IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
Final
January 2017
Project 13527-001
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Prepared by
Sargent &. LundyLLC
55 East Monroe Street • Chicago, IL 60603 USA • 312-269-2000
-------
LEGAL NOTICE
This analysis ("Deliverable") was prepared by Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. ("S&L"), expressly for the sole use
of Eastern Research Group, Inc. ("Client") in accordance with the agreement between S&L and Client.
This Deliverable was prepared using the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by engineers
practicing under similar circumstances. Client acknowledges: (1) S&L prepared this Deliverable subject to
the particular scope limitations, budgetary and time constraints, and business objectives of the Client;
(2) information and data provided by others may not have been independently verified by S&L; and (3) the
information and data contained in this Deliverable are time sensitive and changes in the data, applicable
codes, standards, and acceptable engineering practices may invalidate the findings of this Deliverable. Any
use or reliance upon this Deliverable by third parties shall be at their sole risk.
This work was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Eastern Research
Group, Inc. (ERG) as a contractor and reviewed by ERG and EPA personnel.
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
Purpose of Cost Algorithms for the IPM Model
The primary purpose of the cost algorithms is to provide generic order-of-magnitude
costs for various air quality control technologies that can be applied to the electric power
generating industry on a system-wide basis, not on an individual unit basis. Cost
algorithms developed for the IPM model are based primarily on a statistical evaluation of
cost data available from various industry publications as well as Sargent & Lundy's
proprietary database and do not take into consideration site-specific cost issues. By
necessity, the cost algorithms were designed to require minimal site-specific information
and were based only on a limited number of inputs such as unit size, gross heat rate,
baseline emissions, removal efficiency, fuel type, and a subjective retrofit factor.
The outputs from these equations represent the "average" costs associated with the
"average" project scope for the subset of data utilized in preparing the equations. The
IPM cost equations do not account for site-specific factors that can significantly impact
costs, such as flue gas volume or temperature, and do not address regional labor
productivity, local workforce characteristics, local unemployment and labor availability,
project complexity, local climate, and working conditions. In addition, the indirect
capital costs included in the IPM cost equations do not account for all project-related
indirect costs a facility would incur to install a retrofit control such as project
contingency.
Establishment of the Cost Basis
Industry data from "Current Capital Cost and Cost-effectiveness of Power Plant
Emissions Control Technologies" prepared by J. E. Cichanowicz for the Utility Air
Regulatory Group (UARG) in 2012 to 2014 were used by Sargent & Lundy LLC (S&L)
to update the wet FGD cost algorithms from 2013. The published data were significantly
augmented by the S&L in-house database of recent wet FGD and wet FGD wastewater
treatment system projects. Due to recently published Effluent Limitation Guidelines
(ELG), it is expected that all future wet FGDs will have to incorporate a wastewater
treatment facility. The capital cost of physical/chemical treatment along with selenium
control with biological treatment is included in the base scope. Other feasible
technologies such as evaporation, waste fixation/stabilization, and slip stream dry
scrubbing would have to be evaluated on case-by-case basis.
Cost data from the various sources showed similar trends versus generating capacity.
Escalation based on the CEPI was deemed acceptable. All data sources were combined
so as to provide a representative wet FGD cost basis. The cost estimation tool was
benchmarked against recent wet FGD projects to confirm the applicability to the current
market conditions.
Page 1
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
The least-squares curve fit of the data was defined as a "typical" wet FGD retrofit for
removal of 98% of the inlet sulfur. It should be noted that the lowest available SO2
emission guarantees, from the original equipment manufacturers of wet FGD systems, are
0.04 lb/MMBtu. The typical wet FGD retrofit was based on:
• Retrofit Difficulty = 1 (Average retrofit difficulty);
• Gross Heat Rate = 9500 Btu/kWh;
• SO2 Rate = 3.0 lb/MMBtu;
• Type of Coal = Bituminous;
• Project Execution = Multiple lump-sum contracts; and
• Recommended SO2 emission floor = 98% removal efficiency or
0.06 lb/MMBtu.
A wet FGD designed to treat 100% of the flue gas is capable of meeting Mercury Air
Toxics Standards (MATS) limits for HC1 of 0.002 lb/MBtu. Wet FGDs can remove up to
99% HC1 in the flue gas.
Units below 100 MW will typically not install a wet FGD system. Sulfur reductions for
small units would be accomplished by treating smaller units at a single site with one wet
FGD system, switching to a lower sulfur coal, repowering or converting to natural gas
firing, using dry sorbent injection, and/or reducing operating hours. Capital costs of
approximately $900/kW may be used for units below 100 MW under the premise that
these will be combined.
The base-case cost algorithm (without waste water treatment) remains unchanged due to
the limited number of wet FGD projects installed in recent years as well as market
pressure. The cost algorithm for 2016 has incorporated the cost for a wet FGD
wastewater treatment system to include the capital and O&M cost associated with
retrofitting the wet FGD wastewater treatment to meet the ELG regulation.
Methodology
Inputs
Several input variables are required in order to predict future retrofit costs. The gross
unit size in MW (equivalent acfm) and sulfur content of the fuel are the major variables
for the capital estimation. A retrofit factor that equates to the difficulty of constructing
the system must be defined. The costs herein could increase significantly for congested
sites. The gross unit heat rate will factor into the amount of flue gas generated and
ultimately the size of the absorber, reagent preparation, waste handling, and balance of
plant costs. The SO2 rate will have the greatest influence on the reagent handling and
Page 2
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
waste handling facilities. The type of fuel (Bituminous, PRB, or Lignite) will influence
the flue gas quantities as a result of the different typical heating values.
The evaluation includes a user-selected option for a wastewater treatment facility. The
base capital cost includes minor physical and chemical wastewater treatment. However,
in the future, more extensive wastewater handling may be required due to compliance
associated with the ELG. The physical and chemical wastewater treatment system and
biological treatment system costs are developed based on fixed parameters associated
with the wet FGD system. It is assumed that the wastewater would be approximately
0.4 gpm/MW. For example, for 500-MWW unit, wastewater treatment will be designed
for 200 gpm of wastewater. Any changes from the base assumptions should be
incorporated to derive more accurate costs. Other available wastewater treatment
technology systems are not considered in this cost algorithm.
The cost methodology is based on a unit located within 500 feet of sea level. The actual
elevation of the site should be considered separately and factored into the cost due to the
effects on the flue gas volume. The base absorber island and balance of plant costs are
directly impacted by the site elevation. These two base cost modules should be increased
based on the ratio of the atmospheric pressure at sea level and that at the unit location.
As an example, a unit located 1 mile above sea level would have an approximate
atmospheric pressure of 12.2 psia. Therefore, the base absorber island and balance of
plant costs should be increased by:
14.7 psia/12.2 psia =1.2 multiplier to the base absorber island and balance of plant costs
Outputs
Total Project Costs (TPC)
First, the installed costs are calculated for each required base module. The base module
installed costs include:
• All equipment;
• Installation;
• Buildings;
• Foundations;
• Electrical;
• Minor physical and chemical wastewater treatment (WWT); and
• Retrofit difficulty.
Page 3
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for Project No. 13527-001
APC Technologies January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
The base modules are:
Base absorber island cost
Base reagent preparation cost
Base waste handling cost
Base balance of plant costs including: ID or booster fans, new wet
chimney, piping, ductwork and reinforcement, minor WWT, etc.
Base wastewater treatment facility to comply with the ELG
BMR + BMF + BMW + BMB + BMWW
The total base module installed cost (BM) is then increased by:
• Engineering and construction management costs at 10% of the BM cost;
• Labor adjustment for 6 x 10-hour shift premium, per diem, etc., at 10% of the
BM cost; and
• Contractor profit and fees at 10% of the BM cost.
A capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC) is established as the sum of
the BM and the additional engineering and construction fees.
Additional costs and financing expenditures for the project are computed based on the
CECC. Financing and additional project costs include:
• Owner's home office costs (owner's engineering, management, and
procurement) at 5% of the CECC; and
• Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) at 10% of the
CECC and owner's costs. The AFUDC is based on a three-year engineering
and construction cycle.
The total project cost is based on a multiple lump-sum contract approach. Should a
turnkey engineering procurement construction (EPC) contract be executed, the total
project cost could be 10 to 15% higher than what is currently estimated.
Escalation is not included in the estimate. The total project cost (TPC) is the sum of the
CECC and the additional costs and financing expenditures.
BMR =
BMF =
BMW =
BMB =
BMWW =
BM =
Page 4
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
Fixed O&M (FOM)
The fixed operating and maintenance (O&M) cost is a function of the additional
operations staff (FOMO), maintenance labor and materials (FOMM), and administrative
labor (FOMA) associated with the wet FGD installation. The fixed O&M cost category
to account for a wastewater treatment facility that meets ELG regulations is included in
the fixed cost for maintenance labor and materials (FOMM). The FOM is the sum of the
FOMO, FOMM, and FOMA.
The following factors and assumptions underlie calculations of the FOM:
• All of the FOM costs were tabulated on a per-kilowatt-year (kW-yr) basis.
• In general, 12 additional shift operators are required for a 500-MW or smaller
installation. Units larger than 500 MW require a total of 16 additional shift
operators. The FOMO was based on the number of additional operations staff
required as a function of generating capacity.
• The fixed maintenance materials and labor are a direct function of the process
capital cost at 1.5% of the BM.
• The administrative labor is a function of the FOMO and FOMM at 3% of the
sum of (FOMO + 0.4 FOMM).
Variable O&M (VOM)
Variable O&M is a function of:
• Reagent use and unit costs;
• Waste production and unit disposal costs;
• Additional power required and unit power cost;
• Makeup water required and unit water cost; and
• Operation of a wastewater treatment facility to meet ELG regulations.
Page 5
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
The following factors and assumptions underlie calculations of the VOM:
• All of the VOM costs are tabulated on a per-megawatt-hour (MWh) basis.
• The reagent usage is a function of gross unit size, SO2 feed rate, and removal
efficiency. While the capital costs are based on a 98% sulfur removal design,
the operating sulfur removal percentage can be adjusted to reflect actual
variable operating costs.
• A calcium-to-sulfur stoichiometric ratio of 1.03 was used as the basis for the
reagent use rate. In addition, a limestone purity of 90% CaCCb with the
balance being inert material was defined to establish the total reagent feed
rate.
• The waste generation rate is directly proportional to the reagent usage and is
estimated based on 10% moisture in the by-product.
• The additional power required includes increased fan power to account for the
added wet FGD pressure drop. This requirement is a function of gross unit
size (actual gas flow rate) and sulfur rate.
• The additional power is reported as a percentage of the total unit gross
production. In addition, a cost associated with the additional power
requirements can be included in the total variable costs.
• The makeup water rate is a function of gross unit size (actual gas flow rate)
and sulfur feed rate.
Due to wide range of variability of FGD wastewater chemistry and power and chemicals
consumption of the wastewater treatment system associated with a wet FGD, the variable
O&M cost is developed as a fixed amount based upon the S&L in-house project data and
design assumptions identified in the capital cost section of this report.
Input options are provided for the user to adjust the variable O&M costs per unit.
Average default values are included in the base estimate. The variable O&M costs per
unit options are:
• Limestone cost in $/ton. No escalation is observed in pebble lime cost.
However, the cost could significantly vary with the location.
• Waste disposal costs in $/ton. The site-specific cost could be significantly
different.
• Auxiliary power cost in $/kWh. No noticeable escalation has been observed
for auxiliary power cost since 2013.
• Makeup water costs in $/1000 gallon.
• Operating labor rate (including all benefits) in $/hr.
Page 6
-------
Soi-i 1 t ¦¦ lcfy'' =
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
The variables that contribute to the overall VOM are:
VOMR = Variable O&M costs for limestone reagent
VOMW = Variable O&M costs for waste disposal
VOMP = Variable O&M costs for additional auxiliary power
VOMM = Variable O&M costs for makeup water
VOMWW = Variable O&M costs for wastewater treatment
The total VOM is the sum of VOMR, VOMW, VOMP, VOMM, and VOMWW. Table 1
shows a complete capital and O&M cost estimate worksheet.
Page 7
-------
Sergent S Ljuncly111
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Variable
Designation
Units | Value
Calculation
Wastewater Treatment
Phys Chem-Siotogical ~
Unit Size (Gross)
A
(MW)
500
<— User Input (Greater than 100 MW)
Retrofit Factor
B
1
<— User Input (An "aweraqe" retrofit has a factor = 1.0)
Gross Heat Rate
C
(Btu/kWh)
9500
<— User Input
S02 Rate
D
(Ib/MMBtu)
3
<— User Input
Type of Coal
E
Bituminous i ~ i
<— User Input
Coal Factor
F
1
Bit=1, PRB=1.05, Liq= 1.07
Heat Rate Factor
G
0.95
C/10000
Heat Input
H
(Btu/hr)
4.75E+09
A*C*1000
Operating SO2 Removal
J
(%)
95
<— User Input (Used to adjust actual operating costs)
Desiqn Limestone Rate
K
(ton/hr)
12
17.52*A*D*G/2000 (Based on 98% Removal)
Desiqn Waste Rate
L
(ton/hr)
23
1.811*K(Based on 98% Removal)
Aux Power
Include in VOM? 0
M
(%)
1.69
(l.^e-XO.ISS'DtrF'G
Makeup Water Rate
N
(1000 qph)
38
(1.674*D+74.68)*A*F*G/1000
Limestone Cost
P
(S/ton)
30
<— User Input
Waste Disposal Cost
Q
(S/ton)
30
<— User Input
Aux Power Cost
R
($/kWh)
0.06
<— User Input
Makeup Water Cost
S
(S/kqal)
1
<— User Input
Operatinq Labor Rate
T
(S/hr)
60
<— User Input (Labor cost including all benefits)
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
Table 1. Example of a Complete Cost Estimate for a Wet FGD
Costs are all based on 2016 dollars
Capital Cost Calculation Example
Includes - Equipment, installation, buildings, foundations, electrical, minor physical/chemical wastewater treatment and retrofit difficulty
584000*(B)*((F*G)A0.6)*((D/2)/l0.02)*(AA0.716)
202000*(B)*( (D*G)/0.3)*( A*0.716)
106000*(B)*( (D*G)/0.45)*(AA0.716)
1070000*(B)*((F*G)A0.4)*( A'0.716)
10600000*( B)*( A/SOO)^. 6
BMR+ BMF + BMW + BMB + BMWW
BMR($) =
BMF ($) =
BMW ($) =
BMB ($) =
BMWW ($) =
BM ($) =
BM ($/KW) =
Total Project Cost
A1 = 10% of BM
A2= 10% of BM
A3 = 10% of BM
CECC ($) - Excludes Owner's Costs = BM+A1+A2+A3
CECC ($/kW) - Excludes Owner's Costs =
B1 = 5% of CECC
TPC' ($) - Includes Owner's Costs = CECC + B1
TPC' ($/kW) - Includes Owner's Costs =
B2= 10% of (CECC + B1)
C1= 15% of (CECC + B1)
TPC ($) - Includes Owner's Costs and AFUDC = CECC + B1 + B2
TPC ($/kW) - Includes Owner's Costs and AFUDC =
48,869,000
23,674,000
14,536,000
$ 187,409,000
375
$ 18,741,000
$ 18,741,000
$ 18,741,000
$ 243,632,000
487
255,814,000
512
$ 281,395,000
563
Base absorber island cost
Base reagent preparation cost
Base waste handling cost
Base balance of plant costs including:
IDor booster fans, new wet chimney, piping, ductwork modifications and
strengthening, etc...
Base wastewater treatment facility to comply with ELG. Based on - 0.4
gpm/MW waste water treatment facility
Total base cost including retrofit factor
Base cost per kW
Engineering and Construction Management costs
Labor adjustment for 6 x 10 hour shift premium, per diem, etc...
Contractor profit and fees
Capital, engineering and construction cost subtotal
Capital, engineering and construction cost subtotal per kW
Owners costs including all "home office" costs (owners engineering,
management, and procurement activities)
Total project cost without AFUDC
Total project cost per kW without AFUDC
AFUDC (Based on a 3 year engineering and construction cycle)
EPC fees of 15%
Total project cost
Total project cost per kW
Page 8
-------
Sergent S Ljuncly111
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
Wet FGD Cost Development Methodology
Table 1 Continued
Variable
Designation
Units
Value
Calculation
Wastewater Treatment
Rhys Chem-Biological
-
Unit Size (Gross)
A
(MW)
500
<— User Input (Greater than 100 MW)
Retrofit Factor
B
1
<— User Input (An "average" retrofit has a factor = 1.0)
Gross Heat Rate
C
(Btu/kWh)
9500
<— User Input
S02 Rate
D
(Ib/MMBtu)
3
<— User Input
Type of Coal
E
Bituminous •v1
<— User Input
Coal Factor
F
Bit=1, PRB=1.05, Lig=1.07
Heat Rate Factor
G
0.95
C/10000
Heat Input
H
(Btu/hr)
4.75E+09
A*C*1000
Operating S02 Removal
J
(%)
95
<— User Input (Used to adjust actual operating costs)
Design Limestone Rate
K
(ton/hr)
12
17.52*A*D*G/2000 (Based on 98% Removal)
Design Waste Rate
L
(ton/hr)
23
1.811*K (Based on 98% Removal)
Aux Power
M
(%)
1.69
(1.12eA(0.155*D))*F*G
Include in VOM? 0
Makeup Water Rate
N
(1000 gph)
38
(1.674*D+74.68)*A*F*G/1000
Limestone Cost
P
($/ton)
30
<— User Input
Waste Disposal Cost
Q
($/ton)
30
<— User Input
Aux Power Cost
R
($/kWh)
0.06
<— User Input
Makeup Water Cost
S
($/kgal)
1
<— User Input
Operating Labor Rate
T
($/hr)
60
<— User Input (Labor cost including all benefits)
Costs are all based on 2016 dollars
Fixed O&M Cost
FOMO ($/kW yr) = (if MW>500 then 16 additional operators else 12 operators)*2080*T/(A*1000)
FOMM ($/kW yr) = BM*0.015/(B*A*1000)
FOMA ($/kW yr) = 0.03*(F0MO0.4*F0MM)
FOMWW ($/kW yr) =
FOM ($/kW yr) = FOMO + FOMM + FOMA + FOMWW
3.00 Fixed O&M additional operating labor costs
5.62 Fixed O&M additional maintenance material and labor costs
0.16 Fixed O&M additional administrative labor costs
Fixed O&M costs for wastewater treatment facility
8.77 Total Fixed O&M costs
Variable O&M Cost
VOMR ($/MWh) = K*P/A*J/98
VOMW ($/MWh) = L*Q/A*J/98
VOMP ($/MWh) =M*R*10
VOMM ($/MWh) = N*S/A
VOMWW ($/MWh) = 0.17 (Approximate for Phys-Chem biological system)
VOM ($/MWh) = VOIVR + VOMW + VOIVP + VOMM + VOMWW
0.73
1.32
1.02
0.08
0.17
3.30
Variable O&M costs for limestone reagent
Variable O&M costs for waste disposal
Variable O&M costs for additional auxiliary power required including
additional fan power (Refer to Aux Power % above)
Variable O&M costs for makeup water
Variable O&M costs for wastewater treatment facility
Page 9
------- |