coal2thorium.com
Electricity
From THORIUM
Chapter
18-F
Power Plant Examples:
JR Endicott
Directory
The purpose of this page is to explore
converting a typical example of tens of thousands of relatively small coal
burning power plants to thorium.
J.R. Endicott,
Litchfield, Michigan
http://www.mscpa.net/
Is repowering J.R. Endicott's single 55 MWe
coal-fired steam turbine-generator necessary?
(Air
Cooled Generating Units Below 180 MVA)
(Above) 55 MVA J.R. Endicott coal burning
power station.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
developing a number of new regulations for the power sector governing air
emissions, cooling water intake structures, and coal combustion waste disposal
methods. Combined, these regulation have the potential to drive as much as
40% of existing coal-fired generating units to retire in the next 10 years,
representing about 51 GW. - - Power Magazine, May 2011.
http://carma.org/plant/detail/20570 CARMA report for J.R. Endicott's
2007 Carbon Emissions:
Global Rank: 2,474th, Short Tons CO2
744,357, MegaWatt-hour 474,343, CO2
Intensity 3.138.
MegaWatt-hour Energy: Annual megawatt-hours of electricity produced. CO2
Intensity: Pounds of CO2
emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
Part 1: The JR
Endicott Power Plant, Litchfield, MI.
Part 2:
TRIAGE - Environmentalists are not playing fair.
Part 3:
Options for repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler.
Part 4: Costly Carbon Emissions Compliance
and Small Town America.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 1: The JR Endicott Power Plant
Example: 55 MVA
(Mega
Volt-Ampere, or MegaWatt) J.R. Endicott Power Station,
Litchfield, Michigan
Michigan South Central Power Agency,
720 Herring Road, Litchfield, MI 49252, Phone:
517-542-2346, Fax: 517-542-3049 Website:
http://www.mscpa.net/
J.R. Endicott is an independent South-Central Michigan coal
burning power station owned by 3 nearby towns and 2
villages.
In the author's opinion, J.R. Endicott
power station is an extremely environmentally pro-active coal
plant doing everything they can to be as clean as possible. The plant
looks so clean the black coal pile (right) looks out of place.
Notice the light-colored piles of
limestone in their front yard. Endicott employs a limestone, forced
oxidation (LSFO) wet FGD (Enhanced Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization) pollution
capture system.
They are working as hard as anyone in the world can to reduce particulates
(soot), sulfur dioxide (acid rain), and mercury emissions (brain damage).
See
Endicott Advanced Mercury Control Report .pdf Despite all this
effort and cost, greenhouse gas CO2
emissions continue unabated at about 700,000 tons per year as per
www.CARMA.org data. (The EPA is proposing a 25,000 ton per year limit).
Early
CCS CO2
Emissions including Mining Methane .jpg show a maximum capture of 80%,
which would come to 560,000 tons per year for Endicott, with 140,000 tons slipping
past the CCS equipment - which would also suck off about 25% of Endicott's
electricity.
In addition, the coal ash, soot
particulates, and the sulfur and mercury contaminated limestone has to be hauled
away and dumped on someone's property - to eventually contaminate their local
groundwater.
And, at the end of the year, despite
all this effort and expense, Endicott would still have to pay an EPA penalty.
At some point the world is going to
realize that coal has so many pollutants that, all things considered, its better
to just leave it buried in the ground and move on to some cleaner source of
heat.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 2: Environmentalists are not playing fair with most of the electricity
power generation industry.
It is the author's opinion that
"Ivory-Tower Environmentalists" have little idea about where Global Warming is
really coming from and understand even less about how to end it without also
destroying the Global Warming producers in the process. Tragically, our politicians and the
EPA are turning to these folks for guidance and usually get information that is
either terribly twisted or just plain wrong. This is creating
progressively larger injustices as things get progressively costly.
TRIAGE is the author's suggestion on
how the Global Warming issue might be addressed when it comes to electricity
generation.
TRIAGE
Those Few Power Plants
Responsible For So Much Global Warming
This is one of the major
injustices being inflicted on the electricity industry by the environmentalists:
The
world's 19,000 average to tiny coal and gas power plants are almost innocent
bystanders.
2/3 of all
Global Warming is caused by the world's 1 billion or so stationary boilers and
furnaces. About half of that is caused by fossil fuel
electricity generating power plants.
Sorting the power stations out:
The 25,000 +/- fossil fuel power
stations in the world could be divided into three groups according to how much
they are contributing to Global Warming (CARMA).
(NOTE: 2007 Data for 11,432,093,855 short tons CO2 total out of Global
Warming's about 32,000,000,000 short tons CO2
total or about 35.7% of ALL Global Warming. CARMA is currently updating
its 2007 data to 2010 data. NOTE ALSO: A short ton = 2,000 pounds.)
1) 1,200 "mega-power plants" (over
2,585,125 tons CO2 per year, 8,565,427,503 tons CO2 total) that
make about 27% of ALL Global Warming MUST be converted to nuclear.
2) 4,000 "large power plants" (between
97,426
and 2,583,740 tons CO2 per year,
2,677,899,634 tons CO2 total) that make about 8% of ALL Global Warming MIGHT need to be converted to nuclear
or "cleaned up" as much as fossil technology enables.
3) 19,000 "average to small power plants" (under 97,392 tons CO2 per year,
188,766,718 tons CO2 total)
that make about 0.6% of ALL Global Warming may as well remain
fossil but be "cleaned up" as much
as fossil technology enables.
The zinger is that it now looks
possible the mega plants converted to nuclear may run on thorium which is up to
8,000 times cheaper than coal. (Click
on graph to enlarge
(Left) The 1,200
mega-sized power plants compared with regular sized power plants.
2% of the world's 65,000
power plants are making over 3/4 of coal's Global Warming.
Largest
Average Smallest
Supersize power plant CO2:
41,000,000 tons, 7,200,000 tons, 2,600,000 tons.
Regular Size power plant CO2:
2,600,000 tons, 440,000 tons, 25,000 tons.
The average mega-sized coal burning
power plant produces 7.2 million tons of CO2
per year. The average regular sized coal
burning power plant produces 440 thousand tons of CO2
per year. The average mega-sized is 16 times larger than
the average regular sized power plant.
Cost to convert isn't much larger for a
mega-sized power plant than a regular sized plant.
The EPA has proposed a 25,000 ton-per-year carbon
dioxide non-penalty emission limit.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Part
3: Options for modifying or repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler.
JR Endicott emitted 744,356 tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. This is a
CO2 intensity of 3.138 (According to CARMA)
What can we do about reducing the CO2
from fossil fuel boilers?
What can we do about fossil fuel boilers?
The first move is to check out converting to natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle ,
About
Combined Cycle Conversions - Babcock & Wilcox pdf ,
Good repowering text about SOAPP's "Do It Yourself" software:
MSR - Repowering Existing Fossil Steam Plants - SEPRIL .pdf (
from:
http://soapp.epri.com/
)
Some coal burning power plants have been
converted to natural gas simply by replacing their coal burners with gas
burners.
Combined Cycle Natural Gas at Bayside (Tampa FL) has
a CO2
Intensity of 0.694. (The author thinks this is almost too good to be
true. The best coal plants deliver CO2
intensities of 2.1 or so, a direct natural gas, 1.3 or so.)
Another approach is "Carbon Capture and
Sequestration."
CCS Retrofitting of Coal-Fired Power Plants for CO2 Emissions Reductions - MIT -
meeting-report .pdf
Coal and natural gas boilers can also be repowered with nuclear
boilers.
The boilers that are making 2/3 of Global Warming's CO2
are STATIONARY coal and natural gas burning boilers.
STATIONARY coal and natural gas burning boilers can be replaced with
STATIONARY nuclear boilers of similar size.
Do we replace them all?
Absolutely Not! Only the biggest need
replacing because they are making, by far, most of the Global Warming.
(However, heat cost economics are causing China
to consider and Russia to use tiny reactors in northern cites. In a
similar manner, air conditioning in large buildings in cities that have warm
summers - example: the U.S. Capitol complex in Washington, D.C. - is provided
much more economically using heat powered, rather than electricity powered,
chiller units. The author suspects the break point between small reactors
and fossil fuel boilers will be about 800 boiler horsepower.)
(Above from:
http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html
)
From above, direct replacement of coal with
natural gas reduces CO2 intensity by a factor of 0.62. A combined cycle
natural gas system would yield better results.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Non-Nuclear Options
If JR Endicott has an emissions problem, it is that its
carbon intensity - CO2/kWh - is about 4 times greater than it could be.
1) Repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler with direct natural gas.
2) Repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler with combined cycle natural gas.
3) Combined cycle gas could be as economic as a hot windbox arrangement
- just discharging the gas turbine into the boiler's air intake - rather than
getting a new heat recovery steam generator.
4) Switch to a carbon-neutral liquid fuel such as ethanol,
biodiesel, or
dimethyl ether.
5) Add Carbon Capture and Sequestration - Either postcombustion or OxyFuel
will work.
"EPRI
analysts concluded that cost-effective retrofits for carbon capture are most
suitable for boilers that are “300 MW or larger and less than about 35 years
old.” - Well, maybe.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Nuclear Options
1) Add a 45 megaWatt NuScale or split a 125 megaWatt
mPower conventional solid uranium Small Modular Reactor (SMR).
2) Replace the coal burning boiler with a
Czechoslovakian
65 megaWatt fast-neutron IFR reactor.
3) Replace the coal burning
boiler with a high temperature thorium-fueled molten salt reactor.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 4: Costly Carbon Emissions Compliance and
Small Town America.
(This story is about a year old now but it still sticks in my craw.)
What the EPA's new
pollution rules are doing to almost every small town in America.
Here is the EPA's "Fact Sheet" about this issue:
Diesel Engine Emissions - EPA fact sheet - 2006.pdf
(Right) Thousands of small towns
around the world have a few diesel generators for emergency stand-by and peak
power nearby.
These MSCPA semi truck trailer diesel-powered electricity generation modules are near
the town of Coldwater, Michigan.
Combined, they produce about 12 MegaWatts of
electricity.
(Left) MSCPA diesel in nearby
Hillsdale.
According to an article by Don Reid
(dwreid@aol.com) in the Coldwater the "Daily REPORTER" (
http://www.thedailyreporter.com/
) Michigan South Central Power Agency (MSCPA) has to decide whether sell
the above portable diesel generators
for about $4.4 million or spend just under $1 million to bring them up
to federal pollution standards by 2013. Likely, they would be shipped
overseas and not be subject to the retrofit, Coldwater Board of Public Utilities
(CBPU) Director Paul Beckhusen said. He expects the selling price to drop
as the deadline for conversions nears.
Glenn White, MSCPA general
manager, said even with the pollution upgrades they can be operated only 15
hours a year unless the entire power grid goes down. "You are going to
have to meet capacity requirements somehow. The question is how much you
are going to want to keep (of local generation) for emergencies, if any at all"
White said.
Not only do the five
member communities that own MSCPA have these diesel units, each community has
other, older, diesel units they operated before joining the MSCPA power
generating co-operative.
Coldwater also has almost 12
MegaWatts (MW) in three units ($250,000 to upgrade), Hillsdale has five older
diesels producing nearly 20 MW ($425,000 to upgrade). Total diesel
generation for MSCPA is 74.6 MW plus their Litchfield 55 MW coal-powered steam
plant (Top of Page).
Worse, sometime in the near future,
the EPA will only allow 25,000 tons of Litchfield's annual 700,000 tons of coal
CO2 to be
emitted without penalty. With current estimates of penalties running as
high as $25 per ton of CO2
(Currently carbon credits are going for 19 Euros per tonne or about US$25 per
ton.),
this could add over $15 million per year to MSCPA's customer's power bill.
Hillsdale and Coldwater are not
alone. At least 311 such diesels are
under the gun in Michigan alone.
Michigan
Generating Unit Types and their Energy Sources
For DOE energy source abbreviations see:
Michigan
Electricity Generation Unit Inventory .pdf
Unofficial Inventory of Michigan's
Generating Sources Connected to Utility Grids (Nuclear not included)
Source Type |
|
Site MWe |
ST |
IC |
GT |
HY |
CT |
CA |
WT |
PS |
CS |
Power MWe |
|
36,343.5 |
23,689.9 |
867.1 |
4,236.8 |
352.3 |
3,169.3 |
2,000.0 |
1.8 |
1,978.8 |
23.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Count |
|
220.0 |
130.0 |
311.0 |
102.0 |
191.0 |
34.0 |
15.0 |
1.0 |
6.0 |
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Average MWe |
|
165.2 |
182.2 |
2.8 |
41.5 |
1.8 |
93.2 |
133.3 |
1.8 |
329.8 |
23.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Extrapolated Count |
|
6,600.0 |
3,900.0 |
9,330.0 |
3,060.0 |
5,730.0 |
1,020.0 |
450.0 |
30.0 |
180.0 |
30.0 |
Notice the large number of diesels:
(IC) 311 in Michigan alone, perhaps 9,000 in all of the United States,
perhaps 30,000 worldwide.
Unit
Type Abbreviations:
CA =
Combined Cycle Steam Plant;
CC =
Combined Cycle Total Unit (use only for plants/generators that are in planning
stage, for which specific generator details cannot be provided);
CE = Compressed Air Energy Storage;
CS = Combined Cycle Single Shaft (combustion turbine and steam
turbine share a single generator);
CT = Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Part (type of coal must
be reported as energy source for integrated coal);
FC = Fuel Cell;
GT = Combustion (Gas) Turbine (includes jet engine design);
HY = Hydraulic Turbine (includes turbines associated with
delivery of water by pipeline);
IC = Internal Combustion (diesel, piston) Engine;
NA = Unknown at this time (use only for plants/generators that
are in planning stage, for which specific generator details cannot be
provided.);
OT = Other;
PS = Hydraulic Turbine - Reversible (pumped storage);
PV = Photovoltaic;
ST = Steam Turbine, including nuclear, geothermal and solar
steam (does not include combined cycle);
WT = Wind Turbine;
________________________________________________________________________________________
Tire-Derived Fuel for coal boilers:
http://www.energyjustice.net/tires
Tire-derived fuel at 13 different coal burning power plants.
Tire Derived Fuels - U S Scrap Tire Markets 2005 11-27-06.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_derived_fuel
www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/tdf.htm
www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/faq-tdf.htm
www.energyjustice.net/tires/carman1997ciwmb.pdf
www.ecochem.biz/Library/kilnTDF.pdf
www.rma.org/publications
www.p2pays.org/ref/11/10504/html/usa/tdf.htm
www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
www.scraptirenews.com/98dec1.html
www.scraptirenews.com/00mar1.html
JUMP:
Directory
Top
Previous
Next
This is not trivial. The net
effect is that the government is ganging up with the largest power plants to put
the smallest out of business.
While this might seem O.K. for the
mega-population coastal regions of the United States, there's a big problem that
begins about 138 miles inland. It takes 1,000 Volts to push commercial
amounts of electricity one mile and there is a lot of the country located more than
2,000 miles from any coast. Do you see 2,000 miles on that table?
Electricity can be pushed a little
further
(but at far greater cost)
by converting alternating electricity to direct
electricity, transmitting it, and then converting it back to alternating current
at the receiving end. Los Angles gets some of its power from Canadian
Pacific hydro that way.
Is it about efficiency? It
takes almost as many skilled trade workers to run a small coal burning power plant as a large
power plant.