, has set this
as a goal, to provide our management with the
option of using fluidized bed combustion as an
alternative for future generating capacity.
When 1 look back at the progress that has been
made since the Fifth International Conference two
years ago, it - is pretty obvious that some rather
major improvements and developments have taken
place. As Raymond Hoy mentioned, there have been
some considerable commitments on the part of indus-
trial and utility users for additional facilities,
pilot plants, industrial scale units and major
improvements in the R & D sector. Another obvious
point is the interest and activity that has been
evidenced by the people who have attended this con-
ference in the international sector, certainly in
the United Kingdom and Germany. In other parts of
the world, particularly In the Peoples Republic of
China, it was very obvious that there is a great
deal of work going on and that there is a lot of
international interest in•this field. I'd like to
take Just a moment and discuss what I view as the
major issues that apply to the utility application
of fluidized bed combustion. The first point that I
would like to make is that equipment performance
and long term reliability is an important need and
one that has got to be addressed in the operation
of pilot plant and test scale facilities. Kurt
Teager, in the keynote address that he presented,
pointed out the importance of unit availability;
and certainly this is an important factor when you
consider the utility needs and the performance
requirements of a utility boiler. Design optimiza-
tion is another area of considerations such as use
of carbon burn-up cell vs. recycle, velocity, dust
loading, bed depth. These factors still have not
been completely optimized and need further work
towards their development. Methods of control is
another area — load following. Instrumentation,
the type of instrumentation, whether you use
bed-slumping or whether you go to multiple beds for
control ~ seems to be an area that has to be
addressed further. Raymond Hoy mentioned materials
of construction. I think certainly the results are
encouraging and promising, but I think we have to
keep this area in front of our attention and make
sure that we are developing the information needed
to properly select materials for this use. Then,
of course, the other multitude of information that
the engineering designer needs for such factors as
heat transfer, controlled emissions, combustion
efficiency, recycle rates, coal and limestone
particle size — these are all important factors
that we need better Information developed on.
- I would like to take just a moment and mention
the subject of what I call the advanced atmospheric
fluidized bed combustion concept, basically the
fast circulating beds: Designs of such systems for
utility applications haven't been fully developed.
The approaches offer some rather important and In-
teresting possibilities for utility boiler designs.
The Improved sulfur catcher, lower NOX emissions
possible with two-stage combustion, the ability to
turn down these units, improved combustion effi-
ciency — all offer attractive possibilities and I
think should be pursued as rapidly and effectively
as possible. We need better information on the
economics of this approach, and there are studies
underway to help determine and get a better handle
on this factor.
I'd like to now just go through a series of
comments that. various people from our group have
picked up and noted as being possible points of
interest that have come out of this conference.
Raymond Hoy mentioned soae of these, so I'll prob-
ably be repeating some of his comments. Certainly
the question of two-stage combustion to improve
NOX control that was noted by Battelle seems to
be a significant point. The fact that fluidized
bed spent sorbent will likely not be classified as
a hazardous waste material certainly Is Important
to the utility industry. Westinghouse reported
high corrosion rates on the pressurized fluidized
combustion rig, but on the other hand, Curtis-
Wright reported acceptable rates. So, I think the
jury is still out In this area, but there are very
encouraging results from the data that I have seen
on the performance and the applications of direct
fired turbines using a pressurized fluidized bed
combu'stor. Curtis-Wright -reported that they
believed to have worked out an acceptable control
scheme for their PFBC system. This is certainly an
important area that needs careful review. The
concept for fast circulating.beds reported- by
Battelle which has improved load following capa-
bilities is noteworthy. In the area of modeling,
the assupmtlons are still being questioned and
debated in the technical papers. It seems very
obvious that additional experimental data is needed
to verify the results of these models. A good
example are things like coal devolitlzatlon, flue
models, bubble growth and similar type mathematical
calculations. The use of ceramic bag filters for
PFBC, apparently received a very good rating and
looks like it may be an acceptable route. It
certainly has had some encouraging results and
offers the possibility of an acceptable way of hot
gas clean-up. I think it was significant that some
of the speakers noted that atmospheric fluidized
bed combustion appears to meet all of the projected
emission standards that have been set forth and
that the ability to meet those that may be promul-
gated In the future by Improved performance in
these units seems to be a particular matter. There
is some concern for Che use of slumped beds as a
load following technique. I think this needs
further consideration. The possibility of caking
or of a layer on the top of a slumped bed is going
to, I think., require some further technology devel-
opment or operating means to prevent this from hap-
pening if this technique is used. Fluidyne reported
that, depending on the coal type used, It may or
may not be necessary to use recycle as a means for
achieving high combustion efficiency. Apparently
the coal types — some coals are'very fact burning
and achieve high combustion efficiency, while
others seem to be slower burning and require re-
cycle to get the sufficient combustion time — vary
greatly. John Stringer indicated that he felt very
strongly that the test data on corrosion that we
have seen on the 2000-4500 hour time frame should
be extrapolated to longer times with considerable
caution. He was urging 10,000 hour or longer time
66
-------
M. Mayfield
frames for corrosion testing* Battelle work for
TVA showed that •there was significantly less
corrosion from fluidized bed combustion ash then
compared to that of a conventional pulverized coal
fired boiler. It would certainly seem obvious that
ASTM and ASME test procedures and standards need to
be developed so that the convection pass can be
properly designed to withstand the erosion charac-
teristics of the higher dust loadings that we are
talking about with recycled configurations. I
thought another significant point was the Fluidyne,
and this has been confirmed by a considerable
number of sources, information that one feed point
per 18 square feet seems to be adequate to achieve
good distribution of the coal and still achieve a
min
-------
D. HcKee
of viewpoints; certainly operating and maintenance
costs are part of the picture. So fluid bed
boilers must compete on an economic as well as an
operational basis with conventional technology. We
have a lot of experience with coal burning. We
know how clinkers are formed. We have experienced
fires in hoppers and have gone through all the
problems in coal handling systems: cold coal, wet
coal, first in transport lines, etc. We hope the
designs that are evolving will use the best of
those technologies to minimize their impact on
fluldized bed technology. It is my assessment of
the literature and the work reported today that the
technical power is out there to do the job. I have
no doubt that you can build a reliable boiler that
can make steam as well as a conventional coal fired
unit. I don't chink we are there yet, we need
proven reliable service in an industrial environ-
ment to put us in the position of being a buyer.
By that, I mean.8300 hours of continuous operation
with load swinging capability. I think in the next
five years, we are going to be there. By then,
there will be some units on line long enough that
we can make some evaluations.
To summarize what I have heard here, I can say
that I was surprised to hear of the activity in
China. I was surprised by the magnitude of the
effort. I think I need more information to decide
what the 2000 units figure really means. But, it
was encouraging that there is a-long term commit-
ment in that country. I think our second genera-
tion fluid bed units are starting to appear. We
have gone through our first iterations and Have
learned some things. Now we are starting to put
our thoughts together and coming up with a second
generation that is more reliable. I am encouraged
by the work abroad in Finland, Denmark and England.
I think a meeting of this sort is essential to get
people together. I am sure that the conversations
which occur in the halls and over the bars are as
important and that is what we need to make this
technology go forward. The trends I see coming are
good. We are evolving toward units that realize
that deeper beds have certain inherent advantages
such as lower velocities. Improved carbon utiliza-
tion has been keynoted as a goal which must be
achieved. The higher sulfur retentions with lower
calcium to sulfur molar ratios is to our advantage.
I think we are seeing a merging of our efforts
and we are getting a direction. We can see the
goal line a little more clearly than five years ago
and I think we are going to be In time to meet the
market situation. Our economics are difficult to
assess at this time. We need better economics from
the vendors to make the hard-line decisions which
we need to make. The work that Exxon and Westing-
house have done in the past is quite helpful In
describing the economics as we know them; but as in
any evolving technology, you never know what the
costs will be until you get the manufacturing
facilities set up and you are mass producing. I an
sure the costs will come down with time, but it is
encouraging that the early estimates make this
technology competitive both from an Investment and
an operating standpoint. Its advantages far out-
weigh its disadvantages. It is ripe for development
and I'm hopeful that your efforts succeed.
Thank you.
Steven I. Freedman - Session Chairman
Thank you, Dave. Our next speaker is Dr. Vagn
Kollerup from B. W. Damp, who will give us his
impressions from the Scandinavian viewpoint.
Vagn Kollerup — The Scandanavian Viewpoint
B. W. Damp
VIrum, Denmark
I shall try to give my impression as seen from a
Scandinavian viewpoint. We have learned at this
conference that fluidized bed combustion is a
system that works. The main interest that we have
in that system is due to the fact that for the
first time, we have a system that can burn all
solid fuels and this is of special interest to
countries where we have to import most of our fuels
from varying parts of the world. We get coal from
Australia, Africa, Canada, Poland and Russia and
this fuel is of varying qualities. If you build
plants for coal burning, It Is difficult to find
one that will burn all these fuels. Here the
fluidized bed will win. We have seen that Finland
is building commercial plants using the FB system.
It burns wood waste, bark waste, and will also burn
coal. In Sweden, they have built plants for
burning household waste and wood waste. In Denmark,.
plants have been built for burning coal and wood'
waste. Both of those plants are used for district
heating systems.
How does-the future look? I would tell .you how
the energy situation is in our country. -All our
energy consumption is Imported from outside — 991.
The house heating portion is about 40Z of all our
•energy. It is produced in oil fired plants. How
can we replace oil in this area? We have a so
called heating plan for the whole country; it shows
that in 15 years, the district heating system will
be raised 50Z. In Denmark, there are 400 of these
stations and the installations are in the five to
ten megawatts range, some a little larger. Here we
see a great opportunity to use the fluidized bed
system. The first station we have built is a five
megawatt unit and we have an order for a ten
megawatt unit. Those stations are built in a
completely commercial way. There is no outside
support from anyone.
My conclusion is that development of atmospheric
fluidized bed plants in large scale will take some
years and demand risk-willing capital. The smaller
scale test and pilot plants make scaling possible
to sites which are suitable for district heating
plants and smaller.power stations. The result of
the system's low emission rate is that they can be
placed near towns and allows the use of coal and
wood waste without environmental problems.
Thank you.
Steven I. Freedman - Session Chairman
Continuing with our panel, Professor Shigekatsu
Mori from the Nagoya Institute of Technology will
give use the viewpoint from Japan and Asia.
68
-------
S. Mori
Shigekacsu Mori — The Asian Viewpoint
Nagoya Institute of Technology
Nagoya, Japan
Every country In Asia has a different situation.
I would like to focus on the Japanese situation on
the development of fluidized bed combustion proj-
ects. There are probably many people looking at my
country as one of their best markets. In 1976 only
two million tons, of domestic coal were supplied in
Japan and about 60 million tons were Imported.
About 96Z of the Imported fuel was metallurgical
coal. Just 2.5 million tons of steam coal were
imported. In 1990 more than 15 million tons of
coal will be used by power generation-plants and
more coal will be used in industrial boilers. This
estimate may Increase in the future. This 13 one
area of potential for the development of FBC.
Among our neighboring countries, we can find five
major coal producers: the U.S., U.S.S.R., China,
Australia, and India. Most of the steam coal will
be Imported from these countries, however, it is
difficult to identify the types and amounts of coal
which will be Imported In the future. New processes
which have the flexibility to use any type of coal
should be developed in Japan. The flexibility of
FBC is recognized as its greatest advantage.
The environmental regulations in Japan must be
the most restrictive in the world. The development
target for NOZ emission control from fluidized
.' bed . combustion la recognized to be just 50ppm in
Japan. Just a few years ago, this level seemed
impossible to achieve by FBC. In the-last few
years, progress has -been made and this target has'
almost -been reached. The next step is the SOX
control problem and the ash utilization problem
both originating from the waste disposal problem.
" This is the reason why the limestone once-thru
process was not available In Japan. We should
develop a regeneration process and also new aor-
bents will be required. These should be developed.
The problem Cor ash disposal Is more critical. If
20 million tons of steam coal is imported, this
means at least 2 million tons of coal ash is also
imported into our limited country. The problem of
accumulation of ash is very critical. Utilization
of this ash is a problem for any industry using
coal fired technology in Japan.
Today we are under construction of a pilot plant
of five megawatts. Our program is a little behind
your country. We would like to -exchange more
Information with your' country through meetings of
this type. 'I hope that at the next confernece,
more papers will be.presented from Japan.
.Thank you.
Steven I. Freedman - Session Chairman
It Is good to know that not- -only is there an
energy crisis worldwide, but that the solutions to
this crisis are also worldwide. The next speaker
Is Dr. Johann Batsch from KFA, where he Is involved
in the German fluidized bed combustion program. We
have heard about several of the operating units
and it would be valuable to hear the benefits he
has obtained from this conference.
Johann Batsch — The Continental Viewpoint
Kernforschungsanlage
Julich, Federal Republic of Germany
I believe that I have to confine myself to the
German viewpoint. As.I alredy mentioned in my
paper on Tuesday, it is the main intention of our
energy research program to promote the development
of technologies which can contribute to"the future
supply of energy for our country In economically
favorable and environmentally acceptable ways.
Technologies which can reduce dependence on. oil
and natural gas take high priority in this pro^
gram. In this respect technologies for increased
efficiency and utilization of coal are of special
importance. Coal is the only domestic energy
source which Is available In large quantities
In Germany. The development of coal gasifica-
tion and liquificatlon processes can make con-
tributions only on a long term basis. Improvements
and developments in the area of direct combustion
is necessary to make progress on a short term
basis.
A considerable amount of the primary energy
demand in our country is being consumed in the
generation of process heat and low temperature heat
for space heating. In this area, oil and gas are
being used at the present time. Atmospheric FBC
enables the Increased use of coal for these purr
poses because this technology enables one to burn
coal in small units and is environmentally accep-
table with automatic operation. It has been shown
during this conference that the commercial applica-
tion of AFBC Is possible in the near future. At
least commercialization is anticipated for smaller
units used for heat generation. • Some facilities
of this size are already in operation in this
country and in Europe. The difficulties encount-
ered in the operation of these plants are mainly
due to conventional parts. The fluidized bed
combustion itself works satisfactorily in these
plants. Increasing combustion efficiency seems
to be the only technical problem which must be
overcome for the FBC process. The successful work
in AFBC In China has to be mentioned at this
point.
The prior technology of circulating fluidized
bed combustion will gain special importance in the
future. The reasons for this are: 1) The advan-
tages of CFBC with respect to environmental protec-
tion are greater with this technology. - 2) Some
problems in conventional FBC can be avoided with
the circulating FBC. 3) Combustion efficiency is
Improved. 4) The bed area per megawatt .is reduced.
S) Sensitive-control of heat transfer is possible.
In these ways, the CFBC seems to have a wider range
of applications than does conventional FBC. Circu-
lating fluidized .bed combustion, can be. developed in
a shorter time than pressurized fluidized bed
combustion because there are no problems.with
feeding solids into a pressure vessel. There is
already a lot of experience with.CFBC in large
chemical process plants. For combined heating and
power generation, CFBC seems to be an attractive
option, the added efficiency of PFBC is of minor
importance. There is a growing International
interest in this technology.
69
-------
J. Batsch
This conference has explored the use of pres-
surized fluidized bed combustion in power genera-
tion where the higher efficiency makes better use
of coal where it IB expensive. It has been shown
that much work Is still to be done both on the
combustion process Itself as well as the auxiliary
equipment used in this system. We have heard that
progress has been made with respect'to hot gas
clean-up. There is also progress in gas turbine
development. Although these results are promising,
much remains to be done before a solution to these
problems can be reached. It seems important to
pursue this work as efficiency will be valuable in
the future when costs of fuel will rise.
Thank you.
Steven I. Freedman - Session Chairman •
The last speaker will be Bill Reid. Bill
Reid has been active in the technology devel-
opment of all of the coal combustion technologies.
As the coal combustion developer, he can give us
some perspective on this latest technology and how
development is progressing.
W. T. Reid — The Coal Combustion Developer
Consultant
Columbus, Ohio
It seems that on fluidized bed combustion, we
are on the very bottom of the learning curve. That
curve started about a quarter million years ago
when Peking man found he could get fire from wood.
We know that If we put a lump of coal in with
oxygen and raise the temperature enough the stuff
burns. . We don't use all the technology we should
in putting that Into some practical application.
The stokers of today were all invented in the early
part of the 19th century. It. wasn't until the
1920's that It was realized how coal burned in a
fuel bed. About 1934 the definitive work on how
carbon and oxygen react was done at MIT. There are
three steps included. What we don't know today is
how fluidized combustion reactions work internally.
We have done all our development on an empirical
engineering basis. In sitting in on the combustion
phenomenon sessions held here, I was upset to find'
only two papers that I heard with any real know-
ledge of what the combustion systems were that they
were working, with. I would suggest to the develop-
mental people that you read some of the older
literature, like the Institute on Fuel or the ASHE
Transactions. You may see some glimmer of ideas
that have not occurred to you as yet.
70
-------
PLENARY - 3
-THE CUSTOMER SPEAKS-
PANEL DISCUSSION
71
-------
PLENARY SESSION - 3
"THE CUSTOMER SPEAKS"
PANEL DISCUSSION
Shelton Ebrllch
Electric Power Research Institute
Palo Alto, California
[Mr. Ehrlich spoke using slides which are included
here in figures.]
When Arnold asked that I serve on this panel, I
said, "Yes, but under one condition — that you let
me oake a few introductory remarks because the
panel, in my view, represents three very distinct
interest areas and I want to have an opportunity to
distinguish between those areas. Hopefully the
audience, in listening to the different user
viewpoints will appreciate that some of the differ-
ences expressed result from differences in needs
and not necessarily in technological viewpoints.
The first difference I'd like to illustrate is
the difference between the industrial user, the
person who needs steam and some by-product power,
and the utility user (Figure 1). Obviously,
large difference in the users' needs makes for .
different set of technical specifications for
boiler. The profound difference in size between
typical industrial fluidized-bed boiler and even
small utility scale FB boiler can be a difference
in kind, not just degree (Figure 2). The bottom
line on this is that the industrial steam user puts
capital costs first and efficiency second in his
priorities. They are both, of course, very import-
ant. On the other hand an electric utility might
put efficiency (fuel costs) of the plant as the
first priority; the cost of electricity being the
bottom line for them. Probably, this arises from a
difference in the method of financing — equity
capital vs. borrowed money. So, I think the indus-
trial user and the utility user of steam generating
equipment will require different things from the
developer of a new combustion technology.
Now, there is a question that we're always asked
at EPRI and I'm sure everyone involved in flul-
dized-bed combustion has been asked — (Figure 3)
which is better, AFBC or PFBC? I have one stock
answer: Both? (Figure 4) Again, there is a
very profound difference in the two technical
approaches. A conventional pulverized coal power
plant (Figure 5) simply consists of'a boiler plant
and' a turbine plant. An atmospheric fluldized bed
would replace (Figure 6) the boiler plant, giving,
basically, a conventional, Rankine cycle steam
•electric power plant (Figure 7) in which the steam
supply is provided by an AFBC and the air pollution
function is performed by the limestone in the bed
Instead of an FGD unit. Now, no matter what
happens in the development of combined cycle
generation ~ no matter how effective it is «
large sectors of the electric utility industry, for
some long time, will insist on making .their elec-
tricity with the standard kind of electric power
plant and that will be the market for AFBC's.
Now let's look (Figure 8) at the pressurized
fluidlzed bed combustion system. It is somewhat
complicated because it's got a very profound need
to clean the gas and in the Figure 8 we show
cyclones to do this cleaning. .
First, at the combustion outlet, we start off
with lots of dust and the first cyclone takes out
some and then the next one takes out more dust, and
as It gets to the turbine, hopefully, it is not
equivalent to the' Arizona road dust test. (A
photograph of an Army tank in a dust cloud was
shown.) In order to make the turbine survive, we
have to get all the way down to practically pure
gas. So, we have a system, in combined cycle PFBC,
uniquely different from the AFBC system. The
second difference I want you to understand is that
the electric •utility industry which will use
steam-electricity power plants for a long time and
may use many combined cycle power plants will
probably use both if they are both developed.
There isn't any need to say which, AFBC or PFBC, is
better — they both are.
Thank you.
72
-------
FIGUE 1:
FLUIOIZED-BED COMBUSTION
DIFFERENCES IN USERS NEEDS
MAKE FOR DIFFERENCES IN
TECHNICAL "SPECIFICATIONS"
FIGURE 2:
Industrial Steam User
Capital cost and
efficiency
Difference
is in
method of
financing
Electric Utility
Efficiency and
capital cost
FIGURE 3:
QUESTION:
FIGURE 4:
ANSWER
Which is better
AFBC or PFBC7
Both!
73
-------
FIGURES:
THE CONVENTIONAL P.C. BOILER POWER PLANT
Boiler plant
J I Turbine plant |
FIGURE 6: THE CONVENTIONAL P.C. BOILER POWER PLANT
I Turbine plant |
74
-------
FIGURE 7:
THE AFBC-BOILER POWER PLANT
Boiler plant
Tuitoine plant
FIGURES:
THE PFBC COMBINED CYCLE
-------
S. Freedman
Steven I. Freedman
Department of Energy
Germantown, Maryland
The big question that I'd like to present now,
from the -government's viewpoint, is — Bow do we
get this nation and the entire world off of the
premium oil and gas fuels onto coal and other solid
fuels and other available fuels? All of these
fuels that are available are, in some regard or
another, a lower grade than oil and gas and are
more difficult to handle, burn and use in general,
including concern for the environment* So the
energy crisis, to a large extent, is a capital
crisis and I thank Arnie for introducing it with
the "E.F. Button talks" remark, because the key to
everything is bringing the costs down to the level
where the users can use coal and these other
domestically available fuels without incurring an
economic penalty that is beyond what the system can
bare with tolerance. I think we should keep in
mind that the fluid bed technology did start as a
low cost boiler: I think it is the entire solids
handling equipment for the coal fired power plant
which needs cost improvement. It is my hope that
we are able to manage this transition from premium
fuels to more difficult to handle fuels still
within the framework of the high standard of living
that we have due to the consequences of our high
energy use per capita, which Is the message.that
I'd Like to end up on. We've shown that things are
technically feasible and we're on the way to prov-
ing that the things which we can do are practical
and reliable. We've just about finished proving
Chat what we can do Is clean. The economic chal-
lenge is the real one for market penetration. " I
believe we have the ability to do it, but it
requires some good work, attention to detail and
knowing where the major leverages are and that's in
the capital costs of the balance of plants.
Thank you.
Robert Statnik
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
When I was put on a user panel, I was trying to
figure out how the EPA was a user, and finally I
decided that we're a user because of the SOZ and
NOX reduction potential that is associated with
fluldiced bed combustion. I agree with Steve in
the sense that, whether fluldiced bed combustion
makes a significant market penetration or not is
very much dependent upon the economic trade-offs
between its competing technologies, that is, SNG,
liquids derived from coal, as well as conventional
stoker fired boilers equipped with various types of
flue gas desulfurizatlon or air pollution control
equipment. So, in those lines, the regulations
which EPA writes do alter the market economics and.
in a sense, may either create a window in which
fluid combustion can make a market penetration or,
if the EPA makes the regulations too stringent, can
shut the door for FBC market penetration. Along
those lines, there are two regulations, one which
EPA is in the process of writing, and the other
which EPA has just recently promulgated that are
going to be important. In the utility boiler
standard of performance, we recognized the evolu-
tionary nature of FBC, especially AFBC, and wrote
an exemption to the 90Z sulfur reduction potential
component of that regulation which, with the coop-
eration of the Department of Energy, will apply to
FPB, SRCI and several of the other advanced tech-
nologies. There is a limited amount of generating
capacity that can be built which the sulfur reduc-
tion percentage would not be required to be 90Z —
I think SOZ reduction would be required, but they
would still be forced to comply with the 1.2 Ib/mil
BTO emission limit.
In the industrial boiler sector, we are current-
ly in the process of evolving an industrial boiler
standard of performance. From some of the prelimi-
nary economic studies we've done, depending again
on which way we write the regulation, we can either
create a very significant impetus for the installa-
lon of fluidiced bed systems or we can limit It. I
think that's the way I would perceive myself as a
user of the FBC technology.
R.C. Read
International Harvester Co.
Chicago, Illinois
Today I want to share with you my viewpoint with
regard to coal in general and fluldized bed combus-
tion in articular. International Harvester manufc-
tures a wide range of Industrial capital goods,
including turbo machinery, agricultural equipment,
construction equipment, and trucks. We are not an
energy intensive company; however, we are very
energy dependent. Small interruptions in Che sup-
ply of fuel cause rather significant disruptions to
our manufacturing operations. This dependency has
reinforced our belief in the necessity to have a
reliable source of fuel.
Our strategy with regard to management of energy
resources is Co concentrate very heavily on using
energy prudently. This emphasis on conservation is
augmented by our belief that deregulation Is Che
most efficient way to increase fuel supplies.
Notwithstanding the above emphasis on conservation
and policy, we believe and our internal energy
forecaat model shows that coal is the most favored
fuel NOW. Our index of the relative availability
versus cost supports Chis belief.
If coal is che most desirable fuel, why are we
not retrofitting our present facilities? The rea-
son is quite clear. In our view, che cost to
retrofit is prohibitive. ' Our estimate for retrofit
of existing facilities Is In excess of $100 mil-
lion. This investment will not provide one addi-
tional pound of steaming capacity or 1Z more
efficient use of energy. The $100 million is a
lot of capital and would be equivalent Co about
$4.5 billion additional sales or an Increase of 54Z
above our record 1979 performance. The difficulty
to recover that capital by the offsetcing benefit
in Che cost of coal versus the cost of imported oil
is such that retrofitting is not practical.
The problem chat we have in embracing fluidized
bed technology to the point of implementation
centers on our perception of the material handling
76
-------
R.C. Read
system being the weak link. Just Wednesday we
visited Georgetown, and while it appears that all
of the parts of that system work much better than
they did at Rivesvllle, I still am concerned that
the pneumatic conveying systems and the bucket hop-
pers are sources of unreliability and In general a
maintenance headache. The material handling system
needs to be simplified. I an not sure how you go
about transporting all that coal and limestone to
and from the fluldlzed bed combustor; however, the
transportation of natural gas or even No. 6 fuel
oil to the boiler, is not going to present anywhere
near the kind of maintenance problems you are
likely to experience with the fluidlzed bed com-
bustor. The point Is this: IB is not an energy
intensive Industry. We prefer to manufacture
capital goods and not steam. We are dismayed at
this point that FBC as a technology has received
lip service and favorable nods, but it has very few
hours of running time. I look at Georgetown as the
only example of something that works, albeit
partially. They claim to have 800 hours of running
time. This Is not representative of expected Indus-
trial operating conditions. I am not sure that even
8,760 hours of Georgetown would be representative
of industrial requirements; notwithstanding their
demand of 100,000 Ibs. per hour of steam.
Bow do we get there? In my view, there are
several impediments that should be addressed. I
believe the country has no energy policy. We have
laws that talk about deregulation, use of coal, and
conservation. We talk about conservation, yet we
have no conservation goal for each sector of -the
economy. We talk about deregulation and have
Incremental pricing. It appears that our national
leaders do not really believe we have an energy
crisis. If Indeed there were an energy crisis and
If Indeed we had an abundant supply of coal, then
coal ought to be the policy that we put forward and
make other things accommodate it. The impediments
to the development of the use of coal are environ-
mental concerns and economics. The use of demon-
stration projects to Illustrate the benefits of
emerging coal use technologies are only a partial
answer to stimulating the increased use of coal. A
more efficient stimulus would be via tax credits
for use of abundant fuels and development of
emerging technologies coupled with accelerated
depreciation.
The last point that I have to make is this:
If we believe that the development of coal is the
cornerstone of the energy policy In the United
States, then we should Insist upon and work to
develop the environmental laws and regulations that
are not a hindrance but rather an encouragement to
the further use of this abundant resource. • Thank
you very much.
David McKee
E.I. OuPont de Nemours, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware
I'll try not to repeat what I said earlier, but
I think all of us In the user comunlty have a lot
of questions and we don't have a lot of good
answers. There are a number of issues that the
vendors have to pay close attention to as far as
the industrial user is concerned and one of these
issues is maintenance of the equipment. We're firm
believers In Murphy's Law, that If It can break, it
will. Looking at the designs of the tube bundles,
I have some nightmares about how we're going to
replace those tubes if necessary in service.
Certainly the mechnanical handling equipment that
Ron just mentioned has been a nemesis of coal since
the first day It was shoveled Into the furnace.
So, I have the feeling that the vendor should tend
toward simplicity rather than complexity, minlmze
the transfer points, minlmze the number of times
you have to pick it up and lay it down and collect
It. But, in general, pay close attention to the
maintenance and the operabillty characteristics of
the equipment. It Is Important to us.
Paul Bobo
Mead Corporation
Dayton, Ohio
I am actually with the Mead Corporation, how-
ever, part of my activities relate to Mead Chemical
Systems which is a part of the Corporation. A
, significant portion of our business la the manufac-
ture of pulp and paper and related forrest industry
products, however, we also'have substantial busi-
nesses in other areas. We are a highly capital
intensive Industry and use large quantities of
energy. We utilize fuels of many types; coal,
natural gas, oil, wood wastes and chemicals which
are converted in the process of-burning.
There Is an expression that reminds me of the
hesitancy of most of us to utilize new technology;
"Never on Sunday." However, in this case it is
extended to "or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday,
or etc." Never be the first to use new major
equipment technology seems to be the posture; and
continuing: not very likely to be second, maybe
third, probably fourth, etc.
While I realize this is a bit exaggerated, I
believe it highlights an attitude that all of you,
in one form or another, have experienced in the
past and will experience in the future in • the
development and marketing of fluidlzed bed combus-
tion. As a user and as a participant in the
International marketing of new technology, I am
aware of the frustrations of the vendor and the
needs of the user.
The preceding is baaed upon valid concerns of a
potential user of fluidlzed bed combustion, sys-
tems. I would like to be more specific and Identi-
fy some areas that are important to our Industry
and require "actual practice validation." It must
be remembered that we are not in business to
produce steam or electric power, we are in business
to produce other products. Our primary focus from
the standpoint of capital investment, management,
equipment union negotiations, training, mainten-
ance, etc. is on the end products and not on steam
and electric power.
1. A wide operating load range capability.
This is very important.
77
-------
F. Bobo
2. Fast response to load change. We have many
things that occur in our production pro-
cesses that necessitate this capability.
3. High reliability. While this could be iden-
tified as "another motherhood item" I would
like to relate to it in further detail, if
we have the opportunity to do so later in
these discussions.
4. Low maintenance requirements and low number
and length of periodic overhauls. We are a
continuously operating industry with very
few non—operating days per year.
5. Simplicity of maintenance. Our maintenance
people are primary maintenance people for
the pulp and paper equipment and maintain
little expertise in the power areas.
6. Simplicity of operation. Our power depart-
ment people are basically pulp and paper
people who have moved thru, seniority
provisions, from and to the production
departments.
7. Capabiltiy of multi-fuel firing. Our in-
dustry is utilizing more wood waste in
combination with coal or gas or oil for
economic reasons.
If we have more time during this session, I-would
like to expand on some of the points that were
covered, during this short period.
Thank you.
Bruno Brodfeld
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation
Boston, Massachusetts
As an architect engineer, Stone and Webster is,
in a sense, an organization in the middle — Inter-
acting with the users, with the vendors, with the
regulators, with the Department of Energy and its
funding programs. We have had the opportunity to
understand some of the barriers that have been
discussed, and I think if we had to reduce to a
single most important reason why the users hesitate
to adopt on a commercial basis fluidized bed com-
bustion, it is the hesitation to be the "first."
The indusry practice is to count on reliability
and the only way to determine reliability Is to
look at pieces of hardware that are already in
operation. So, how do we cross this bridge? One
thing to consider is that we have a technology that
not only the vendors, but a lot of well informed
people, believe has reached the standard of early
commercialization. On the other hand, we have the
large user community that is hesitant to apply it.
To overcome this hesitation, more government
support through well-conceived Industrial demon-
stration programs is needed. I think a great dis-
service was done to the commercialization process
by emphasizing the fact that AFB is a commercial
technology at this time and that commercial war-
ranties are being offered to vendors. In our view,
even if commercial warranties are offered, and
indeed they are offered by some vendors, the weight
that they carry is considerably less than the
weight carried by warranties for proven commerical
equipment. In the latter case, the warranties have
behind them long-term experience and background.
In the former case, there is very little experi-
ence, if any, and very•little -background, if any,
to support the warranties.
How can we call them both commercial warranties
when' they are so different? " This is more than a
semantics matter; it has to. do with the support
that is still needed from the Department of Energy
and the government. By calling this • technology
commercial at this time, in effect DOE has decided
that there may be no need or justification for fur-
ther support of this technology. We think that this
is a basic mistake. 'In our view, this technology
still needs support. We're all convinced that it
has potentially great merits for this reason..
We think that support is needed in two ways:
first, regulatory support, as Bob was saying
before, EPA can create windows for this technology.
Second, DOE support through the PON Program for
commercial development and demonstration•should be
resurrected as soon as possible with one additional
provision: In discussing cost-sharing with indus-
trial users, emphasis must be placed not only on
the cost of the AFB facility itself, but also on
-the cost of possible retrofits, should they become
necessary. This Is a realistic consideration In
any-prudent management approach. We have seen more
than one -case' where a major industrial user had
determined, that they -believed in this technology.
and their projections for the economics of the
system were favorable. They wanted to participate
in the program, but a -stumbling block, In their
view, was that the cost sharing should have been
applied not only to the cost of the facility
itself, but also to possible retrofits, if any.
This would have given them the assurance that the
risks had been minimized as much as possible.
So, to summarize my comments, if, as a country,
we believe that this technology Is good, and that
it will enhance the utilization of coal, we have to
continue to support It, through our regulators and
through the Department of Energy. It is only
through such continued support that we will find
those few industrial organizations that will build
the first major AFB plants In the range of 100,000
to 500,000 Ib steam/hour, which will be the con-
vincing place of evidence that the rest of the
industry needs to move forward.
Andrew L. Jacob
American Electric Power Service Corporation
New York, New York
Coal Utilization is nothing new to AEP. Last
year almost 84Z of our total 100-billion kilowatts
of generation was from coal. In fact, AEP mined
almost one-third of our total coal burn of 38 mil-
lion tons last year. Utilizing our coal resources
most efficiently, with a reasonably minimal envi-
ronmental impact, is of prime Importance at AEP.
Developing technology to meet this task is also
78
-------
A. L. Jacob
nothing new to AEP. Since the early I920's AEP has
been a pioneer of new technology for the utility
Industry. When first evaluating FBC systems in
1976, we decided that PFBC offered the potential to
meet our coal utilization goals.
In evaluating any new technology, we as a
utility look at a number of aspects. These Include:
current state of the technology, flexibility with
respect to coal type, environmental aspects, system
complexity, operability, potential reliability and
economic projections. A technology that uses a
maximum amount of commercially available hardware
is favored. This is because operabillty and main-
tainability are extremely Important to an electric
utility. Operabillty requires that a technology
have a fairly wide load control range, at good
efficiency, in order to meet the daily requirements
of the electric load. Systems that are familiar to
our operators and maintenance people simplify plant
operation which leads to greater reliability. New
technology should have a higher efficiency than
current technology. This is most easily accom-
plished by the direct combustion of coal. Further-
more, projected capital and operating costs for new
technologies should be Less In order to provide a
buffer which may be used up In trying to develop
the technology. Of course, the new technology
should be environmentally suitable.
We believe that the AEP-STAL-Level PFBC Program
considers all these aspects. The state of the
technology has been significantly advanced by the
excellent results from our experiments at the DOB
sponsored Leatherhead 1000 hour test. As -we learned
this week, both GE and Curtis Wright experiments
yielded similar results. Our commercial plant
design utilizes a mMimm amount of commercially
available hardware. Key components such as the
cyclone hot gas clean-up system and GT-120 gas tur-
bine are commercial hardware. The combustor design
has gone through three years of iteration and
has had the benefit of four independent companies
review.. Auxiliary systems are a key consideration
at this point in time. Systems such as coal feed-
ing and ash removal show promise of good perfor-
mance; but in our program, we will be building a
Component Test Facility (CTF) to evaluate their
performance In a totally integrated facility.
AEP and-our partners are looking forward to
commercialize this technology by 1986 by having In
operation at that time a 170 HW commercial size
PFBC plant. Our test results and those of others
presented during this conference seem to be favor-
able towards this end. I was particularly pleased
to learn of the good results from the EPRI spon-
sored bag filter tests. These devices will be
Important for second generation PFBC"3 when we will
pursue even higher efficiencies.
While we have gone very far in the development
of an efficient and economical PFBC plant there are
those who would like to turn the clock back. I am
referring to one concept which proposes to use a
much lower gas turbine Inlet temperature, well
below that at which the excellent test results were
achieved. Clearly, there is no technical reason to
take such a step backward at this time. The cost
and effiency advantages of PFBC with a moderate gas
turbine inlet temperature would not be realized
and future technological advances would be substan-
tially delayed. An evaluation of such a concept,
based on each of the aspects I mentioned earlier,
would not support going forward. We, as a utility,
would not be Interested In this concept.
In summary, we believe the technology has made a
quantum Jump this past year towards the goal of
commercialization of PFBC by the mid-80'3 and AEP
is proud of its role. With the continued efforts
and aid of industry, and government a commercial
size PFBC plant with a moderate inlet temperature
will be realized by the mld-1980's.
Thank you.
Jack Apel
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company
Columbus, Ohio
. Jusc a few. I think we're behind schedule. From
my own personal perspective, let me say that, on a
priority basis, first of all we expect to use coal
as we already do. On a priority basis, I would look
to 'coal cleaning as my first priority, prior to
combustion. The second priority is during combus-
tion and third priority Is after. So, fluidized
bed is in the "during combustion" and that is
second in my priorities. However, currently avail-
able technology does not go far enough on the coal
cleaning side, so combustion rapidly moves'to the
front in that standpoint. I'd rather not spend too
much time from a- utility perspective further than
that, because -both Bob and Andy will have view-
points similar to mine,- I'm sure, as far as utility
use is concerned. But I thought that you might be
interested in the program that the State of Ohio
has on fluidized bed and how that came about. The
Governor of the State of Ohio, in the spring of
1977, was faced with quite a few problems: losing
coal markets, that Is coal production, losing
industries to other states. He formed a committee
of a number of people from a wide cross section of
areas of interest and charged that committee with
seeking out all of the available technologies and
recommending to him what Ohio should do. In that
process, the committee looked at a wide number of
technologies and it did recommend to him, in I
think about the fall of 1977, that a demonstration
of fluidlzed bed combustion would be the nearest
available option to the State of Ohio. I think by
January of 1978, they had entered Into a contract
with Babcock Contractors and they began construc-
tion of a retrofit 60,000 Ib/hr boiler at the
Central Ohio Psychiatric Hospital. That unit is
in its final construction stages and initial start-
up stages right now. That doesn't mean that it is
the answer, but the Governor felt compelled to show
Industry and put state dollars into it. From the
standpoint of where or how to do it, it probably is
not in exactly an ideal location. It is a retrofit
and while the economics may not be very good, it
does prove that you can do a retrofit. I can't.
think of any more difficult a place to try to put a
boiler in than that particular Installation. It Is
very constrained as far as access, old equipment
and actively operating equipment right beside it.
79
-------
J. Apel
Nevertheless, I've followed chat very closely
through the construction stages. When you stand
back and look ac It through and compare it with
some of the other technologies — sure you have the
FB there, but almost all of the components from a
power generating standpoint are familiar, they are
not that different, and I don't chink that relia-
bility is going to be such a terrible problem. It
is going to be a problem — I see it everyplace I
have'looked — getting the necessary operator level
of skills. How "to do that? I've heard several
other speakers say they want to do it with their
existing operators and I'm not sure that this
technology will tolerate that. I think we're going
co have to have a whole generation with a whole
different attitude toward operation and the main-
tenance from the former type of plant operation and
that's going to take time. That's going to be a
hindrance. I'll leave it at that.
Robert E. Uhrig
Advanced Systems and Technology
Florida Power and Light Company
Miami, Florida
There is a recent book out entitled, Quality is
Free. The thesis of this book is that the cost of
failure is so high in terms of customer dissatis-
faction, consequential- damages, increased cost or
health and safety effects or even the survival of
the organization, that you simply can't afford a
defective product. Mow without arguing the point,
I would indicate that some of the public service
commissions are now penalizing utilities who have
expensive, high-performance systems such as nuclear
and coal plants, that have low availability and low
reliability performance. I would submit to you
that fluidized bed systems will fall into that
same category once they are commercialized, and
Chat quality and reliability will be an equally
important consideration there. So I'd like to
spend my remaining time talking about the quality
programs.
Quality programs, began before World War II
simply as a means of meeting customer saclsfaccion.
During the war, we had ships chat broke in half,
torpedoes that went under the ship or sometimes
over them, guns chat didn't fire. So we began what
is called today "failure analysis" — finding out
what went wrong. We began to identify those com-
ponents that failed and concentrate on improving
the reliability of those units. We continued
through the military and space programs with such
ideas as "zero defects" and "error-free perform-
ance," with a special application, of course, to
the Apollo and Saturn programs, where we had so few
such units that we couldn't test out enough of them
before we had to put them into service. The ulti-
mate application was the nuclear power plants, the
nuclear navy, and now the commercial nuclear
program.
We really have two kinds of programs in the
quality area. There is a commercial program, which
is justified primarily because of the cost reduc-
tions. Then there is the regulatory program, where
the health, safety and welfare of the public is at
stake. I'd like to characterize these two very
quickly. In the commercial program, a defect or a
non-performance may be an option. In the regula-
tory program, it is not an option. In the commer-
cial program, the emphasis is primarily on the
prevention of failure with less emphasis on testing
and inspection. In the case of the regulatory
program, inspection and testing is a very critical
part of the program. In the commercial program,
you have no Independent third party audit unless
you specifically request it as a means of identify-
ing failure. In Che case of a regulatory program,
there is an extensive third party audit wich a
rigorous quality assurance and quality control
program developed within the organization. In the
case of a commercial program, proof 'of the program
simply relies upon the performance of the equip-
ment. In the regulatory program, extensive detailed
documentation- is needed ~ basically, a paper trail
on all aspects of the program. Finally, the
penalty for non-performance in a commercial program
is usually Increased costs or customer unhapp'iness.
In a regulatory program, there are fines, the
regulatory organization can shut down your plant,
in addition to your probable increase in costs and
unhappy customers. The difference is usually a
factor of two or, more often, three in the costs of
the programs.
In conclusion, I would simply say that the FBS
are high performance systems; they are complex and
they are expensive and you're going Co have to have
an adequate quality program that Incorporates the
pertinent aspects of both of these systems, what I
would call an augmented commercial quality program,
In order co commercialize fluidized beds.
Thank you.
80
-------
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS/COMMENTS
Q: Jack Warden, TRW
I've got a question for Jack Apel. What Is the
current status of your Pickway demonstration
and of the Ohio Coal Tax?
A. Jack Apel
Well, that was part of the overall program that
the governor had. The Ohio Coal Tax originally
was passed with a sliding scale on the sulfur
content of the fuel and the low sulfur coals
were penalized. That was taken to court and it
was defeated as a tax. The moneys from that
would have supported several other demonstra-
tions and they still will. There is a new coal
tax in the legislature. Its passage la eminent-
There are one or two legislators who have
questions. The tax Is put down as a research
and development tax and the legislature ques-
tions the research part of it, because they
don't think there is more research necessary
and. nobody has really defined for them what
development or demonstration means. But that's
really what the State of Ohio and the Ohio
Department of Energy means, is to put on
demonstrations. The Pickway demonstration was
one of four projects that were initially
proposed. Here we have an old power plant.
We've agreed to shut down two old units that
are about 3SMG size in June of 1980 with EPA
because of lack of controls, and they are at
the end of their economic life as far as the
boiler is concerned. However, the turbine
generators are not in bad shape. There were
six previous units that were in this building
and they are gone. The boilers have been
removed, so there is very wide open space. The
coal handling system is still there; it uses
Ohio coal and the remaining unit has an emis-
sion limit that would not restrict the coal.
So, it would have a ready supply. In other
words, it's a Reesvllle without the problems of
Reesvllle.
Q: (Name inaudible)
I have a comment and it may be interpreted as a
question. Many of the panelists here mentioned
that the basic problem in the commercialization
of fluldized bed combustion technology is
reliability. The reliability can be obtained
on any engineering plant in two different ways.
One way which Is very well known, just operate
It, when It goes wrong, correct It and start
operating again without worrying about how the
wrong occurred or what caused It. The second
aspect of this Is to understand, and actually
this was expressed in the morning session, what
goes on In the fluidized bed from the mechanism
point of view, from the scientific point of
view. A large community of university profes-
sors agree with me, and I'm sure I am speaking
for them, chat not only the Department of
Energy, but also the industry gives very
little cooperation other than lip service, in
supporting the research. I am sure I am
speaking for a large number of professors
sitting here that in order to accomplish this
concern of reliabilities in marketing, we
should be given due support, something similar
to what we had when the space industry began.
A: Shelton Ehrlich
I think that EPRI will answer the question
because it does support and so does the Depart-
ment of Energy, but I'm In charge of the
university research on fluidized bed combustion
at EPRI. We do as much as we need. Our
problem today is that we don't know how the
system Is going to be configured; we're waiting
for the empiricists, if you want to call them
that, to decide whether FB is round or square*
When we figure that out, then there's something
to be modeled. I think that Bill Reid, who
spoke to that issue in the first panel, would
agree with that perspective. In fact, he
outlined the fact that both stokers and pulver-
ized coal combustion were derived by empirical
means and then people grew to understand them*
Q: John Caukle, Bud Company, Philadelphia,
. Pennsylvania
I have a question for Mr. Brodfeld. You assert
that we're not at the commercial stage yet in
fluid bed technology. Given the race of
advancement that we've seen, how far down the
road do you see this?
A: Bruno Brodfeld
I think the comment was made this morning by
Dave HcKee which I fully subscribe to that ic
would take something like five years, maybe a
few years more to see the plants in operation
in order .to be fully commercialized. But let
me make one point clear, when I say it's not
commercial yet, it shouldn't be taken liter-
ally. It may be in a stage of early commer-
cialization, which means that it's on the
threshold of commercialization. It requires
now, verification, and this is the issue at
hand. How do you convince industry to get
Involved with this process of verification so
that then the free forces of the market . take
over?
Q: Doug Willis, National Coal Board
I would like to make one comment. I think that
the present stability of the industrialized
society depends upon the knife edge and that
the knife edge is the energy situation. The
question that I want to ask the hard-nosed
industrialist Is — well I have two questions
and I'm really concerned about the conversion
from oil to coal, not from one technology to
another — What do you regard as a reasonable
payback time, in the light of your corporate
strategy, for the different industrialists?
81
-------
Secondly, if you had a retrofit situation where
the capital costs were, aay 702 of the cost of
a new installation, would you regard that as a
better commercial venture than going for a new
plant?
A: David McKee
I'll try to give you one answer* In our
corporation, we're looking at paybacks a little
. differently these days than we used to. I'm
sure there are many people in the audience who
are used to looking at paybacks in two, three
of four year paybacks for product investment.
With the changing money market and the infla-
tion rate, we've gone away from looking at
NROI's on the third year basis as a prime
consideration, and we're starting to look more
at investors' methods of return, which Involve
discounting cash flows, accelerated deprecia-
tion and the real value of money with time.
We're finding that everybody has a cost of
capital and that differs from company to
company depending on how you do your financing.
But certainly when the investors' method of
return is greater than the cost of capital, you
have something you might look -at very seri-
ously, whereas that same project might have
a net return on the third year basis that
is unacceptable from standard criteria that
you've used in the past. So, we're changing the
way we look at things because- of the market
situation. The predictions that you saw In one
of the paybacks — again, this depends on a
couple of things that are very sensitive. One
Is the ever widening split In, price differen-
tial between oil and coal and whether that .Is
really going to happen or not, your crystal
ball is as good as mine, I have the feeling In
the bottom of my stomach though, that the price
of coal is going to start creeping up and that
split .may not be as wide as we all think it
might be. There's a lot of speculative infor-
mation you have to rely on to make these long
term commitments for big capital. It's a tough
job today and I'm not making light of it. We
have retrofitted coal fired installations more
times than we wish to admit; -we've had coal
units go to oil then to gas, back to oil, then
back to coal again. So we've gone the full
circle. That is a site specific question that
depends -somewhat on the usable life of the
equipment. If we are retrofitting a relatively
new installation which has another 20 years of
life in it as far aa we're concerned with
minimum maintenance, we'll look at that one
pretty hard. ' Where at the 25 year point on a
unit, we're going to look at that very hard
because probably the combustion controls are
outdated, the material handling equipment Is
probably in need of great investment. It's
hard to give a good number for that. I think
it needs to be a site specific evaluation.
Paul Bobo
With regard to the financing of projects in the
company, they necessarily compete with each
other and therefore use of criteria of internal
rate of return which takes Into account the
cost of money, the effect of taxes, and depre-
ciation is Important. If, indeed, you are only
recovering your capital, by mitigating the
taxes and accelerating the depreciation and the
difference In the price of the fuel and you're
competing against the development of a new
product which is a revenue generator and not a
cost avoider — you can see where the diffi-
culty comes in. Typically, however, there Is
some insurance you need to buy. In our indus-
try, projects seem to get funded when the
internal rate of return is above 301 and I'm
not sure where that relates to payback. But
that Is considerably over the cost of oil.
Q: Earl Oliver, SRI, International
I have a question for the industrial partici-
pants. It's been stated that there is a
reluctance to go into investment in the new
technologies until they have been well proven.
In this case, I note that the large water tube
boilers are not being built of the conventional
kind either, at this time. It seems there is a
great slump in the market. The question would
be — When the market resumes, will this be
before the FBC Is ready? Will It be more
competitive at that time? Also, the regulatory
incentives that have.been given by EPA, do you
think they are of any significance compared to
other .technologies?
A: David McKee
As far as the regulatory incentives, we don't
see any market change in the regulations
affecting fluldiced bed vs. other technologies.
Certainly, the least attention has been paid to
NOX regulations In the past. They will probably
be the ones that will get the most attention
for coal combustion. • I've been involved in
stage combustion of coal and pulverized firing
and other applications and that doesn't come
without some operating penalties and headaches.
It can be done and it can be done fairly reli-
ably but it changes your method of operation.
You have people that understand what's going on
a little better than a fellow that came in off
the street and was made a power operator
yesterday. I don't think I can really respond
to the first part of your question adquately*
I think the market is highly fluid and whether
this technology will hit the right window or
not, your guess is as good as mine. I think it
has the best chance of any in the near future.
But we do appreciate the position the boiler
vendors are in. They're out 'there raising
capital too. It's a tough market place.
Arnold Kossar
I'd like .to make a response. I think the first
part of the question is -- Why don't industrial
users buy coal fired boilers of any kind?
Maybe I can answer the question this way. We
had an opportunity to buy a boiler and did buy
a boiler recently. It was an 80,000 Ib/hr
boiler. We could have used coal. Coal was
82
-------
used at chis site at one time. And here's how
the scenario works. To buy the 80,000 Ib/hr
gas-oil boiler cost slightly under $1 million.
To put the coal boiler In and to retrofit the
attendant equipment, It would have been
slightly over $5.5 million.
David McKee
I might comment on one other thing. In our
company, our energy conservation efforts have
been tremendous in the last eight years. We've
looked at saving a pound of steam and how much
Investment we can afford to save that pound of
steam, and It was closely, If not more closely,
than what it would cost to go out and buy. a new
pound of steam with coal. But I. think you
heard numbers like $100, $125/lb in our Instal-
led cost. They are generally in the range that
we feel are realistic. If you look at your
DfR's and your discounted • caah flows and how
much you can afford to spend to save that pound
of steam, you might be amazed at how much money
you really can spend to do good solid energy
conservation work. I think we're seeing that
in our company. Our energy requirements per
pound of product have continually dropped over
the last eight years, whereas our productivity
is continuing to climb, and that puts money in
the bank. This is a tremendous incentive for
evaluating all your processes and the way you
do things, and we had little increase in our
steam demand. If you look at our future
picture, we've looked so hard at some processes
that we're finding out we are going the other
• way — our sceamloada are going down. So
that's why we haven't been buying some boilers.
Q: Sven Jansson, STAL-LAVAL
I'd like to make a general comment and Chen a
technical comment. Steve Freedman started out
with this discussion by saying that' he wanted
the panel to serve as the wise men looking at
the elephant and I think a lot of what's been
said here has Illustrated thac he reached his
goal very admirably. What I hear are lots of
views given by people who have a small part of
the picture, but not necessarily the full
picture- What I would like to say is thac I
think fluidlzed bed combustion is here, gentle-
men. It is coming, AFBC and PFBC are here and
they are coming; there is no way that can be
stopped. Therefore, the real big question here
comes to the following: It is, how quickly do
we want this to evolve and that depends on the
need that we see and that Is a national type of
consideration, but it's also a corporate type
of consideration. Now, .when you look ac that
queseion -- how quickly do we want It to happen
— then you've got co ask, how can we make this
come about quickly. Well, the least effective
of all ways Is to start university programs.
I'm an R&O man myself, but I have to say this,
because then you only look at the little leg or
the little toe of the elephant. What has Co be
done is co get some figures In rather quickly
Co idencify chose Importanc problems, noc those
chac we necessarily are chinking of coday.
There Is a little book which I'd like Co recom-
mend Co everyone which is called Murphy's Law
and Other Reasons why Things go Wrong, and you
can pick it up ac airporcs. In 1C Is purisc
law, and ic says, che solution co a problem
changes che nacure of che problem, and chis is
exaccly what we are up against. We've goc Co
find out, therefore, what the problems are.
Arnold Kosaar, Session Co-Chairman
I aprpeciate the reference to the book. I don't
Chink your comment requires any answer. To cry Co
summarize rather briefly, we have had a racher
conslscenc emphasis by che panelists on what che
Defense Departmenc calls che "ilicles" ~ relia-
bility, maintainability, availability. This Is Che
key, especially co che induscrial people who say,
I'm ouc chere Co build products not steam, and I
can'c afford co have chac ching back chere in che
corner screw me up elcher, in terms of coal supply
or operacion on line or from a maintenance polnc of
view because I can'c afford co be down very long
before my profic plan for che year has been shoe in
Che head. The utility people haven'c said ic quite
in chose crass cerms, buc chey gee ac Ic coo,
because Chey're controlled. They can'c sell Che
produce in quite the free market concept that the
Induscrial people can. So what I find here, though,
is some difference. The industrial people who
tend to be less coal dependent are expressing the
concerns in rather scronger cerms, I would say,
Chan Che utility people, especially since the
utility people have some familiarity with coal Co
begin with and have learned to live with its prob-
lems of today. I think one polnc that was made chac
was quice keyed Co Che bulk of us as technologists,
was thac you've got to consider the kind of main-
tenance crew that is normally available in the
Industrial environment — and I could say — also
In Che utility environment. The fluidized bed
processes are somewhat complicated. Now the answer
that, I'll automate that system for you, jusc ain'c
enough because, as you know, we Had an experience
ac Three Mile chac showed us chac hardware errs
also. We had a session on instrumentation and con-
trol here chac was, I chink, the firsc one ac one
of chese conferences. I'll be frank, I pressed for
1C, buc I was dlsappoinced in che number of papers
Chae showed up and even more dlsappoinced in the
number of parciclpancs In che audience. But, the
manageability of any system, by people, Is a key
pare of any of ehese cechnologies. Now. I won'c gee
inco che argument of whether che equipment is or
isn't commercial yet. I agree with the last poinc
made Chac che technology is ac a poinc where you
need large scale demonstration in order Co develop
Che confidence, chac will Cake, perhaps, several
levels of demonstration. That's what worries me a
bit, how many times will Ic have Co be done before
the customer feels comfortable with it? I won't try
to expand on that one, but I can see a long time-
going on if the process is indeed sequential. The
other point made., that If the government sees a
role In stimulating this move toward less depend-
ence on Imported fuels, it's going to have to puc
its chinking cap on in a more collected manner
perhaps Chan has been done coday.
I Chank you all for coming.
33
-------
PARTICIPANT LIST
SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
ATLANTA HILTON HOTEL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
APRIL 9-11, 1980
ABEL, William A.
Chemical Engineer
Morgantown Energy Technology
Center
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7163
ADAMS, Roger L.
Manager, Energy Planning
and Development
Kimberly Clark Corporation
401 North Lake Street
Neenan, Wisconsin 54956
414/735-2049
ALBANESE, Anthony S.
Process Engineer
Brookhaven Natonal Laboratory
Building 526
Upton, New York 11973
516/345-2958
ALDRICH, R. J.
Fuller Company
P. 0. Box 2040
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18001
215/264-6506
ANDREWS, Clarence K.
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37377
615/755-3571
ANSON, Don
Research Leader
Battelle Columbus Laboratory
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-5823
APA, Robert P.
Research Engineer
Babcock & Wilcox Company
P. 0. Box 1562
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
APEL, John P.
Vice President
Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co.
215 North Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/464-7340
ARORA, B. S.
Riley Stoker Corporation
9 Neponset Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01606
617/852-7100
ARTHURSSON, David A. A.
ArChurssonlaboratoriet ALAB •
P. 0. Box 315
S - 199 03 ENKOEPING
Sweden •
•>46 171 21122
AVERS, William J., Jr.
Scientist
EG&G, Incorporated
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7585
BACH, Thomas G.
Business Planning
Catalytic Incorporated
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
215/864-8442
19102
BAGLEY, W. D.
Airesearch Manufacturing Company
of Arizona
1111 South 34th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
BALCOMB, Philip E.
Manager
Mulzer Crushed Stone Company
P. 0. Box 248
Tell City, Indiana 47586
812/547-7922
84
-------
BALESTRINO, Frank
Senior Engineer
Babcock & Wilcox Company
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
BALFAMZ, Wayne
Manager, Energy Technology
Stauffer Chemical Company
Watport, Connecticut 06880
203/222-3317
BALL, Carroll E.
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37377
615/755-3571
BALL, Marc
Keeler. Company
Box 968
Norcross, Georgia 30091
404/447-5660
BALL, Myron
Keeler Company
Box 968
Norcross, Georgia 300-91
404/447-5660
BARON, Robert E.
Manager of Process Design
Energy and Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
675 Mass Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/491-3157
BARTELDS, H.
Research Engineering Heat &
• Refrigeration
Engineering Division
P. 0. Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
BATSCH, Johann
Kernforschungsanlage
Julich, GmbH
Postfach 19 13, D-5170
Julich, West Germany
BEARDED, Mark D.
Senior Research Engineer
Dow Chemical USA
A-2303 Building
Freeport, Texas 77541
713/238-0393
BECKER, Henry A.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Queen's University
Kingston, Canada K7L 3N6
613/547-3045
BEER, Janos M.
Professor
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
70 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/253-6661
BEITH, R.
Director, R&D
Foster Wheeler UK
Greater London House
P. 0. Box 160, Hampstead Road
London NW17QN England
(U.K.) 01-388-1212
BEKOFSKE, K. L.
Research Engineer
General Electric Company
Research & Development Center
P. 0. Box 8
Schenectady, New York 12301
518/385-8004
BENNETT, Orus L.
Research Soil Scientist
USDA-SEA-AR
Plant Science Division
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 '
304/293-2795
BERGMANS, H.
Chief Design Office
Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland
P. 0. Box 1, 1755 ZG Petten
The Netherlands
BERKOWITZ, David A.
Manager, Process Control
JAYCOR
300 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801
617/933-6805
BERMAN, Paul A.
Manager, Systems Engineering
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
P. 0. Box 251, Lab 100
Concordville, Pennsylvania 19331
215/358-4635
BERNSTEIN, Samuel
Scientist
Flow Research Company
21414 68th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98031
206/854-1370
BERTRAM), Rene R.
Contract Development Manager
Exxon Research & Engineering
P. 0. Box 101
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
201/765-4762
85
-------
BIASCA, Frank
Senior Staff Engineer
Shell Development Company
P. 0. Box 1380
Houston, Texas 77001
713/493-7815
BILLIG, Joseph A.
Sales Engineer
F. B. Feed Systems
Fuller Company
Box 2040
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18001
215/264-6592
BLAND, Alan E.
Senior Geologist/Geochemist
Institute for Mining &
Minerals Research
P. 0. Box 13015
Lexington, Kentucky 40583
606/252-5535
BOBO, Paul
Senior Consultant, Corporate
Engineering
Mead Corporation
Courthouse Plaza Northeast
Dayton, Ohio 45463
BOERICKE, Ralph R.
Manager, Gas Cleanup Programs
General Electric Company
One River Road
Schenectady, New York 12302
518/385-3308
BOGARDUS, B. Paul
Manager, Coal Quality Assurance
Ashland Coal, Incorporated
P. 0. Box 391
Ashland, Kentucky 41101
606/329-4788
BOGGS, Bruce E.
Environmental Engineer
Engineering-Science
57 Executive Park South
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
404/325-0770
BOGGS, Dennie
Mechanical Engineer
Department of Energy
Oak Ridge Operations
Post Office Box E
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/576-1801
BOLAND, John
Senior Research Engineer
Trane Company
3600 Pammel Creek Road
LaCrosse, Wisconsin 54601
608/787-2528
BONK, Donald L.
Development Engineer
Babcock & Wilcox
22 South Van Buren
Barberton, Ohio 44203
216/753-4511
BONN, B.
Dr. rer.nat.
Bergbau-Forschung GmbH
Franz-Fischer-Weg 61
4300 Essen 13
Federal Republic of Germany
201/105-9542
BOORSMA, R.H.
Manager Construction and
Development
Stork KAB
Industriestraat 1
P. 0. Box 20, 7550 GM
Hengelo, The Netherlands
BOOTH, A.W.
Manager of Technology
Shawinigan Engineering
Consultants,-Ltd.
808 Fourth Avenue, S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2POK4
403/283-8335
BORGNE, Kurt. G.; .
Program Manager
'National Swedish Board
for Energy Source.Development
Box 1103
S-163 12 SPANGA
08-7520360
BOYD, Ronald P.
Engineering Supervisor
Bechtel Power Corporation
15740 Shady Grove Road
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760
301/258-3847
BRADLEY, R.A.
Program Manager
Fossil Energy Materials
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. 0. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6094
BRADLEY, William J.
Senior Supervisor
Mechanical Engineering
Burns & Roe, Incorporated
550 Kinderkamack Road
Grade11, New Jersey 07649
201/255-2000
86
-------
BRAYDEN, James K.
Chief Engineer
U.S. Marines
Elliott Street
Beverly, Massachusetts
617/927-4200
01923
BRINK, K. E.
Project Engineer
Maskinaffaren Generator, A.B.
Box 95
S-433-01 Partille, Sweden
BRITTON, Michael W.
Supervising Project Engineer
Conoco Incorporated
P. 0. Box 2226
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
512/884-0421
BRODFELD, Bruno
Vice President
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation
P. 0. Box 2325
Boston, Massachusetts 02107
617/973-2767
BROOKS, Robert D.
Manager, Fossil Energy Program
General Electric Company
One River Road
Schenectady, New York 12345
518/385-2210
BROWN, R.J.
Engineering Services Manager
Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd.
Organics Division, Hexagon House
Backley Manchester M93DA England
44-61-740-1460
BUBENICK, David V.
Principal Engineer
GCA/Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
617/275-5444
BUCK, Victor
Vice President
Pope, Evans and Robbing, Inc.
1133 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
212/730-5269
BUCK, Warren L.
Physicist
Argonne National Laboratory
Building 308
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-3740
BUNN, Richard
Research Engineer
C-E Natco
P. 0. Box 1710
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101
918/663-9100
BURNS, Roger L.
Construction Manager
Alden E. Stilson Associates
170 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/228-4385
BUSHNELL, Dwight
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
503/754-2575
BUTLER, Bill
Research Scientist
Flow Research
21414-68th Avenue, South
Kent, Washington 98031
206/854-1370
BYAM, John W. Jr.
Branch Chief, Fluid Bed Projects
Morgantown Energy Technology
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7533
BYRD, James
Chemical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37377
615/755-3571
BYWATER, Ronald J.
Aerospace Corporation
P. 0. Box 92957
Los Angeles, California 90009
213/648-6103
CALLSEN, Donnelly E.
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Air Force
AFESC/DEE
Tyndall AFB, Florida
904/283-6230
CAMPBELL, John, Jr.
Project Engineer
Rocketdyne Division
Rockwell International Corp.
6633 Canoga Avenue, M.S. AA69
Canoga Park, California 91304
213/884-3374
87
-------
CANNON, Joseph N.
Professor, Chemical Engineering
School of Engineering
Howard University
2300 Sixch Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20059
202/636-6626
CARINO, Maurice E.
Energy Program Development
Engineer
General. Electric Company
777 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/637-4331
CARLS, E. L.
Experimental Programme Manager
N.C.B. (I.E.A. Grimethorpe) Ltd.
Grimethorpe, Nr. Barnsley
South Yorkshire 572 7AB
B.713486
CARPENTER, Robert L.
Senior Staff
Lovelace ITRI
Box 5890
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
CARLTON, Herbert
Research Engineer
Battelle-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-5132
CARROLL, Mike
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Air Force
2851 - CES/DEEX
McClellan AFB, California
916/643-3336
95652
CARSON, W. R.
Mechanical Engineer
1020 Chestnut Street
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37377
615/755-3011
CASAZZA, John A.
President
Ranson 6 Casazza
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
202/466-2036
CATONE, D. L.
Project Manager
New Business Development
Engelhard Minerals 6 Chemicals Div.
Menlo Park
Edison, New Jersey 08817
201/321-5192
CHALLIS, J. Anthony
Director, U.K. Operations
METREK
3 Dene Street
Dorking
Surrey RH4 2DR
DORKING 87000
CHANDRASEKHAR, Ram
Program Manager
Foster-Miller Associates
350 Second Avenue
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
617/890-3200
CHAUDHURI, Anand
Staff Engineer
BE&K Incorporated
1900 28th Avenue South
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
205/870-8000
CHIONCHIO, John A.
Engineer
The Budd Company
375 Commerce Drive
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
215/643-2950
CHIPLEY, Kenneth K.
Design Engineer
Union Carbide Corporation
P. 0. Box X, Building 1000
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6411
CHITESTER,.Douglas C.
Chemical Engineer
Coal Conversion Engineering
Department of Energy, PETC
P. 0. Box 10940
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236
CHOKSEY, Pankaj J.
Process Development Engineer
Dorr-Oliver Incorporation
77 Havemeyer Lane
Stamford, Connecticut 06904
203/358-3821
CHOPRA, Omesh K.
Metallurgist
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Case Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-5117
CHRISTIANSEN, Finn Hermann
Chief Design Engineer
Burmeister & Wain Energy
23, Teknikerbyen. 2830 Virum
Copenhagen, Denmark
2 857100
88
-------
CHRONOUSKI, Robert
Manager, Research Engineering
Cleaver-Brooks
P. 0. 421
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
414/961-2791
CHROSTOWKI, James
Energy Resources Company, Inc.
185 Alewife Brook Parkway
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
CHU, James C. H.
Senior Process Engineering
Dorr-Oliver Canada Ltd.
174 (test Street South
Orillia, Ontario, Canada
705/325-6181
CIANELA, Ken
Product Engineer
Fuller Company
P. 0. Box 2040
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18001
215/264-6407
CILIBERTI, Dave
Senior Engineer
Heatinghouse R&D
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-3112
CLAUSES, C. J.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corporation
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
CLAYPOOLE, George T.
General Manager
Pope, Evana & Robbins, Inc.
P. 0. Box 546
Fairmont. West Virginia 26554
304/366-1112
CLINTON, Bruce P.
Engineering Specialist
Hercules Incorporated
910 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
CODE, R. K.
Associate Professor
Queen's University
Dupuis Hall
Kingston, Ontario
Canada K7L3N6
613/547-2751
COLE, Etossa W.
Manager, Analysis
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
One Passaic Street
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey 07075
201/777-2900
COLEMAN, John
Engineer
Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 25099
Richmond, Virginia 23260
804/359-9311
COLMAN. Richard
Program Manager
Technology Programs
Aerojet Energy Conversion Company
P. 0. Box 13222
Sacramento, California 95813
916/355-2757
COMER. Lewis W.
Partner
Kramer, Comer, Passe & Racher
145 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/224-6273
COMPARATO. Joseph R.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
CONGALIDIS, John P.
Research Assistant
Masaachusetts Institute of
Technology
550 Memorial Drive, 012A
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/253-6550
COOPER. R. H.
Metallurgist
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. 0. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-4470
COOPER, Roy
Engineer
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. 0. X
Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37830
615/574-4470
COPELAND, G. C.
Chairman
Copeland Associates, Inc.
125 Windsor Drive, Suite 113
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
312/986-8564
COPPOLECCHIA, Vincent D.
Senior Engineer
Gibbs & Hill, Incorporated
393 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10001
212/760-4000
89
-------
COTTS, Ronald F.
Principle Process Engineer
CercainTeed Corporation
P. 0. Box 1100
Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422
215/542-0500
COUTURIER, Michel F.
Graduate Student
Chemical Engineering Department
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario R7L 3N6 Canada
613/547-5579
CRANE, Steve
Project Manager
Department of Chemical Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
503/754-2091
CREAMER, Patrick J.
Attorney
•969 Riverbend Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
804/468-4414
CRESS, William R.
Manager, Engineering Studies
Allegheny Power Service Corp.
800 Cabin Hill Drive
Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601
412/837-3000
CRISWELL, Robert L.
Supervisor, IfcC Equipment Div.
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
9 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, Hew Jersey 07039
201/533-3559
CUTLER, Robert R.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Synergo, Incorporated
'400 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215/923-3941
DAMAN, Ernest L.
Vice President
Foster Wheeler Corporation
110 South Orange Avenue
Westfield, New Jersey 07039
201/533-3653
DANIEL, Kenneth J.
Systems Engineer
General Electric
P. 0. Box 43
Schenectady, New York 12065
518/385-9451
DAUZVARDIS, Peter A.
Assistant Environmental Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-3762
DAW, C. Stuart
Engineer
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. 0. Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-0373
DAWSON, William F.
Program Manager
Wormser Engineering Incorporated
212 South Main Street
Middleton, Massachusetts 01949
617/777-3060
DECKER, Norman
Research Assistant
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/253-7080 .
DeCOURSIN, D.G.
Vice President
Fluidyne Engineering Corporation
5900 Olson Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
612/544-2721
DELL, Bill
Consultant
William C. Dell
1211 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
202/452-1313
DeMICHELE, C.
Combustion Engineer
EKEL-DSR-CRTN
Via C. Battisti. 69
Pisa, Italy 65100
050/45218
DIAMOND, Dale A.
Mechanical•Engineer
USAF RQ AFLC/DEEE
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Ohio 45433
513/257-4563
DICK, John L.
Assistant Sales Manager
Detroit Stoker Company
1510 East First Street
Monroe, Michigan 48161
313/241-9500
90
-------
DIEHL, Erie K.
Manager, Utilization Research
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
350 Hochberg Road
Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146
412/327-1600
DINOTO, F.G.
Sales Manager
HS Power Systems, Inc.
8550 Kacy Freeway
Houston, Texas 77024
713/464-5200
DINOVO, S.T.
Associate Manager
Chemical Process Development
Section
Batcelle Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-5042
DIVILIO, Robert J.
Chemical Engineer
Pope, Evans and Robbing, Inc.
320 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703/549-2884
DODDS, James W.
Operations Supervisor
Pope, Evans & Robbina
Box 533 Rivesville
Rivesville, West Virginia 26554
304/278-5315
DOWDY, Thomas E.
Supervisor, Process Analysis Group
UT Energy Conversion Division
Tullahoma, Tennessee 37388
615/455-0631
DOWNING, D. C.
Manager, Production Research
Gulf Canada Resources, Inc.
Box 130
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P2H7
403/233-3868
DRAKE, Kevin
Supervisor, Testing
FLUIDYNE
5000 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
612/544-2721
DREITLEIN, Kenneth C.
Senior Marketing Specialist
Babcock & Wilcox Company
P. 0. Box 835
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
DRIGGS, C.L.
Acres American
The Clark Building, Suite 329
Little Pautexant Parkway
Columbia, Maryland 21044
DUDEK, Robert F.
Senior Process Engineer
Babcock & Wilcox I&M Division
P. 0. Box 2423
North Canton, Ohio 44720
216/494-7610
DUIJVES, K. A.
Chief, Energy Study Centre
Energieonderzoek Centrum
P. 0. Box 1, 1755 ZG Petten
The Netherlands
DUNNE, Paul
Chemical Engineer
Pope, Evans and Robbing, Inc.
320 King Street '
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703/549-2884
DURFEE, Norman
Project Engineer
Union Carbide - ORNL
Building 9301-3, M.S. 7
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-3945
DUSSORA, Tules L.
Assistant Director
Ingersou Rand Research
Box 301
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
609/921-9103
EDWARDS, Richard
Manager, Washington Concepts
Babcock & Wilcox Company
1735 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/296-0390
EHRLICH, SheIton
Program Manager
EPRI
3412 Hillview Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
415/855-2444
ELOFSON, Per Anders
Department of Inorganic Chemistry
Chalmer University of Technology
S-412 96 Goteborg Sweden
91
-------
EMPIE, H.L.
Research Scientist
International Paper Company
Corporate Research Center
Tuxedo Park, New York 10987
914/351-2101
EMSPERCER, Werner
Kraftwerk Union AC.
Hanmerbacher Str. 12 + 14
Erlangen, West Germany 8520
09131-32430
ENGLESSON, G. A.
Technical Director
Advanced Engineering
United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
215/422-3887
EUSTIS, John N.
U.S. Department of Energy
Forrestal Building, Room 2H085
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
202/252-2084
EVANS, Robert H.
Deputy Director
Washington Operations
Burns and Roe, Incorporated
1850 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/659-2690
FAN, Liang-Shih
Assistant Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
Ohio State University
140 West 19th Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43210
614/422-7907
FANARITIS, John P.
Executive Vice President
Struthers Wells Corporation
P. 0. Box 8
Warren, Pennsylvania 16365
814/726-1000
FARRELL, Don J.
Program Manager
Davy HcKee Corporation
6200 Oak Tree Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44116
216/524-9300
FEE, Darrell
Chemist
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4389
FENNELLY, Paul F.
Manager, Fluidized Bed Program
GCA Corporation
Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
617/275-5444
FIALA, L.
Director General
CKD DUKLA n.p.
Thamova 11
Praha 8 Czechoslovakia 18606
226005
FINSON. Michael
Physical Sciences, Incorporated
30 Commerce Way
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801
617/933-8500
FISHER, Charles F., Jr.
Associate Professor, Research
University of Tennessee
101 Perkins Hall
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916
615/974-8191
FITZGERALD, Thomas J.
Professor
-Dept. of -Chemical Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
503/754-3546
FLEISCHMAN, William H.
Engineering Specialist
Nuclear Division
Union Carbide Corporation
P. 0. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6585
FLEMING, Pat
Head, Energy Development Departmet
Institute for Industrial Research
and Standards
Ballymun Road
Dublin 9 Ireland
01-370101
FOLEY, Bob
Supervisor, Design Drafting
Riley Stoker Corporation
9 Neponset Street
WorChester, Massachusetts 01658
617/852-7100
FOLKE, Engstrom
Research Manager
A. AHLSTROM OSAKEYHTIO
48600 Karnvla
Finland
52/63100
92
-------
FOLLAYTTAR, J. S.
Manager
Corporate Business Development
The Continental Group, Inc.
1 Harbor Plaza
Stamford, Connecticut 06902
203/964-6128
PORTUIN, G.M.
Staff Engineer
HeraToom
The Hague
Holland
FOURROUX, Jerry D.
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
FOWLER, F. B.
United Coal Company
Box 919
Grundy, Virginia 24614
703/935-7521
FRANK, Sidney
Project Engineer
Stone & Webster Company
245 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02107
617/973-8375
FREEDMAN, Steven I.
Office of Coal Utilization
U.S. Department of Energy
Mail Stop E-178, GTH
Washington, D.C. 20545
301/353-2800
FRUH, Herbert J.
Poster Wheeler Boiler Corporation
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
FUJIOKA, Y.
Research Engineer
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
1-1 Akunoura-Machi
Nagasaki 850-91 Japan
0958/61-2111
FURLONG, Dale A.
Senior Scientist
Buell Division of Envirotech
200 North Seventh Street
Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042
717/272-2001
GALE, George G.
Chief Process Engineer
Occidental Engineering Company
2100 S.E. Main Street
Irvine, California 92714
714/957-7721
GALLI, Alfred F.
Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
304/293-3619
GAMBLE, Robert L.
Manager, Development Engineer
Foster Wheeler
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-2789
GANESAN, P.
Senior Metallurgist
Kentucky Center for Energy
Research Laboratory
P. 0. Box 13015
Lexington, Kentucky 40583
606/252-5535
GANGARAM, G.
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-4235
GARBETT, Eric S.
Senior Research Assistant .
Coal Technology Unit
Sheffield University
Sheffield 3 England
GARTSIDE, Charles
Mechanical Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60540
312/972-3975
GASHER, Larry L.
Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
301/454-4593
CEFFKEN, John F.
Program Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20545
301/353-2806
93
-------
GEHL, S. M.
•Metallurgist
Materials Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-5172
GENTILE, Eugene .
Sales Engineer
Hayvard Tyler Incorporated
25 Harbor Avenue
Norwalk, Connecticut 06850
203/853-1300
GEORGAKIS, Christos
Professor
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
GEORGE, David R.
Maintenance Superintendent
Mechanical
Pope, Evans & Robbins
P. 0. Box 533
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
304/278-5315
GEVELBER, Michael A.
Analyst
U. S. Department of Energy
Room C-125
Washington, D.C. 20545
301/353-2611
.GILLIGAN, Martin E., Jr.
Vice President, Operations
York-Shipley, Incorporated
P. 0. Box 349
York, Pennsylvania 17405
717/755-1081
GIRAMONTI, Albert J.
Senior Project Engineer
United Technologies Research Ctr.
Silver Lane
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
203/727-7361
GLADBACH, Edward G.
Senior Engineer
System Development
LA Department of Water & Power
P. 0. Box 111
Los Angeles, California 90051
213/481-5503
GLEDHILL, P.R.
Business Development Manager
Foster Wheeler P.P.
Greater London House
Hampstead Road
London NW 1
01-386-1212
GLENN, Roland D.
President
Combustion Processes, Incorporated
50 East 41st Street
New York, New York 10017
212/889-0255
GLICKSMAN, Leon R.
Senior Research Scientist
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/253-2233
GMEINDL, Frank D.
Project Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880, METC
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7751
COBLIRSCH, Gerald M.
Mechanical Engineer
Grand Forks Energy Tech. Center
U. S. Department of Energy
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
701/795-8169
COINS, William D.
Engineer
U.S. Department of Energy
2000 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20461
202/653-3802.
GODFREY, T. G.
Engineer
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
P.O. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-4455
GOLAN, Lawrence P.
Senior Staff- Engineer
Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
201/765-1112
GORDON, John S.
TRW Energy Systems
8301 Greensboro Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
703/734-6480
GOUSE, S. William
Vice President •,
The MITRE Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
McLean, Virginia 22102
703/827-6976
-------
GRANT, Andrew J. -
Manager, FBC Task Force
Babcock Concractors Incorporated
921 Penn Avenue
Pictsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
412/471-5348
GREGORY, Arthur H.
Project 'Engineer
Brown Boveri
711 Anderson Avenue
North St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
612/255-:5200
GREY, D.A.
Materials Engineer
General Electric Company
Irwer Road
Schenectady, New York 12345
518/385-3621
GRIFFIN, John J.
Vice President
Petro-Chem Development Co., Inc.
122 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
212/697-7442
GRIGGS, K.'E.
Mechanical Engineer
Fluor Power Services, Incorporated
200 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312/368-6777
GRIMSHAW, Thomas W.
Senior Geologist
Radian Corporation
P. 0. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78758
512/454-4797
GUSTAFSSON, Bernt
Managing Director
AB Fjarrvarme, Box 12
S-150 13 TROSA, Sweden
0156/16550
HALL, Arthur W.
Project Manager
V.-S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7185
HALL, Dennis
Engineer
Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 25099
Richmond, Virginia 23260
804/359-9311
HALL, Robert R.
Staff Engineer
GCA/Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
617/275-5444
HALLEY, G. M.
Vice President
Technical Director
Kewanee Boiler Corporation
101 Franklin Street
Kewanee, Illinois 61443
309/883-3541
HAMILTON, Stuart
Project Engineer
United Technologies
P. 0. Box 109
South Windsor, Connecticut- 06074
203/727-2273
HANISCH, Harold
Dipl. Ing.
Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG
Mariahilferstr. 32
Vienna, Austria
HANSON, Henry A.
Project Engineer
Fluidyne Engineering Company
5900 Olson Memorial Highway .
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
612/544-2721
HARTMAN, William A.
Engineer
Union Carbide
Building 9201-3, P.O. Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-0294
HASHIMOTO, Takeo
Engineer of No. 1 Land Use
Boiler Designing Section
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
l-l Akunoura-machi, Nagasaki
Japan 850-91
0958/61-2111
HEDIN, John G.
Senior Advisor
Exxon Enterprises
224 Park Avenue
Florham Park, New Jersey
201/765-4305
Incorporated
07932
KELT, James E.
Assistant Chemical Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4379
95
-------
HENCEY, Stephen D.
Director, Fuel Technology
Program
Missouri Division of Energy
Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
314/751-4000
HENRY, L.W.
Director, Development
Combustion Engineering, 'Incorporated
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06070
203/688-1911
HENRY, Richard F.
Chemical Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
Building 205 T6-4
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-7546
HENSCHEL, D. Bruce
Industrial Environment
Research Laboratory (MD-61)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711
919/541-2825
HERLIHY, Joe
Manager, Maintenance Operations
Burns & Roe Services Corporation
496 Kinderkamack Road
Oradell, New Jersey 07649
201/265-2000
HEWITT, D.R.
Project Engineer
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880 '
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7535
HIGH, Michael D.
Acting Director
Energy Demonstrations
and Technology
Tennessee Valley Authority
1000 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
HIGHLEY, John
Deputy Head, Combustion
Research
UK National Coal Board
Coal Research Establishment
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire, UK
024267/3361
HILL, Duane L.
Chief Results Engineer
Pope, Evans & Robbins, Inc.
P. 0. Box 533
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
304/278-5315
HILL, V. L.
Senior Research Advisor
IIT Research Institute
Chicago, Illinois 60616
312/567-4177
HINES, John
Senior Engineer Associate
Union Oil Company
P. 0. Box 76
Brea, California. 92621
714/528-7201
HOBBS, Charles H.
Assistant Director
Lovelace ITRI
P. 0. Box 5890
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
505/844-2435
HOKE, R. C.
Senior Engineering Associate
Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
P. 0. Box 8
Linden, New Jersey 07036
201/474-2939
HOLCOKB, Robert S.
Program Manager
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
P. 0. Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-0273
HOLT, Burgess J.
General Manager
National Boiler Works, Inc.
3947 Jennings Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
216/749-5747
HOLT, Charles F.
Section Manager
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-5026
HORGAN, John J.
Project Engineer
Power Systems Division -of UTC
Mail Stop 19, P. 0. Box 109
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
203/727-2272
96
-------
HOUSE, Oman F.
Chemical Engineer
7304 Harding Road
Vine land, New Jersey 08360
60S/692-6977
HOUSTON, Robert: J.
Environmental Projects Director
GAI Consultants, Inc.
570 Beatty Road
Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146
412/242-6530
HOWES, James E., Jr.
Senior Researcher
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-5269
HOY, H. Raymond
Director, Leatherhead Laboratory
NCB Coal Utilisation Research Lab.
c/o BCURA Ltd., Randalls Road
Leathcrhead, Surrey
KT22 7RZ England
HSIAO, Ching-Jen
Mechanical Engineering Development
Pullman Kellogg
16200 Park Rov
Houston, Texas 77084
713/492-2500
HSIEH, Benjamin C. B.
Consultant-Fossil Energy Technology
General Electric Company
One River Road, Building 2
Schenectady, New York 12345
518/385-3017
HUMMELL, John D.
Partner
Stilson & Associates
170 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/228-4385
HURT, James
Project Manager
Kidde Consultants
1018 Cromuell Bridge Road
Towson, Maryland 21204
301/321-5588
HUSCHAUER, Helmuch
Vereinigte Kesselwerke AG
WerdenerStrasse 3
D-4000 Dusseldorf, Germany
0211/7814582
HUTCHINSON, Bruce
Vice President
Development Engineering
Johnston Boiler Company
Ferrysburg, Michigan
49409
616/842-5050
HYLKEMA, R.
Boiler Design Engineer
Verolme Machinefabriek
Ijsselmonde BV
P. 0. Box 5079
3008AB Rotterdam, The
Netherlands
IKEDA, S.
Assistant Manager
Kawasaki Heavy Industries
1-35, Shimaya, Konohanaku,
Osaka-shi, Japan 554
06/461-8001-533
JACK, A. R.
Project Director
NCB (IEA Grimethorpe) Limited
Grimethorpe, Barns ley South Yorks.
England 713486
JACKSON, William M.
Professor
'Chemisty Department
Howard University
Washington, D.C. 20059
202/636-6883
JACOB, Andrew J.
Assistant Head, Analytical
and Research & Development
American Electric Power
Two Broadway
New York, New York 10004
212/440-8208
JAIN, Mohan L.
Technical Staff
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-5636
JAIN, Suresh C.
Manager, Process Engineering
Section
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-2792
97
-------
JANSSON, Sven A.
Manager, Research Laboratories
Seal-Laval Turbin AB
S-612 20 Finspong Sweden
0122/81000
JASSOWSKI, Donald
Project Engineer
Aerojet Liquid Rocket Company
P. 0. Box 13222
Sacramento, California 95813
916/355-2849
JOHNSON, Bruce C.
Senior Development Engineer
C-E Natco
P. 0. Box 1710
Tulsa, Okalahoma 74101
918/663-9100
JOHNSON, Irving
Argonne . Na t iona 1 Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4384
JOHNSON, Robert H.
Maintenance Superintendant
Pope Evans & Robbing
P. 0. Box 533
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
304/278-5315
JOHNSON, W. Benedict
Consultant
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
P. 0. Box 2325, 245/11
Boston, Massachusetts 02107
617/973-2235
JONES, John E., Jr.
Fossil Energy Technology Section
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-0358
JONKE, Albert A.
Director of Fossil Energy Program
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4321
JUKKOLA, Walfred W.
System Development Engineer
Dorr-Oliver Incorporated
77 Havemeyer Lane
Stamford, Connecticut 06904
203/358-3376
KAKU, Hiroyuki
Researcher
Kure Research Laboratory
Babcock-Hitschi K.K. No. 3-36
Takaramuchi Kure
Hiroshimo Pref., Japan
KALLIO, Gregory A.
Electrical' Engineer
General Electric Company
P.O. Box 43
Schenectady, New York 12301
518/385-0948
KANTESARIA, P.P.
Senior Engineer
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Department 9014-2228
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
KAPP, Gary S.
Manager, Coal Combustion
Davy McKee Corporation
6200 Oaktree Boulevard
Independence, Ohio 44131
216/524-9300
KEAIRNS, Dele L.
Manager Fossil Fuel & Fluidized
Bed Processes
Westinghouse R&D Center
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-7345
KELLEY, Carl, III
Environmental Engineer
Mittel Hauser Corporation
2600-B Lambert Street
El Toro, California 92637
714/951-6162
KELLY, Andrew J.
Manager, Program Development
Process Energy
General Atomic Company
P.O. Box 81608
San Diego, California 92138
714/455-3746
KELLY, William R.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110-South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
98
-------
KENNEDY, Jeffrey H.
Project Engineer
Acurex Corporation
Route 1, Box 423
Morrisville, Connecticut.
919/781-9704
27709
KEOLANUI, Cus L.
Manager
Industrial & Energy Systems
CH2M Hill, 555 Capital Mail
Sacramento, California 95814
916/441-3955
KEZIOS, S. Peter
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
404/894-3200
KHAN, Ashfaq
Engineer
Union Carbide Nuclear, Division
P.O. Box X, Building 1000
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6518
KITZLER, E.B.
Vice President-Engineering
National Lime & Stone Company
P.O. Box 120
Findlay, Ohio 45840
419/396-7671
KLEIN, Lawrence T.
Manager, S.W. Environmental '
Center
NVS Corporation
14011 Ventura Boulevard
Shennon Oaks, California 91423
213/783-0254
KLEINAU, J.H.
Manager, Boiler Systems
Dorr-Oliver Incorporated
77 Havemeyer Lane
Stamford, Connecticut 06904
203/358-3528
KLEY, H.V.D.
Chief Mechanical Department
Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland
P.O. 1, 1755 ZG Petten
The Netherlands
KNOW/TON, Ted M.
Assistant Director Fluidization Research
Institute of Gas Technology
4201 W. 36th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60632
312/542-7088
KOLLERUP, Vagn
President
Burmeiscer & Wain Energy
23, Teknifcerbyen, 2830 Virum
Copenhagen, Denmark
2 857100
KORENBERG, Jakob
Director, R&D
York-Shipley, Incorporated
P.O. Box 349
York, Pennsylvania 17405
717/755-1081
KOSSAR, Arnold F.
Vice President, Engineering
Curtisa-Wright Corporation
• One Passaic Street
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey 07075
201/777-2900
KOSVIC, Thomas
KVB, Incorporated
6176 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
612/543-2142
KRAHKER, Richard L.
Coordinator for Asia Reimburseable
Development Program
AID/RDP
Washington, D.C. 20523
KRCIL, Chester
Research Group
Conoco Coal Development Co.
Library, Pennsylvania 15129
412/831-6666
KREKELS, J. Th. C.
Project Manager
N.E.O.M. BV
P.O. Box 17 6130 AA Sittard
The Netherlands
KRISCHKE, Hermann G.
Dipl. -lug., Project Manager
Ruhrkohle Del Und Gas GmbH
Gleiwitzer Platz 3
Bottrop FRG 4250
02047/12-1-0417
KRISHHAN, Radha P.
Development Staff Member
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Bldg. 9201-3, MS-2, P.O. Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37803
615/574-0361
99
-------
KU, Anthony C.
Engineer
General Electric Company
P.O. Box A3
Schenectady, New York 12301
518/385-0640
KULLENDORFF, Anders
Doctor
Scal-laval Turbin AB
S-612 20 Finspang Sweden
KUWATA, Masayoshi
Dr.-Engineer
General Electric Company
P. 0. Box 43
Schenectady, New York 12301
518/385-3193
LACKEY, M.E.
Engineer
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37803
615/574-0274
LaMARCHE, Normand R.
Project Engineer
General Electric Company
1 River Road 23-352
Schenectady, New York 12345
518/385-7454
LAMBECK, Klaus
Researcher III
Ohio Department of Energy
30 East Broad Street, 34th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/466-8277
LAND. Malcolm L.
Consulting Engineer
5400 North Ocean Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
305/785-1584
LANDON, T.S.
Project 'Engineer
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
1134 Market Street
Wheeling, West Virginia 26003
LANE, C.J.
Process Engineer
Fluidised Combustion Contractors Ltd.
Sussex House, London Road
East Grinstead, Sussex
RH19 1UM England (0342) 27144
LaPIERRE, John L.
Patent Attorney
J. Ray McDermott i Company, Inc.
Patent Department, Room 1460
1010 Common Street
P.O. Box 60035
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
504/587-5719
LAPPLE, Walter C.
Research Specialist
Babcock & Wilcox Company
Alliance Research Center
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
LARGE, J.F.
Professor
Universite de Compiegne
B. P. 233
60206 Compiegne France
LAUGHLIN, Robert D.
Director, Bureau of Scientific and
Technological Development
Pennsylvania Department of Commerce
402 South Office Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
717/787-4147
LEE, Sheldon H.D.
Chemical Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4395
LEE, Yam Yee
Doctoral Candidate, Department
of Chemical Engineer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/253-4547
LeGASSIE, Roger W. A.
U.S. Department of Energy
Room 6H065
Washington, D.C. 20585
LEIBRECHT, Robert J.
Senior Engineer
Conoco, Incorporated
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77001
713/965-1069
100
-------
LENCIONI, Frank
Product Development Engineer
Vapor Corporation
6420 West Howard Street
Chicago, Illinois 60648
312/NE-1-9200
LEON, Albert H.
Director, Thermal Products
Technology
Dorr-Oliver Incorporated
77 Havemeyer Lane
Stamford1, Connecticut 06904
203/358-3834
LEOPOLDO, Hassimilla
Professor
University of Naples
Piazzale Tecchio, Naples, Italy
018-667225
LETHBRIDGE, G.D.
Manager, Thermal Engineering Dept.
Nova Scotia Power Corporation
Box 910
Halifax Nova Scotia B3J 2W5
902/424-7890
LEWIS, James A.
Senior Engineer
Babcock and Wilcox Company
P.O. Box 835
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
LIANG, David T.
Project Engineer
Department of Chemical Engineering
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario
Canada K7L 3N6
613/547-6978
LINDQUIST, Stephen
Engineer
Riley Stoker Corporation
P.O. Box 543
Worcester, Massachusetts 00613
617/852-7100
LINDQVIST, Oliver
Chalmers University of Technology
Department of Inorganic Chemistry
S-412 96 Goteborg Sweden
LIEM, Altert J.
Research Scientist
DOMTAR Incorporated
Trans Canada Highway 40
Senneville, Quebec, Canada
514/457-6810
LIONETTI, Thomas A.
Process Design Engineer
TEXACO
Box 52332
Houston, Texas 77052
713/225-2233
LIPARI, Peter F.
Head Advisor, Power Techn. Section
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
245 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts
617/973-5536
LIPPERT, Thomas
Engineer, R&D
Westinghouse
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-3985
LIU, Ke-Tien
Senior Research Engineer
Gulf Research & Development .
Company
P. 0. Drawer 2038
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
412/665-6590
LOCKLIN, David W.
Projects Manager
Battelie-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-4875
LOOP, Richard
Program Specialist'
EG&G Idaho, Incorporated
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
208/526-0350
LOUDIN, Kyle
Senior Technologist
Babcock & Wilcox Company
Research Division
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
LOUZADA, Emile G.
Scientific Office
Netherlands Embassy
4200 Linnean Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
202/966-0720
101
-------
LOVELL, Barry J.
Advanced Projects Engineer
Brown Boveri Turbomachinery
711 Anderson Avenue North
Saint Cloud, Minnesota 56301
612/255-5305
LOWELL, Elbert F.
General Manager, ESPD
General Electric Company
One River Road
Schenectady, New York 12345
518/385-5263
LUTES, Ian G.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
LYNCH, Joseph R.
Manager, Power Engineering
Aluminum Company of America
1501 Alcoa Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15317
412/553-3626
LYONS, Carl J.
Associate Director
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-7368
MacKAY, G. David
Director, Centre for Energy
Studies, N.S.T.C.
P.O. Box 1000
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4
902/429-8300
MacLEAN, Jack
Vice President, Operations Manager
Wyandot Dolomite, Incorporated
P.O. Box 126 County Road 99
Carey, Ohio 43316
419/396-7641
MacNEILL, J.M.
Senior Power Engineer
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
P.O. Box 533
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
304/278-7117
McCLUNC, James D.
Assistant Project Manager
PFBC, M.E.T.C.
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7249
McCOY, Daniel E.
Chief Engineer
E. Keeler Company
238 West Street
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701
717/326-3361
MCDONALD, D.B.
Deputy Project Manager
Rust Engineeering Company
P. 0. Box 587
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/576-7511
McKEE, David E.
Consultant Supervisor
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Engineering Department
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
302/366-4816
McNEESE, L.E.
Fossil Energy Program Director
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Post Office Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-7456
MACIEJEWSKI, Edward T.
Mechanical Engineer
Kennedy Van Saun Corporation
Railroad Street
Danville, Pennsylvania 17821
717/275-3050
MAIMONI, Arturo
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
P. 0. Box 808
Livermore, California 94550
415/422-8575
MALLIAH, K.T.U.
Engineering & Development Manager
Fossil Energy Development Dept.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Tiruchirapalli, India
MANAKER, Arnold M.
Project Manager
AFBC Demo Plant and Technical Support
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
MARKOWSKY, James J.
Section Head, Analytical
Research & Development
American Electric Power
Service Corporation
Two Broadway
New York, New York 10004
102
-------
MARTENS, H.J.F.A.
Research Engineering
Technische Hogeschool
P.O. Box 5055, 2600 GB Delft
The Netherlands
MASON, Clark A.
Staff Engineer Energy Group
The Rust Engineering Company
P. 0. Box 101
Bunningham, Alabama 35201
205/254-4108
MATHERS, W. G.
Manager, Design Engineering.
Turbo Products Division
Ingersoll-Rand Company
Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865
201/859-7902
MATHISEN, Ratner
Swedish State Power Board
MATTHEWS, Frank
Section Manager
Combustion Engineering Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
MATULEVICHUS, Edward
Engineering.Associate
Exxon Research & Engineering
P. 0. Box 8
Linden, New Jersey 07026
201/474-2443
MAYFIELD, Manville J.
Projects Manager, FBC
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
. Chattanoog, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
MEI, Joseph S.
Mechanical Engineer
Morgantown Energy Technology Ctr.
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7409
MELTON, Joe B.
Mining Division Engineer
Reynolds Metals Company
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23261
804/281-4744
MEYER, Willy
Project Manager
Saarberg FRG
Saarberg, Triererstr. 1
D 66 Saarbrucken FRG
FRG 681-4053698
MICHAUD, Gene
Section Manager, Chemical Engineering
Babcock 4 Wilcox Company
P.O. Box 835
Alliance, Ohio 44601
.216/821-9110
MILLER, Edward
General Manager
Foster-Miller Associates
795 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/482-5000
MILLER, Gabriel
Associates Professor
New York University
Washington Square
New York, New York 10012
212/598-2471
MILLER, Richard H.
President
Valley Forge Laboratories
6 Berkeley Road
Devon,'Pennsylvania 19333
215/688-8517
MILLER, Shelby A.
Senior Chemical Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
Chemical Engineering Division 205
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-7552
MINNER. Gene L.
Technical Staff
Energy Incorporated
P. 0. Box 736
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
208/524-1000
MINNICK, L. John
Consultant
Box 271
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
215/687-1167
MIX, Thomas
Consultant
Wonnser Engineering, Incorporated
212 South Main Street
Middleton, Massachusetts 01949
617/777-3060
103
-------
MODRAK, T.M.
Group Supervisor
Babcock & Wilcox Company
1562 Beeson Screec
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
MOGUL, J.
Director, Materials and
Process Engineering
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
One Passaic Street
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey 07075
201/777-2900
MOL, S. G. J.
She11-The Hague
P. 0. Box 162
2501AN, The Hague
The Netherlands
MONTAGNA, John C.
Senior Research Engineer
Gulf Research & Development Co.
P. 0. Drawer 2038
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
412/665-5876
MOODY, Jack R.
Associate Geologist
.Kentucky Geological Survey
311 Breckenridge Hall
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506 •
606/258-5863
MOORE, Shuman R.
Service Engineer
Foster Wheeler Corporation
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-3455
MORHOUS, Ralph C.
Principal Fossil Engineer
Power Authority New York State
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
212/397-2959
MORI, Shigekatsu
Associate Professor
Nagoya Institute of Technology
Gokiso, Showa, Nagoya
Japan
052/732-2111
MORROW, A.J.
Associate Partner
Preece Cardew & Rider
Paston House
165 Preston Road
Brighton, Sussex,
United Kingdom BN1 6AF
507-131
MOSKOWITZ, Selmour
Director, Energy Systems
Curtiss Wright Corporation
One Paasaic Street
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey 07075
201/777-2900
MOZZU, Martin A., Jr.
Manager, Energy Engineering
American Standard Incorporated
40 West 40th Street
New York, New York 10018
212/840-5459
MUCHUNAS, Peter J.
PFBC Program Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
12th & Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
202/633-9101
MUELLER, Klaus W.
Principal Engineering Associate
Stauffer Chemical Company
Livingstone Avenue
Dobbs Ferry, New York 10522
914/693-1200
MUKHERJEE, O.K. •
Manager, Gas Turbine
. and Development TC-E
BBC Brown, Boveri & Company Ltd.
CH 5401 Baden, Switzerland
MULLEN, John F.
Manager, Market Planning
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
1 Passaic Street
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey 07075
201/777-2900
MURPHY, Andrew J.
Project Manager
Acurex Corporation
Route 1,. Box 423
Morrisville, North Carolina 27709
919/781-9704
MUSTANSIR, Ali
Struthers Thermo-Flood Corporation
P.O. Box 753
Winfield, Kansas 67156
316/221-4050
MYCOCK, John
Manager of Source Testing and
Pilot Studies
ETS, Incorporated
3140-Chaparral Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
703/774-8999
104
-------
HYLES, K.H.
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4329
HACK, Herman
Program Manager
Battalia Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
614/424-4998
MAGABAJAN, V.
Research Scientist
Battelle-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43224
614/424-4446
NAKAZAWA, M.
Manager
Sumitomo Corporation of AMR
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York. 10022
212/935-4192
NAMIKI, T.
Senior Engineer
Marunouchi 2 -Gnome
Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100 Japan
03/455-5711
HEAL, John
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 26505
NEWBERRY, T. Warren
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
NEWBY, Richard A.
Principal Engineer
Westinghouse Electric
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-5084
NEWTON, George J.
Lovelace - ITAI
P. 0. Box 5890
Albuquerque, New Mexico
505/844-2409
87115
NGUYEN, Xuan T.
Research Engineer
Domtar, Incorporated
Trans Canada Highway 40
Senneville, Quebec, Canada
416/457-6810
NILSSON, Mats
Stal-laval Turbin AB
S-612 20 Finspong Sweden
0122/81000
NORCROSS, William R.
Program Manager
Combustion Engineering, Incorporated
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
NORDH, L.
Project Engineer
Maskinaffaren Generator, A.B.
Box 95
S-433-01 Parti lie. Sweden
NORTON, Richard C.
Assistant Manager, Corp. Development
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
245 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02107
617/973-5460
NUYT, Gary M.
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 Commerce Avenue, W10B91
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
615/532-4384
O'CONNELL, Lawrence
Project Engineer
American Electric Power
Two Broadway
New York, New York 10004
212/440-9063
O'CONNOR, Francis J.
Regional Manager
CE-Air Preheater 6.
3 Corporate Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
404/636-5953
0'DONOVAN, William C.
District Sales Manager
Riley Stoker Corporation
11750 Chesterdale Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
513/771-9522
O'HANLON, David
Electricity-Supply Board
Stevens Court
18 to 21 Stevens Green
Dublin 2, Ireland
OLIVER, Earl D.
Program Manager, Flue Gas Treating
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, California 94025
415/326-6200
105
-------
OLOFSSON, Jan
Department of Steam Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
S-421 96 Goceborg, Sweden
OLSSON, Erik
Doctor
Stal-Laval Turgin AB
S-612 20 Finspong, Sweden
0122/81000
OSTERMANN, Lawrence G.
Manager, Energy Project Development
General Electric Company
777 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/637-4295
PACKER, Charles M.
Staff Scientist
Lockheed Palo Alto
Research Laboratory
3251 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
415/493-4411
PANICO, Salvatore
(technical Engineer Specialist
Burns 6 Roe Services Corporation
Ford Plant, Building 13
Franklin 6 Union Streets
Alexandria, Virginia . 22314
703/548-1729
PAPA, P.A.
Principal Energy Conservation Engr.
American Cyanamid Company
Berdan Avenue
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
201/831-3924
PAPIC, M.M.
Planning Engineer .
British Columbia Hydro
555 West Hastings Street
British Columbia
604/663-2761
PARADIS, Steve
Senior Proposal Engineer
Riley Stoker Corporation
P.O. Box 547
Worcester, Massachusetts 01613
617/852-7100
PARK, Dalkeun
Graduate Student
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
PARKER, J.A.
Manager Thermal Production
Nova Scotia Power Corporation
Box 910
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2H5
902/424-5850
PARKER, Richard
Research Manager
Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
4901 Morena Boulevard, Bldg. 400
San Diego, California 92117
714/272-0050
PATEL, J. G.
Associate Director
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, Illinois 60616
312/567-3759
PATERSON, A.H.J.
Research Associate
University of British Columbia
c/o Chemical Engineering De.pt.
2075 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5
604/228-5787
PATTERSON, James G. Jr.
Chemical Engineer. •
Tennessee Valley Authority
1120 CST2
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-6531
PATTERSON, Robert M.
Process Engineer
Davy McKee Corporation
6200 Oaktree Boulevard
Independence, Ohio 44131
216/524-9300
PENG, Kingston F.
Mechanical Engineer
Corps of Engineers
650 Capitol Mall, SPKPO-T
Sacramento, California 95814
916/440-3375
PERLSWEIC, Michael
Engineer
U.S. Department of Energy
Mail Stop E-178
Washington, D.C. 20022
301/353-2843
106
-------
PETERSEN, Volker
Lurgi Chemie & Huettentechnik
Gervinusstrasse 17-19
6000 Frankfurt 1
Heat Germany
PETERSON, Charles H.
Senior Engineer
Weacinghouse Electric Company
Beulah Boad, Building 501
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1523S
412/256-5178
PHILLIPS, Henry
President
Foster Wheeler Development Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, Hew Jersey 08840
201/533-3652
PILLAI, Krishna K.
Fluidisation Engineer
NCB; Coal Utilisation Research Lab
Randalls Road, Letherhead
Surrey, England
PISTONE, Luigi
Combustion Engineer
Assoreni-Prop/Car
via Fabiani
S.Donate Mil. Italy 20097
02/535-3816 .
PODOLSKI, Walter F.
Argonne National Laborator}
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-7558
POERSCH, Werner
Dipl.-Ing.
Abteilungsleiter Ent. Versuch
Babcock-BSH AG
Parkstr. 29; Postfach 4+6
4150 Krefeld 11 West Germany
02151/448-292
POLACYE, Michael E.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
POPE, Michael
Chief Executive Officer
Pope, Evans and Robbins, Inc.
1133 Avenue, of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
212/730-5888
PORTER, James H.
President
Energy and Environmental Engrg.
675 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/491-3157
POTTERSON. S.T.
Senior Technical Consultant
Babcock & Wilcox Company
P.O. Box 2423
N. Canton, Ohio 44720
216/494-7610
POWER, A. E.
District Sales Manager
Riley Stoker Corporation
932 Park Square Building
Boston, Massachusetts. 02116
617/542-0861
PRETO, Fernando
Graduate Student
Chemical Engineer
Queen's University Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
K7L 3N6
613/547-5579
PREUIT, Lyn
Project Scientist
. Combustion Power Company
1346 Willow Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
415/324-4744
RAFAEL, Aruth
Manager
Deutsche Babcock AG
P.O. Box 100347-48
4200 Oberhsusen 1
West Germany
208/833-3684
RAGLAND, Kenneth W.
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
608/263-5963
RAJAH, Suri
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Thermal & Environmental Engrg.
Coal Research Center
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois 62901
618/536-2396
107
-------
RASMUSSEN, George
Program Director
Energy Incorporated
P. 0. Box 7.36
Idaho Falls, Idaho 93401
708/524-1000
RASOR, J. B.
Chief, Military Const. Division
USAF Regional Civil Engineer
526 Title Building
30 Pryor Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404/221-6037
READ, Ronald C.
Manager, Facilities Energy
Management
International Harvester
401 North Michigan Avenue.
Chicago, Illinois 60611
REDING, John T.
Research Engineer
Dow Chemical
Building A-2303
Freeport, Texas 77541
713/238-0305
REED, Kenneth A.
Project Manager
Foster Wheeler Energy.Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-3008
REED, Robert R.
Manager
Pope, Evans and Robbins, Inc.
320 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703/549-2884
REH, Lothar
Or.-Ing.
Lurgi-Gesellschaften
Gervinusstr. 17/19
D 6000 Frankfurt(Main)2, Germany
0611/157(1)
REID, William T.
Consultant
2470 Dorset Road
Columbus, Ohio 43221
614/488-2055
RICE, Richard L.
Project Engineer
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7164
RICHARDS, Thomas J.
Project Engineer
Caterpillar Tractor Company
. Research Department TC-E
Peoria, Illinois 61629
309/578-6816
RICKMAN, W.S.
Manager
Head-End Operations Branch
General 'Atomic Company
P.O. Box 81608
San Diego, California 92138
714/455-3860
RIDDINGTON, John W.
Senior Supervising Engineer
Burns 6 Roe, Incorporated
496 Kinder Kamack Road
Oradell, New Jersey 07649
201/265-2000
ROBERTS, Alan G.
Senior Project Manager -
NCB Coal Utilisation Research Lab.
c/o BCURA Ltd.
Randall's Road
Leatherhead, England
ROBERTS, Richard
Manager, PFB Programs
General Electric Company
One River Road
Schanectady, New York 12345
518/385-5713
ROBERTSON, Archie
Research Associate
Foster Wheeler Development Corp.
12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-3647
ROBISIN, Deborah J.
Chemical Engineer
General Motors Corporation
General Motors .Technical Center
Warren, Michigan 48090
313/575-1040
ROBL, Thomas L.
Senior Geologist
Institute for Mining Minerals
Research
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
606/252-5535
RODGERS, James E.
Manager, Engineering
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
314/694-6650
108
-------
RODGERS, Larry
KVB, Incorporated
776 Bush Court
Columbus, Ohio 43229
614/436-7060
ROLLBUHLER, R. James
Combustion Research ProjecC Engineer
Lewis Research Center - NASA
M.S. 60-6
Cleveland, Ohio 4413S
216/433-4000
ROONEY, John
Electricity Supply Board
Stevens Court
18-21 Stevens Creen
Dublin 2, Ireland
ROONEY, Michael S.
Production Engineer
Conoco, Inc.
P.O. Box 2226
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
512/884-0421
ROSE, Jerry G.
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40S06
606/258-4977
ROSS, Carl F.
Senior Training Specialist
•Combustion Engineer, Incorporated
9538-6BB
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
ROTHROCK, Ron
Marketing Analyst
Catalytic, Incorporated
1500 Market Street
Centre Square
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19038
215/864-8793
RUBOW, Lynn N.
Senior Engineer
Gilbert Associates,
Box 1498
Reading, Pennsylvania
215/775-2600
Incorporated
19603
RUHL, M. John
Engineering Manager
Thermal Processing, Inc.
507 Willow Springs Road
LaGrange, Illinois 60525
312/354-8771
RUKES, Bert
Dr.-Ing.
Kraftwerk Union AG
Hammerbacher Str. 12+14
8520 Erlangen, West Germany
09131/183108
RUSH, Thomas, III
Graduate Student
Chemistry Department
Howard University-
Washington, D.C. 20059
202/636-6883
SADDY, M.
Senior Engineer
Centre de Technologia Promon-CTP
Praia do Plaoengo, 154-120 Floor
Rio de Janeiro, RJ-Brazil 22210
021/205-0112
SADLER, Cynthia K.
Mechanical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
SADOMSKI, Dick
Industrial Sales Manager
Riley Stoker Corporation
Box 547
Worcester, Massachusetts 01613
617/852-7100
SAGE, Warnie L.
Chief Equipment Engineer
Stearns-Roger
4500 Cherry Creek Drive
Box 5888
Denver, Colorado 80217
303/692-4138
SALA, Chuck
Construction Supervisor
Pope Evans & Robbins
1133 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
212/730-5888
SARGENT, William S.
Manager, Market Research
Lodge-Cottre11/Dresser
601 Jefferson
Houston, Texas 77002
713/972-2153
SAROFIM, Adel ?.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617/253-4566
109
-------
SAXENA, S.C.
Professor
University of Illinois at Chicago
Box 4348
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312/996-2341
SCHAFEN, John B.
Director Business Development
Dresser Industries Incorporated
Power Systems Croup
601 Jefferson
Houston, Texas 77002
713/972-3917
SCHMIDT, Linda C.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New'Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
SCHRECKENBERG, H.
Gelsenberg AG
Uberseering 2
Hamburg 60 2000
West Germany
SCHROPPE, T.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
SCHULZ, Robert B.
Research Engineer
Chevron Research Company
576 Standard Avenue
Richmond, California -94802
415/237-4411
SEBER, Ernest
Special Projects
Struthers Wells Corporation
P.O. Box 8
Warren, Pennsylvania 16365
814/726-1000
SECKINGTON, Blair R.
Process Studies Engineer
Ontario Hydro
700 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5G 1X6
416/592-5193
SESHAMANI, V.
Manager, Boiler Development
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07933
201/533-2716
SEVCIK, VACLAV, J.
Manager, Energy Conversion Project
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 10
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-3058
SHACKLETON, Mike
Section Leader
Acruex Corporation
485 Clyde Avenue
Mt. View, California 94042
415/964-3200
SHANG, Jer Yu
Deputy Director
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880, Collins Ferry Road
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
304/599-7134
SHEARER, John A.
Assistant Chemist
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue .
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4378
SHERMAN, Arthur
Vice President, Research
Combustion Power Company
1346 Willow Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
415/324-4744
SHEVLIN, Thomas S.
Specialist
3M
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612/733-3884
SHILLING, Norman
Engineering Consultant
Buell ECU, Envirotech
200 North 7th Street
Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042
717/272-2001
SHIMODA, Elwyn
Research Associate
Conoco Incorporated
P. 0. Box 1267
Ponca City, Oklahoma -74601
405/767-3195
SHORT, James C.
Sales Product Manager
Fuller Company
2040 Avenue C
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18032
215/264-6561
110
-------
SIMAN-TOV, Moshe
Engineer Specialist, Sec. Head
ORNL, VCC-ND
Box X, Building 1000
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6515
SISKIND, William
Program Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
Germantowh, Maryland
301/353-2800
SITTHIPHONG, Norkun
Graduate1 Student
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
SLAUGHTER, Bill
Manager, FBC
EFRI
3412 Hi 1view Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
415/855-2424
SMITH, Carl B.
Department Head
Union Carbide Corporation-ORNL
P.O. Box X, Building 1000
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6408
SMITH, M. Richard
Engineering Supervisor
Bechtel National, Incorporated
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, California 94941
415/768-1053
SODERBERG, C. Richard
Assistant Group Director
Foster-Miller Associates
350 Second Avenue
Wattham, Massachusetts 02154
617/890-3200
SOETERBROEK, John C.
Staff Manager Utilities
DSM
Kerenshofweg 100
6167 A Geleen
The Netherlands
SOLLISH, David B.
Customer Training Specialist
Combustion Engineering
9538-6BB .
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
SPAZIANI, John
Contract Manager
20MW AFBC Pilot
Babcock & Wilcox Company
20 So. Van•Buren Avenue
Barberton,.Ohio 44203
216/753-4511
SPENGLER, Charles J.
Fellow Engineer
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
R&D Center, 1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-3622
SQUIRES, Arthur M.
Vilbrantd Prof. Chemical Engineer
Department Chemical Engineer
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
703/961-5972
STATNICK, Robert M.
Senior Staff Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/755-0206
STARKWEATHER, James
Manager, Energy Technology
St. Regis Paper Company
W. Nyack, New York 10994
914/624-3000
STELMAN, David
Energy Systems Group
Rockwell International
8900 DeSoto Avenue
Canoga, California 91304
Z13/341-1000
STEPHENS, Leonard
Mechanical Engineer
USAF
HQ AFESC/DEMM
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403
904/283-6361
STEWART, James F.
Staff Engineer
Conoco Incorporated
P. 0. Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77001
713/963-1252
111
-------
STEWART, Robert D.
Senior Development Engineer
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07044
201/533-2422
STEYNIS, B. Th.
Manager Research
Stork KAB
Industriestraat 1
P. 0. Box 20, 7550 GB
Heogelo, The Netherlands
STIL, J.H.
She11-The Hague
P.O. Box 162
2501 AN The Hague
The Netherlands
STONC, Jack V.
Chief of Project Engineering
Brown Bowers Turbomachinery .
711 Anderson Avenue
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
612/255-5474
STOUT, W. L.
Research Soil Scientist
USDA/SEA
PLT Science Division-WVU
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
304/293-2795
STRICKLAND, Larry D.
Project Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7494
STRINGER, John
Program Manager
EPRI
3612 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94303
615/855-2672
STRINGFELLOW, Thomas E.
Operations Manager
Pope, Evans & Robbins, Inc.
P.O. Box 533
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
304/278-5315
STROMBERG, Lars
Technical Director
Studsvik Energiteknik AB
S-61182 Nykoping
Sweden
0155/80000
SULZBERGER, Virginia C.
Advisor
Exxon Enterprises Incorporated
224 Park Avenue
Florhan Park, New Jersey 07932
201/765-4304
SUMARIA, Veni
Scientist
VAYCOR
300 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801
617/933-6805
SUN, Colette C.
Senior Engineer
Research & Development Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-7309
SVENSSON, C.
Chief Engineer
Maskinaffaren Generator, A.B.
Box 95
S-433-01 Partille, Sweden
SWANSON, Morris A.
Supervising Engineer
Caterpillar Tractor Company
100 N.E. Adama, Tech Center
Peoria, Illinois 61629
309/578-6960
SWIFT, William M.
Chemical Engineer•
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue, Building 205
Argonne, Illinois 60439
312/972-4384
TADDEI, Otto
Director of Marketing
Lurgi Corporation
377 Route 17
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604
201/288-6450
TANG, John T.Y.
Senior Research Engineer
Babcock & Wilcox Company
P.O. Box 835
Alliance. Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
TAYLOR, T. E.
Senior Engineer
Foster Wheeler Development Corp.
12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-3675
112
-------
THAU, Albert
R&D Engineer
Power Authority of New York State
10 Columbus Circle, 17th Floor
Hew York, New York 10019
212/397-7632
THOENNES, Clemens M.
Manager, Atmospheric Fluidized
Bed Programs
General Electric Company
2-519
1 River Road
Schenectady, Hew York 12345
518/385-5828
TIGNAC, Louis L.
Member of Technical Staff
Rocketdyne-Rockwell International
6633 Canoga Avenue
Canoga Park, California 91304
213/884-2540
TCMITA. Minoru
Chief of 3rd Section, 3rd Division
Government Industrial Development
Laboratory, Hokkaido
2-17, Tsukisamu-Higashi, Toyohira-bi
Sapporo, Japan 061-01
001/851-0151
TRIVETT, Gordon S.
Director, Environmental Assessment
M.S. Department of Environment
P.O. Box 2107,
Halifax, Nova Scotia B35 2X4
902/424-8600
TROPER, James
Research Scientist
Valley Forge Laboratories
6 Berkeley Road
Devon, Pennsylvania 19333
215/688-8517
TUNG, Shaoe
Manager, Energy Conversion
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts
TUREK, David G.
Chemical Engineer
Science Applications, Inc.
Chestnut Ridge Professional Bldg.
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7527
UHRIG, Robert E.
Vice President
Florida Power & Light
P. O. Box 529100
Miami. Florida 33152
305/552-3601
UllDERKOFFLER, V.S.
Senior Program Manager
Gilbert Associates
P. 0. Box 1498
Reading. Pennsylvania 19607
215/777-2600
URUG. H.
Chief Engineer
Foater Wheeler Francaise
31 Rue Des Bourdonnais
Paris, France 75021
01/2334432
VAN BEEK, T.
Manager Mechanical
Engineering & Purchasing
DSM Nieuwbouw
P.O. Box 10, 6160
McGeleen, The Netherlands
VAN BERCKELAER. D.F.
Energy Project Leader
Heineken Techniach Beheer
Burgemeeater Soeetsweg 1
Zoeterwoude
The Netherlands
VAN DEN BERG, D.J.
Sales Manager
Ijsselmonde BV
Verolme Machinefabriek
3008 AB Rotterdam
P.O. Box 5079
The Netherlands
VAN DER LINDEN. S.
Director, Marketing
Curtiss Wright Power Systems
One Passaic Street
Hood-Ridge, New Jersey 07078
201/777-2900
VANDERMOLEN, Robert
Marketing Manager, Research.
Combustion Power Company
1346 Willow Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
415/304-4744
VAN GASSELT. M.L.G.
Manager Project Group Coal Technology
THO Apeldoorn
P.O. Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
113
-------
VAN MEURS, H.C.A.
Chief Co-Process Acknowledger
Shell Internationale Pecroelmn
P.O. Box 162, 2501 AN The Hague
The Netherlands
VEDAMURTHY, V. N.
Assistant Professor of
Mechanical Engineering
Perarignar Anna
University of Technology
Madras-25, India
VERHOEFF, F.
FBC Development Engineer
Stork KAB
Industriestraat 1
P.O. Box 20, 7550 GB
Hengelo, The Netherlands
VAN 'T VERLAAT, P.J.
Research Engineering Project
Croup Coal Technology
TNO Apeldoorn
P.O. Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
VERSTEEGH, A.M.
Chief Coal Technology
Project Department
Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland
P.O. Box 1, 1755 ZC Petten
The Netherlands.
VILIAMAS. Virgil K.
Senior Engineer
Babocks & Uilcox Company
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, Ohio 44601
216/821-9110
VINES, S.N.
Associate Professor
University of Virginia
Thorton Hall
Chariottesville, Virginia 22901
804/924-7779
VIRR, Michael J.
Managing Director
Stone Platt Fluidfire
56 Second-Avenue
Pensnett Trading Estate
Stourbridge, West Midlands, UK
0384/278566
VOCEL, G. John
President
G.J.V. Corporation
168 Chandler Avenue
Elmhurst, Illinois 60126
312/834-9291
von KLEIN SMIA, William
Supervisor, Research Engineer
Southern California Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 800
Rosemead, California 91770
213/572-2536
VOSS, Kenneth E.
Senior Research Chemist
Englehard Minerals & Chemicals Corp.
Menlo Park
Edison, New Jersey 08817
201/321-5146
VROOM, Henry
Service Engineer
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
WACHTLER, Frederick C.
Foster Wheeler Boiler Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston. New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
WALL, Clarence J.
Manager, Technical Marketing
Support
Dorr Oliver
.77 Halemeger Lane
Stamford,. Connecticut 06904
203/358-3619
WANDREY, Robert E.
Project Engineer
General Electric Company
USE, Building 23/352
Schenectady, New York 12345
518/385-0820
WAPNER, Phillip
Senior Project Engineer
Gulf Oil Company
1720 South Bellaire Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80222
303/758-1700
-WARD. Lloyd
Manager. Washington Office
Curtisa-Wright Corporation
905 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/638-2926
WAREING. John J.
Area Manager
Air Preheater Company
10 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
617/542-2001
114
-------
WATKINS, Nat
Manager
3M Company
3M Center 219-1
St. Paul, Minnesota 55144
612/733-2759
WEAVER, Robert
Project Engineer
Gilbert Associates
P. 0. Box 1498
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603
215/775-2600
WEBB, Holmes A., Jr.
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Department of Energy.
P. 0. Box 880, METC
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
304/599-7260
WELLS, David
Senior Consultant
DuPont -
L-1369
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
302/366-2180
WELLS, J.W.
Research Engineer
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
615/574-6522
WELLS, T.J., Jr.
Project Engineer
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
P.O. Box 2325
Boston, Massachusetts 02107
WELSHDtER, Jim
Technical Sales Representative
National Lime & Stone Company
P.O. Box 120
Findlay, Ohio 45840
419/422-4314
WEN, C. Y.
Professor & Chairman
Department of Chemical
Engineering
West Virginia University
Morgantovn, West Virginia •26505
304/293-2111
WENCLARZ, Richard A.
Senior Engineer
Westinghouse R&D Center
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
412/256-3233
WESLEY, David
Senior Chemist
Kentucky Center for Energy Research Lab
P.O. Box 13015
Lexington, Kentucky 40583
606/252-5535
WEST, Patricia B.
Environmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1000 Chestnut Street, Tower 62
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-6511
WIECHULA, B. A.
Engineering Associate
Imperial Oil Limited
P. 0. Box 3004
Sarnia, Ontario N7T7M5
Canada
519/339-2275
WIENER. William
Staff Engineer
NeraToom
The Hague
Holland
WIENER, Stephen
Mechanical Engineer
Port Authority of New York/
New Jersey
One World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
212/466-7099
WILKERSON, H. Joe
Professor
University of Tennessee
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916
615/974-5139
WILIS, Paul
Project Engineer
British Columbia Hydro
555 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6B 4T6 Canada
604/663-2194
WILLIS, D. M.
Chief, Industrial Development
Technology
National Coal Board
Coal Research Establishment
Stoke Orchard, England
024267 3361
WILSON, Gary f.
Manager, Facilities Services
Chemical Group
The BF Goodrich Company
6100 Oak Tree Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44131
216/524-0200
115
-------
WILSON, John P.
Director, Allied Products-
Engineering and Construction
Anheuser-Bush Companies
721 Pestalozzi Screet
St. Louis, Missouri 63118
314/577-2137
WILSON, Keith
Project Engineer
Combustion Power
1346 Willow Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
415/324-4744
WILSON, Mike
S/Manager
In-O-Ven Corporation
190 Sound Beach Avenue
Old Greenwich, Connecticut 06878
203/637-5931
WINBERG, Steven E.
Field Service Engineer
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
110 South Orange -Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-1100
WITHERS, Henry W.
Chemical Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
1020 Chestnut Street, Tower II
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
615/755-3571
WOHLSTEIN, Michael S.
Sales Contract Manager
Allen-Sherman-Hoff
One Country View Road
Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
215/647-9900
WOLOWODIUK, Walter
Manager, Applied Thermodynamics
Foster Wheeler Development Corp.
12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-3639
WONG, Henry K.
Senior Service Engineer
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
201/533-2448
WOOD, Ralph T.
Director
General Electric Company
1 River Road, P.O. Box 43
Schenectady, New York 12301
518/385-5122
WORMSER. Alex
President
Wormser Engineering Inc.
212 South Main Street
Middleton, Massachusetts 01949
617/777-3060
WUNDER, Gregory E.
Sales Engineer
Foster Wheeler
Perimeter Center East
Atlanta, Georgia
404/393-1820
WYKE, E. J.
Manager-Facilities
Cummins Engine Company, Inc.
1000 Fifth Street
Columbus, Indiana 47201
812/379-5774
VAN, T. Y.
Senior Research Associate
Mobil Research and Development Corp.
P. 0. Box 10L5
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
609/737-3000
YANG, Ralph T.
Associate Professor
State Univ. of New York at Buffalo
Department of Chemical Engineering
Amherst, New York 14260
716/636-2331
YANO, Y.
Assistant Manager
Kawasaki Heavy Industries
1-35 Shimaya, Konohanaku
Osaka, Japan
Osaka-shi, Japan 554
06/461-8001
YEACER, Kurt E.
Director, Coal Combustion Sys. Div.
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hi11view Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94303
415/855-2456
YIP, Harry H.
Senior Engineer
Head-End Operations Branch
General Atomic Company
P.O. Box 81608
San Diego, California 92138
714/455-3860
YLVISAKER, Ivar
General Engineer
Resource Applications
U.S. Department of Energy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20461
202/633-8366
116
-------
YOUNG, Charles W.
Environmental Engineer
GUA/Technology Division
Burlingcon Road
Bedford, Maasachusetts 01730
617/275-5444
YOUNG, William V.
Struchers Thermo-Flood Corporation
P.O. Box 753
Winfield, Kansas 67156
316/221-4050
ZAKKAY, Victor
Professor
New York University
Washington Square
New York, New York 10003
212/598-2471
ZIELINSKI, Edward A.
Supervisor
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
203/688-1911
ZMOLA. Paul C.
Director, Technical Liaison
Combustion Engineering
1101 15th Street; N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/296-1240
ZOLL, August H.
Manager, Inst. & Controls-
Curtiaa-Wright Corporation
One Passaic Street
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey 07075
201/777-2900
ZYLKOWSKI. Jerome R.
Project Manager
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
612/330-6583
117
------- |