IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies
SDA 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.
-------
Sargerrt S. Llii Rly'11:
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
SDA 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
Cost data for the SDA FGD systems based on actual installations were more limited than
those for the wet FGD systems until 2012. However, since 2012 the market trend has
shifted toward the installation of dry FGD/CDS technology. Even with the new data, a
similar trend of capital cost with generating capacity (MW size) is generally seen
between the wet and SDA system. The same least-square curve fit power relationship for
capital costs as a function of generating capacity, up to 600 MW, was used for the wet
and SDA cost estimation with the constant multiplier adjusted to ensure that the curve
represented the data available.
The curve fit was set to represent proprietary in-house cost data of a "typical" SDA FGD
retrofit for removal of 95% of the inlet sulfur. It should be noted that the lowest available
SO2 emission guarantees, from the original equipment manufactures of SDA FGD
systems, are 0.06 lb/MMBtu. The typical SDA FGD retrofit was based on:
• Retrofit Difficulty = 1 (Average retrofit difficulty);
• Gross Heat Rate = 9800 Btu/kWh;
• SO2 Rate = 2.0 lb/MMBtu;
• Type of Coal = PRB;
Page 1
-------
Sargerrt S. Llii Rly'11:
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
• Project Execution = Multiple lump-sum contracts; and
• Recommended SO2 emission floor = 0.08 lb/MMBtu.
A dry FGD system 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. Dry FGDs can remove
up to 99% HC1 in the flue gas.
Based on the recently acquired data and recently completed projects, it appears the
overall capital cost has increased by only 6% over the costs published in 2013. Analysis
of the data indicates that the lack of a large number of FGD projects has resulted in
competitive pressure to absorb any significant increase in the cost.
Units below 50 MW will typically not install an SDA FGD system. Sulfur reductions for
small units would be accomplished by treating smaller units at a single site with one SDA
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 $l,000/kW may be used for units below 50 MW under the premise that
these units will be combined.
Based on the typical SDA FGD performance, the technology should not be applied to
fuels with more than 3 lb SCh/MMBtu, and the cost estimator should be limited to fuels
with less than 3 lb SCh/MMBtu. Typically, both SDA and circulating dry scrubber
(CDS) technologies have been applied to low sulfur fuel (lower than 2 lb/MMBtu).
The alternate dry technology, CDS, can meet removals of 98% or greater over a large
range of inlet sulfur concentrations. It should be noted that the lowest SO2 emission
guarantees for a CDS FGD system are 0.04 lb/MMBtu. Recent industry experience has
shown that a CDS FGD system has a similar installed cost to a comparable SDA FGD
system and has been the technology of choice in last four years.
Page 2
-------
Sargerrt S. Llii Rly'11:
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
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 unit gross 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
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 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; and
• Retrofit difficulty.
Page 3
-------
Sargerrt S. Llii Rly'11:
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for Project No. 13527-001
APC Technologies January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
The base modules are:
Base absorber island cost that includes an absorber and a baghouse
Base reagent preparation and waste recycle/handling cost
Base balance of plant costs including: ID or booster fans, piping, ductwork
and reinforcement, electrical, etc...
BMR + BMF + BMB
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.
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
BMR =
BMF =
BMB =
BM =
Page 4
-------
Sargerrt S. Llii Rly'11:
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for
APC Technologies
Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
labor (FOMA) associated with the SDA FGD installation. 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 are tabulated on a per-kilowatt-year (kW-yr) basis.
• In general, 8 additional operators are required for an SDA FGD system. The
FOMO was based on the number of additional operations staff required.
• The fixed maintenance materials and labor are a direct function of the process
capital cost at 1.5% of the BM. Cost of bags and cages are included in the
fixed O&M cost with the assumption that bag replacement is carried out once
every 3 years and cage replacement is carried out once every 9 years.
• 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; and
• Makeup water required and unit water cost.
The following factors and assumptions underlie calculations of the VOM:
• All of the VOM costs were 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 95% sulfur removal design,
the operating sulfur removal percentage can be adjusted to reflect actual
variable operating costs.
• In addition to sulfur removal efficiency, the estimated reagent usage was
based on a flue gas temperature into the SDA FGD of 300°F and an adiabatic
approach to saturation of 30°F.
• The calcium-to-sulfur stoichiometric ratio varies based on inlet sulfur. The
variation in stoichiometric ratio was accounted for in the estimation. The
economic estimation is only valid up to 3 lb S02/MMBtu inlet.
• The basis for the lime purity was 90% CaO with the balance being inert
material.
• The waste generation rate is a function of inlet sulfur and calcium to sulfur
stoichiometry. Both variables are accounted for in the waste generation
Page 5
-------
Sargerrt S. Llii Rly'11:
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for Project No. 13527-001
APC Technologies January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
estimation. The waste disposal rate is based on 10% moisture in the by-
product.
• The additional power required includes increased fan power to account for the
added SDA 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.
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:
• Lime 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 $/hr.
The variables that contribute to the overall VOM are:
VOMR = Variable O&M costs for lime reagent
VOMW = Variable O&M costs for waste disposal
VOMP = Variable O&M costs for additional auxiliary power
VOMM = Variable O&M costs for makeup water
The total VOM is the sum of VOMR, VOMW, VOMP, and VOMM. Table 1 shows a
complete capital and O&M cost estimate worksheet for an SDA FGD.
Page 6
-------
Sargent S. l_i_jnclyL
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
Table 1. Example of a Complete Cost Estimate for an SPA FGD
Variable
Designation
Units
Value
Calculation
Unit Size (Gross)
A
(MW)
500
<— User Input (Greater than 50 MW)
Retrofit Factor
B
1
<— User Input (An "average" retrofit has a factor = 1.0)
Gross Heat Rate
C
(Btu/kWh)
9800
<— User Input
S02 Rate
D
(Ib/MMBtu)
2
<— User Input (SDA FGD Estimation only valid up to 3 Ib/MMBtu S02 Rate)
Type of Coal
E
PRB ~
<— User Input
Coal Factor
F
1.05
Bit= 1, PRB=1.05, Lig=1.07
Heat Rate Factor
G
0.98
C/10000
Heat Input
H
(Btu/hr)
4.90E+09
A*C*1000
Operating S02 Removal
J
(%)
95
<— User Input (Used to adjust actual operating costs)
Design Lime Rate
K
(ton/hr)
7
(0.6702*(DA2)+13.42*D)*A*G^2000 (Based on 95% S02 removal)
Design Waste Rate
L
(ton/hr)
16
(0.8016*(DA2)+31.1917*D)*A*G/2000 (Based on 95% S02 removal)
Aux Power
Include in VOM? H
M
(%)
1.35
(0.000547* DA2+0.00649*D+1.3)*F*G
Makeup Water Rate
N
(1000 gph)
29
(0.04898*( DA2)+0.5925*D+55.11 )*A*F*GH000
Lime Cost
P
($/ton)
125
<— 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
Capital Cost Calculation
Includes - Equipment, installation, buildings, foundations, electrical, and retrofit difficulty
if (A>600 then (A*98000) else
637000*(AA0.716))*B*(F*G)A0.6*(D/4)A0.01
Example
BMR ($) =
BMF ($) =
BMB ($) =
BM ($) =
BM ($/KW) =
if (A>600 then (A*52000) else 338000*(AA0.716))*B*(D*G)/,0.2
if (A>600 then (A* 138000) else 899000*(AA0.716))*B*(F*G)A0.4
BMR + BMF + BMW + BMB
55,086,000 Base module absorber island cost
33,100,000 Base module reagent preparation and waste recycle/handling cost
Base module balance of plant costs including:
77,837,000 ID or booster fans, piping, duclwork modifications and strengthening,
electrical, etc...
166,023,000 Total Base module cost including retrofit factor
332 Base module cost per kW
Total Project Cost
A1 = 10% of BM
A2 = 10% of BM
A3 = 10% of BM
CECC ($) - 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 ($/kW) - Includes Owner's Costs and AFUDC =
16,602,000
16,602,000
16,602,000
215,829,000
432
226,620,000
453
249,282,000
499
Engineering and Construction Management costs
Labor adjustment for 6 x 10 hour shift premium, per diem, etc...
Contractor profit and fees
Capital, engineering and construction cost subtotal
Capital, engineering and construction cost subtotal per kW
Owners costs including all "home office" costs (owners engineering,
management, and procurement activities)
Total project cost without AFUDC
Total project cost per kW without AFUDC
AFUDC (Based on a 3 year engineering and construction cycle)
EPC fees of 15%
Total project cost
Total project cost per kW
Page 7
-------
Sargent & LunclyLLC
IPM Model - Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies Project No. 13527-001
January, 2017
SDA FGD Cost Development Methodology
Table 1 Continued
Variable
Designation
Units
Value
Calculation
Unit Size (Gross)
A
(MW)
500
<— User I nput (Greater than 50 MW)
Retrofit Factor
B
1
<— User Input (An "average" retrofit has a factor = 1.0)
Gross Heat Rate
C
(Btu/kWh)
9800
<— User Input
S02 Rate
D
(Ib/MMBtu)
2
<— User Input (SDA FGD Estimation only valid up to 3 Ib/MMBtu S02 Rate)
Type of Coal
E
PRB t
<— User Input
Coal Factor
F
1.05
Bit=1, PRB=1.05, Lig=1.07
Heat Rate Factor
G
0.98
C/10000
Heat I nput
H
(Btu/hr)
4.90E+09
A*C*1000
Operating S02 Removal
J
(%)
95
<— User Input (Used to adjust actual operating costs)
Design Lime Rate
K
(ton/hr)
7
(0.6702*(DA2)+13.42*D)*A*G/2000 (Based on 95% S02 removal)
Design Waste Rate
L
(ton/hr)
16
(0.8016*(DA2)+31.1917*D)*A*G/2000 (Based on 95% S02 removal)
Aux Power
Include in VOM? 0
M
(%)
1.35
(0.000547* DA2+0.00649*D+1.3)*F*G
Makeup Water Rate
N
(1000 gph)
29
(0.04898*(DA2)+0.5925*D+55.11)*A*F*G/1000
Lime Cost
P
($/ton)
125
<— User Input
Waste Disposal Cost
Q
($/ton)
30
<— User Input
Aux Power Cost
R
($/kWh)
0.06
<— User Input
Makeup Water Cost
S
($/kgal)
1
<— User I nput
Operating Labor Rate
T
($/hr)
60
<— User Input (Labor cost including all benefits)
Costs are all based on 2016 dollars
Fixed O&M Cost
FOMO ($/kW yr) = (8 additional operators)*2080*T/(A*1000)
FOMM ($/kW yr) = BM*0.015/(B*A*1000)
FOMA ($/kW yr) = 0.03*(F0MO0.4*F0MM)
2.00 Fixed O&M additional operating labor costs
4.98 Fixed O&M additional maintenance material and labor costs
0.12 Fixed O&M additional administrative labor costs
FOM ($/kW yr) = FOMO + FOMM + FOMA
7.10
Total Fixed O&M costs
Variable O&M Cost
VOMR ($/MWh) = K*P/A*J/95
VOMW ($/MWh) = L*Q/A*J/95
VOMP ($/MWh) =M*R*10
VOMM ($/MWh) = N*S/A
1.81
0.96
0.81
0.06
Variable O&M costs for lime 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
VOM ($/MWh) = VOMR + VOMW + VOMP + VOMM
3.64
Page 8
------- |