Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 1 of 23
Date 17.01.2017

Technical and economical comparison

of flue gas discharge options

STEAG Energy Services GmbH,

Proprietary notice pursuant to DIN ISO 16016

Created Checked / Released

Rev. Date
Dept. Name Dept. Name

00 16.12.2016 ES-ET-PE2 Hensel ES-ET-PE2 Schneider / Dr. Reich

01 17.01.2017 ES-ET-PE2 Hensel ES-ET-PE2 Schneider / Dr. Reich

Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 2 of 23
Table of Contents Date 17.01.2017

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 2

Figures and Tables ..................................................................................................... 3
Abbreviations / Acronyms ......................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Conceptual Design ................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Current Status TPP Herne Unit IV .............................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Common chimney .............................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Option 1: Flue Gas Reheating with GGH .................................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Design of the GGH............................................................................................................. 12
TM
2.3 Option 2: Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARD Block Lining System ............................ 13

3. Evaluation of the Options .................................................................................... 15

3.1 Evaluation Basis ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.2 Technical Comparison .............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Desulphurization Efficiency and FGD System Design....................................................... 16
3.2.2 Pressure Loss and Electrical Power Consumption ............................................................ 17
3.2.3 Tie-in Concept and Outage Period .................................................................................... 18
3.2.4 Operational Constraints and Requirements ...................................................................... 18
3.2.5 Further General Aspects .................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Economical Comparison ........................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 CAPEX ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.2 OPEX ................................................................................................................................. 19
3.3.3 Amortization ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.4 Reduction of CO2 emissions .............................................................................................. 21

4. Recommendation ................................................................................................. 22
5. Annex .................................................................................................................... 23
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 3 of 23
Figures and Tables Date 17.01.2017

Figures and Tables

Figure 2.1: Process flow diagram TPP Herne Unit IV ..............................................................................9

Figure 2.2: Aerial photograph of flue gas treatment system TPP Herne Unit IV ...................................10
Figure 2.3: General process flow (Option 1) ..........................................................................................12
TM
Figure 2.4: Structure and installation of PENNGUARD Block Lining System (Source:
www.hadek.com)..................................................................................................................13
Figure 3.1: Sensitivity of OPEX savings for Option 2 and payback periods ..........................................20

Table 2.1 Geometry and dimensions of the masonry flues of TPP Herne Unit IV...............................11
Table 2.2 GGH design temperature levels ...........................................................................................12
Table 3.1: Summary of technical advantages and disadvantages of both options ...............................16
Table 3.2: CAPEX for Option 2 .............................................................................................................19
Table 3.3 OPEX savings for Option 2 ..................................................................................................20
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 4 of 23
Abbreviations / Acronyms Date 17.01.2017

Abbreviations / Acronyms

CAPEX Capital expenditure

DeNOx Flue Gas Denitrification
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD Flue Gas Desulphurization
GGH Gas/Gas-Heat exchanger
Hadek Hadek Protective Systems B.V.
HP High Pressure
ID fan Induced Draft fan
LP Low Pressure
OPEX Operational expenditure
TM TM
PENNGUARD System PENNGUARD Block Lining System
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SES STEAG Energy Services GmbH
STEAG STEAG GmbH
TPP Herne Thermal Power Plant "Herne"
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 5 of 23
Executive Summary Date 17.01.2017

Executive Summary

STEAG GmbH owns and operates 2 (two) coal-fired power plant units (Unit III and IV) in Thermal
Power Plant Herne (TPP Herne) in Germany. To meet the SO2 emission limit values wet lime Flue Gas
Desulphurization (FGD) systems are installed at both units. Both FGD systems are equipped with
Gas/Gas-Heat exchangers (GGH) in order to reheat the clean flue gas above the former permitted
minimum temperature. The flue gases from both units are exhausted via the same stack.

As Unit III was retrofitted with a Tail-end Denitrification (DeNOx) system downstream of FGD, which
requires a certain temperature level, cancellation of flue gas reheating is not feasible and never was an
alternative. This may change at the moment, when Unit III will be decommissioned and Unit IV will
remain in operation as the only unit exhausted via the existing stack. Accordingly in this study the
scenario of Unit IV stand-alone operation in TPP Herne shall be assessed in respect to the discharge
options with or without flue gas reheating using the existing stack.

In particular the objective of this study is the technical and economic comparison of the following two
flue gas discharge options:

• Option 1: Flue Gas Reheating with GGH (current configuration)

• Option 2: Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARDTM Block Lining System (PENNGUARDTM
System)

In terms of Option 1 following two variants shall be considered:

• Option 1a: Replacement of the existing with a new GGH

• Option 1b: Continuing operation with the existing GGH

The technical advantages of Option 2 in relation to Option 1 are following:

• In total less mechanical components

• Minimal civil works in the flue gas duct system

• Less effort for maintenance works

• Decrease of pressure drop resulting in decreased energy consumption of ID Booster Fan

• Rise in desulphurization efficiency due to elimination of GGH leakage rate

On the other hand the following technical disadvantages of Option 2 in relation to Option 1 shall be
considered:

• Additional waste water requires disposal

• Third stage mist eliminator at FGD outlet recommended

• Long outage period for installation of the PENNGUARDTM Block Lining System

• Major change to the source of emission (visible plume / changed dispersion)

Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 6 of 23
Executive Summary Date 17.01.2017

The economic evaluation of this technical comparison results in OPEX savings for Option 2, which vary
in a range of 460 to 755 t€ per year depending on the electricity price. The payback periods of Option 2
vary between 6.3 to 3.8 years (compared to Option 1a) respectively 20.4 to 12.5 years (compared to
Option 1b). However, loss of profit due to business interruption caused by the long outage period
required for implementation of Options 1a and 2 is not considered in OPEX calculation.

As a final conclusion and recommendation it shall be noted that a change from flue gas reheating with
GGH to wet stack discharge could be an opportunity for Unit IV of TPP Herne only in case STEAG is
faced with the necessity to modernize the flue gas treatment system (e.g. caused by damaged
equipment and components, like the existing GGH), giving STEAG the option not to renew / replace the
GGH system and go to wet stack operation instead. The long outage period prevents STEAG from
changing the discharge system for economic reasons only. Making things worse the required
TM
investment for implementation of the Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARD Block Lining System is
quite high specifically at TPP Herne due to the huge stack. This results in a long payback time, when
comparing with current configuration and continuing operation with the existing GGH.

However, when comparing wet stack option with the replacement of the existing with a new GGH, the
payback period is reduced to a tolerable value between 6.3 to 3.8 years depending on the electricity
TM
price. In such case the Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARD Block Lining System is a quite
interesting alternative. In addition to the economic attractiveness also the ecological benefit of reducing
CO2 emissions can be considered as advantage for that technology. CO2 emissions would be reduced
by approx. 4,100 t/a.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 7 of 23
1. Introduction Date 17.01.2017

1. Introduction

1.1 Background
STEAG GmbH owns and operates 2 (two) coal-fired power plant units in Thermal Power Plant Herne
(TPP Herne) in Germany. Unit III has a capacity of 350 MW e and Unit IV of 500 MW e. To meet the SO2
emission limit values wet lime Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) systems are installed at both units. The
FGD systems were commissioned in 1987 (Unit III) and 1989 (Unit IV). At this time reheating of flue gas
above the discharge temperature of minimum 72 °C was required per German legislation 13. BImSchV.
Accordingly both FGD systems were equipped with Gas/Gas-Heat exchanger (GGH) in order to reheat
the clean flue gas above aforementioned temperature. The flue gases from both units are exhausted via
the same stack.

In 2004 the requirement of reheating flue gas downstream of FGD was cancelled in amendment of
13. BImSchV. Generally speaking, since then flue gas reheating typically is no longer used on new
coal-fired power plants and is being eliminated at power plants already in service, due to the
increasingly high cost for the CAPEX and OPEX. Accordingly many of coal-fired power stations which
have added new Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) systems use wet FGD technologies with saturated
gas exhaust discharged through a wet stack. An example for such power plant is Thermal Power Plant
Voerde A/B, operated by STEAG GmbH, where 2 new FGD systems with wet flue gas discharge were
retrofitted in 2005.

The remaining power plants with wet FGD systems still use reheated flue gas to dry the saturated
gases exiting the FGD system’s absorber before these are sent to the dry stack. Also TPP Herne is
counted among these power plants. As Unit III was retrofitted with a Tail-end Denitrification (DeNOx)
system downstream of FGD, which requires a certain temperature level, cancellation of flue gas
reheating is not feasible and never was an alternative. This may change at the moment, when Unit III
will be decommissioned and Unit IV will remain in operation as the only unit exhausted via the existing
stack. Accordingly in this study the scenario of Unit IV stand-alone operation in TPP Herne shall be
assessed in respect to the discharge options with or without flue gas reheating using the existing stack.

1.2 Objective
This study shall give a short overview of the conceptual designs of the following two options in power
plant unit Herne IV:

• Option 1: Flue Gas Reheating with GGH (current configuration)

• Option 2: Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARDTM Block Lining System (PENNGUARDTM
System)

Both options shall be evaluated in terms of technical advantages and disadvantages. Based on that, the
impact of both options on associated CAPEX, OPEX and time scheduling aspects shall be assessed
and compared.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 8 of 23
1. Introduction Date 17.01.2017

In terms of Option 1 following two variants shall be considered:

• Option 1a: Replacement of the existing with a new GGH, being required due to unrepairable
damage at the existing GGH

• Option 1b: Continuing operation with the existing GGH

Finally a recommendation for the preferable option to be considered for TPP Herne Unit IV stand-alone
operation shall be worked out.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 9 of 23
2. Conceptual Design Date 17.01.2017

2. Conceptual Design

In this chapter the conceptual design of both options will be described. Prior to that the current
configuration of the flue gas treatment systems in TPP Herne Unit IV will be described.

2.1 Current Status TPP Herne Unit IV

The process flow of TPP Herne Unit IV is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Process flow diagram TPP Herne Unit IV

Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 10 of 23
2. Conceptual Design Date 17.01.2017

After denitrification in High-Dust SCR and dedusting in Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) the flue gas
enters the hot side of the GGH. Downstream of the GGH the flue gas is treated in the wet lime FGD,
which is operated with quicklime. Downstream of the FGD absorber outlet the ID Booster Fan is
located. The saturated flue gas is led through the GGH and enters the chimney from where it is
discharged into the atmosphere.

An aerial photograph of the flue gas treatment system of TPP Herne Unit IV starting at Electrostatic
Precipitator (ESP) is shown in Figure 2.2.

ID Booster
fan Unit IV

Chimney

FGD absorber
Unit IV

Flue gas
duct Unit I+II

GGH Unit IV
Flue gas
Clean gas duct Unit III
duct Unit IV

ESP Unit IV

Raw gas
duct Unit IV

Figure 2.2: Aerial photograph of flue gas treatment system TPP Herne Unit IV

2.1.1 Common chimney

The chimney in TPP Herne was built for units I to IV. It consists of a conical concrete shaft, in which the
flue gas tubes are integrated in articulated conical masonry flues. Today units I and II are no longer
operated, which means that flue gas from two units (Unit III and IV) only is discharged through the
chimney.

In the lower part, the flue gases are introduced into the chimney at a height of +9.0 m, separately from
unit I to III (today only from unit III) and unit IV via rectangular steel ducts. The flue gas flows from unit
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 11 of 23
2. Conceptual Design Date 17.01.2017

III and unit IV are then led separately via ellipsis-like masonry flues to a height of +75.0 m, where these
are led into a common circular masonry flue up to +300.0 m and directed to the atmosphere. Geometry
and dimensions of the masonry flues are specified in .

Table 2.1 Geometry and dimensions of the masonry flues of TPP Herne Unit IV

Level +9.00 m
Geometry 2 rectangular steel ducts (for PENNGUARD System installation only the one of unit
IV to be considered):
ca. 7 x 7 m
Cross-section A = ca. 49 m²
Level +9.00 m to +75.00 m
Geometry 2 ellipsis-like oval sections (for PENNGUARD System installation only the one of
unit IV to be considered):
Inner radius: R1 = 6.5 m / R2 = 2.0 m
Wall thickness: 12 cm
Cross-section A = 40.82 m²
Level +75.00 m to +85.00 m
Geometry Transition from ellipsis-like flues to circular cross-section:
Diameter: D = 9,6 m
Wall thickness: 12 cm
2 2
Cross-section Transition from two times 40.82 m to common 72.35 m
Level +85.00 m bis +300.00 m
Geometry Circular cross-section: D = 9,6 m
Wall thickness: 12 cm
Cross-section A = 72,35 m²

The masonry flues consist of fired, acid-resistant, ceramic bricks which have been laid in the form of a
masonry in acid-resistant mortar and are subdivided into individual sections. In order to avoid flue gas
leakage or air intake between these sections, these are connected via Viton® expansion joints at +28.0
m, +51.5 m, +75.0 m (single tubes) and +85.0 m, +115.8 m, +160.8 m, +205.8 m, +250.8 m and +275.4
m (common tube). The emission measurement is located in the individual flue in each case at +51.5 to
+54.0 m. Furthermore, the masonry flues are insulated from the outside with insulation (foam glass)
against heat loss.

2.2 Option 1: Flue Gas Reheating with GGH

This option provides for an unchanged configuration of the flue gas treatment system in its current
status (Option 1b) or with a new GGH (Option 1a). The general process flow is shown in Figure 2.3.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 12 of 23
2. Conceptual Design Date 17.01.2017

Figure 2.3: General process flow (Option 1)

The ID Booster Fan in TPP Herne Unit IV is installed in “wet position”, i.e. between FGD absorber outlet
and GGH inlet. Advantages and disadvantages of this configuration in comparison to the so called “dry
position” configuration (upstream of GGH) will be described and evaluated technically in chapter 3.
However, for economical comparison only configuration “wet position” will be considered.

2.2.1 Design of the GGH

Gas/Gas-Heat exchanger (GGH) are installed in the majority of coal-fired power stations as air pre-
heaters and have also numerous references as reheating system downstream of FGD or Tail-end
DeNOx systems.

According to operation data at full-load operation the GGH of TPP Herne Unit IV operates at the
temperature levels defined in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 GGH design temperature levels

Parameter Unit Design Value

Raw Gas Temperature at GGH inlet °C 135
Raw Gas Temperature at GGH outlet °C 90
Clean Gas Temperature at GGH inlet °C 45
Clean Gas Temperature at GGH outlet °C 90

The rotor of the GGH has a diameter of 15.256 m and consists of 8 rings. The height of the heating
elements is 900 mm. The GGH is equipped with Low Pressure (LP) / High Pressure (HP) air soot
blowers upstream and downstream of the heating elements. Soot blowing is required periodically
(approx. once per day during normal operation period). The air is supplied from service air system. The
air consumption per soot blowing cycle and the respective costs are negligible. The own consumption of
the GGH during normal operation is 15 kW.

The auxiliary systems of the GGH consist of the respective control equipment, high pressure flushing
pumps, pressurised air system and pit pumps.

For the new GGH in accordance with Option 1a same design as of the existing GGH is assumed.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 13 of 23
2. Conceptual Design Date 17.01.2017

TM
2.3 Option 2: Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARD Block Lining System
The option for the so called “wet stack” technology could only be applied by adapting wet FGD system
without GGH. The saturated flue gas will have a temperature of approx. 48 – 50 °C, depending on the
flue gas water content.

For conversion of a dry stack into a wet stack several working steps are required in order to have an
TM
acid and water resistent liner. One proven technology, amongst others, is PENNGUARD Block Lining
System distributed by Hadek Protective Systems B.V. (Hadek).

First of all the stack needs to be cleaned by grit blasting. In the next step an epoxy-primer will be
applied at the inside surface. Hereafter the lining with lightweight borosilicate glass blocks
TM
(Pennguard block) can be installed. These blocks are impermeable and resistant to acidic flue gas
TM
and thermal shocks. An illustration of the structure and installation of PENNGUARD Block Lining
System is shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Structure and installation of PENNGUARDTM Block Lining System (Source: www.hadek.com)

Along with droplets that are carried over from the mist eliminator of the FGD absorber, water vapor
condensing from the saturated flue gases creates a liquid film that covers the walls of the absorber
outlet ducting and stack liner. This film must be collected and drained from the system by installation of
appropriate liquid collectors.)

If the ductwork, stack liner, and liquid collection system are not properly designed, unacceptable
amounts of liquid droplets may be discharged from the top of the stack resulting in “acid rain“ around
the stack at the ground level. Accordingly the primary controlling parameter for effective wet stack
operation is the flue gas velocity.

Different liner materials and construction techniques have different velocities considered favorable for
wet operation. The key system design variables such as gas velocities, breach height and width, and
liner diameter should be compared with values that have proven favorable for wet operation at other
plants. According to the EPRI "Wet Stacks Design Guide" well-constructed C276 (e.g. Hastelloy C-276),
known for its corrosion resistance in a wide range of aggressive media, and fiberglass-reinforced plastic
(FRP) liners should be operated at maximum flue gas velocities of 15 to 18 m/s, whereas chemical
resistant chimney brick liners - with rougher surfaces - should be operated at flue gas velocities not
higher than 11 to 14 m/s. If properly installed, modern materials, such as borosilicate block liners (e.g.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 14 of 23
2. Conceptual Design Date 17.01.2017

TM
PENNGUARD Block Lining System); can operate effectively at flue gas velocities up to 18 m/s. In all
mentioned cases the additional liner material has to be attached to the internal surface of power plant
stack flues, liners and ducts downstream the FGD absorber.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 15 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

3. Evaluation of the Options

3.1 Evaluation Basis

Following general frame conditions for the evaluation of the options shall be considered:

• Prices for components and works (e.g. ductwork and dismantling) are estimated based on SES’
project experience with ± 25 % price deviation. However, CAPEX for Option 2 is calculated
based on:
TM
o firm PENNGUARD System material price information including all transportation and
EU import duties as well as QA inspection works provided by Hadek
TM
o price information for installation of PENNGUARD System provided by Hadek based
on information from company BEROA Deutschland

• The technical comparison is done based on basic design and operation information available
for SES (especially for Option 1) and provided by Hadek (especially for Option 2). The
operating and design information for TPP Herne Unit IV are summarized in Annex 1.

• Economical comparison of the three mentioned options and variants is done considering the
investment, operating and maintenance costs due to flue gas slip and energy consumption
parameters, etc.

• The specific electricity price applicable for TPP Herne to be considered in the economical
comparison is estimated with 50 €/MWh. However, as the electricity price is a quite uncertain
and unstable variable a sensitivity analysis with an electricity price between 40 and 100 €/MWh
is done in section 3.3.3.

3.2 Technical Comparison

Technical advantages and disadvantages of the two options are summarized in Table 3.1 and
explained more detailed in the following sections.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 16 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

Table 3.1: Summary of technical advantages and disadvantages of both options

Cate
Option 1 Option 2
gory
Technical Advantages

• In total less mechanical components

• No shut-down time for tie-in works
• Proven technology with sufficient
references
• No change to the source of emission
Technical Disadvantages
• Minimal civil works in the flue gas duct
system
• Less effort for maintenance works
• Decrease of pressure drop
• Rise in desulphurization efficiency

• Additional waste water requires disposal

• Higher pressure drop
• Worse desulphurization efficiency
• Additional mechanical equipment with
maintenance requirements
• Uncertain noise emission
• Third stage mist eliminator at FGD outlet
recommended
• Long outage period for installation of the
TM
PENNGUARD Block Lining System
• Major change to the source of emission
(visible plume / changed dispersion)

3.2.1 Desulphurization Efficiency and FGD System Design

GGHs have a flue gas leakage between raw and clean flue gas. In its current configuration with ID
Booster Fan in wet position (refer to section 2.2) clean flue gas will be entrained to the raw flue gas, due
to the higher pressure at the clean flue gas side. This increases the volume flow rate through the FGD
absorber and in consequence reduces the overall desulphurization efficiency of the FGD system.
Accordingly the desulphurization efficiency of the FGD absorber could be decreased, if the GGH is
decommissioned (Option 2) compared to the current configuration (Option 1), in order to achieve the
3
same required SO2 emission limit value of 200 mg/m n according to currently applicable legislation.

As per available operation data the GGH has a leakage rate of approx. 3 %. With the present raw flue
gas data and design data for the FGD absorber the required overall desulphurization efficiency is
95.7 % for design case and 91.3 % for actual case. Considering aforementioned leakage rate of the
3 3
GGH and the L/G value of 17.1 l/m in design and 9.4 l/m in actual case, the required recirculation flow
3 3
in current configuration (Option 1) is 30,800 m /h in design and 16,950 m /h in actual case. If GGH
would be decommissioned and the flue gas would be discharged via wet stack according to Option 2,
the overall desulphurization efficiency maintains, but the flue gas volume flow would be decreased by
approx. 3 %. Considering constant L/G ratios for achievement of the SO2 emission limit value, the
recirculation flow could be reduced by the same percentage. The resulting difference in electrical
energy consumption for recirculating pumps will be calculated in section 3.2.2.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 17 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

On the other hand for Option 2 the installation of a third stage mist eliminator is recommended, which
would cause additional pressure drop of about 1.0 mbar within the FGD absorber. The resulting
increase in electrical energy consumption of the ID Booster Fan is calculated in section 3.2.2.

A third stage mist eliminator would not be necessary for Option 1 as droplets will be evaporated
immediately downstream the FGD absorber prior to agglomeration. A temperature increase of 10 K to
evaporate droplets and to avoid condensation on the way to the chimney exit is sufficient. However,
once the gas is released to the atmosphere droplets may condensate due to further temperature
decrease.

The wet stack technology in accordance with Option 2 implicates water condensation and therewith
formation of additional waste water in the chimney. Much of the liquid that must be removed from a wet
stack is condensation on the duct and stack liner walls. It results from thermal condensation on the
walls (the result of heat transfer from the flue gas to the outside air through the liner, insulation, annulus
air, and concrete shell) and from adiabatic condensation of the saturated flue gas as it flows up the
stack and expands as pressure falls with elevation. This re-entrainment process, in turn, is dependent
on flue gas velocity, surface roughness, and surface discontinuities such as expansion joints. As the
existing chimney shall remain in service in case of Option 2, additional measures have to be performed
to upgrade the gutter drainage system (see description in section 2.3). The required investment for
Option 2 in regard to drainage system will be calculated and considered in CAPEX comparison in
section 3.3.1.

A further aspect worth to be observed is the alternative configuration of the ID Booster Fan as
described in section 2.2. The characteristics of an ID Booster Fan in “dry position” is the lower demand
on the construction and materials, ending up in less CAPEX, but the increased flue gas volume at
higher temperature leads to a higher electrical power consumption, resulting in higher OPEX. The ID
Booster Fan in “wet position” requires less electrical power consumption, because the clean flue gas
volume at lower temperature level is lower than in comparable options. However, the CAPEX are boost
by high material cost for construction and materials and the effort for maintenance is higher. As the “wet
position” ID Booster Fan configuration is already determined due to current design and therefore
applicable for both Options, this aspect will not be considered for economical comparison.

3.2.2 Pressure Loss and Electrical Power Consumption

The decommissioning of a GGH in accordance with Option 2 would result in a decrease of pressure
drop over the flue gas path. Based on the information available for SES, the total pressure drop over
both sides of the GGH is 14 mbar at full-load operation. Further reduction of the pressure drop in the
flue gas duct downstream of FGD Absorber and in the stack, due to lower flue gas velocity of the colder
clean flue gas is negligible (ca. 0.1 mbar). The implementation of the wet stack system will not cause
additional pressure drop generally. In this respect only the recommended third stage mist eliminator
(refer to section 3.2.1) would require additional pressure drop of ca. 1.0 mbar.

The difference in pressure drop of ca. 13 mbar in total would result in reduction of the electrical power
consumption for the ID Booster Fan of about 4,375 MWh per year for Option 2 compared to Option 1
considering 5,000 full-load operation hours.

Apart from the electrical power consumption for the ID Booster Fan, the electrical power consumption of
the FGD recirculating pumps is slightly reduced (refer to section 3.2.1) for Option 2 compared to Option
1. The difference is estimated with 450 MWh per year considering 5,000 full-load operation hours. The
own consumption of the GGH is considered with 75 MWh per year at 5,000 full-load operation hours.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 18 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

All in all the electrical power consumption for Option 2 is 4,900 MWh per year considering 5,000 full-
load operation hours less than for Options 1a and 1b. The economic benefit of Option 2 in regard to
electrical power consumption will be calculated and considered in OPEX comparison in section 3.3.2.

3.2.3 Tie-in Concept and Outage Period

Option 1b requires no change of the current configuration and therefore no tie-in works. On the other
hand wet stack technology according to Option 2 would impose extensive construction work on the
existing stack requiring a longlasting outage period for construction works. As no bypass stack is
available Unit IV of TPP Herne would have to be shut down for the entire period. According to the price
TM
information for installation of PENNGUARD System provided by Hadek based on information from
company BEROA Deutschland the time period to perform all required works within the stack is 35
weeks, when assuming a working time of six (6) days per week and one (1) shift of ten (10) hours per
day. This could be reduced to 25 weeks by working in two (2) ten (10) hour shifts per day / night. The
period for dismantling of the GGH and the rehabilitation of the existing flue gas ducts shall coincide with
the aforementioned outage period for the required works within the stack. Also in case of Option 1a tie-
in works need to be considered. Depending on the final tie-in concept, the required outage period would
be between 6 to 20 weeks.

3.2.4 Operational Constraints and Requirements

The GGH and related equipment is a maintenance intensive system. Amongst others the maintenance
includes regular cleaning, changing of heating elements and reparation of leakages. After
decommissioning of the GGH the maintenance costs for entire FGD system (including chimney) will
decrease, as there are no significant additional maintenance works to be considered and the system
supplier Hadek provides a single source guarantee of 10 years. The economic benefit of Option 2 in
regard to maintenance works will be calculated and considered in OPEX comparison in section 3.3.2.

Apart from the maintenance measures the necessity of periodical flushing / soot blowing and the own
consumption of the GGH (refer to section 2.2.1) has influence on the OPEX, which would be eliminated
in case of Option 2. Furthermore the risk of fouling of the GGH elements has to be taken into account,
resulting in requirement of periodical heating element changing.

As described in section 2.3 the maximum tolerable flue gas velocity through the stack retrofitted with
TM
PENNGUARD System is 18 m/s. Considering the maximum flue gas volume flow as defined in
Annex 1 at a max. flue gas temperature of 50 °C and the geometrics as summarized in Table 2.1, the
flue gas velocity will not exceed 14 m/s within ellipsis-like oval section from +9.00 to +85.00 m and
8 m/s within the circular section from +85.00 to +300.00 m.

Further operational requirement of Option 2 is the avoidance of long-term bypass operation. This is
already implemented in TPP Herne Unit IV operation logic.

3.2.5 Further General Aspects

Both options can be considered as state-of-the-art and well proven technologies. However, as reheating
is no longer required complying with legal requirements it is typically no longer used on new coal-fired
power plants and is being eliminated at power plants already in service, due to economic advantages.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 19 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

An issue to be considered before retrofitting wet stack technology is the public perception of the visible
plume at the chimney, which could cause resistance of the public. Appropriate stakeholder
management measures for clarification of facts shall be considered with involvement of the responsible
authorities well before implementation of the wet stack technology.

3.3 Economical Comparison

3.3.1 CAPEX
The total investment for Option 2 is calculated based on the information provided by company Hadek.
The calculation is summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: CAPEX for Option 2

CAPEX in t€
Measure Option 2
TM
Installation of Pennguard block lining system in chimney 7,750
Material incl. Transport 4,000
Installation works 3,582
QA inspections 168
TM
Installation of Pennguard block lining system in flue gas duct 900
Wet Stack Design Study 50
Installation of drainage system 100
Installation of 3rd mist eliminator stage 100
Dismantling of GGH / Rearrangement of flue gas ducts 500

Total CAPEX 9,400

For Option 1a the total investment for decommissioning and dismantling of the existing and installation
and commissioning of the new GGH is estimated with 6.5 m€. For Option 1b it is assumed that no
investment has to be done, as the current configuration remains unchanged. Costs for changing of
heating elements are considered as maintenance costs under section 3.3.2.

3.3.2 OPEX
The total operating cost savings of Option 2 in relation to Options 1a and 1b are calculated based on
the information regarding maintenance works, pressure drop, energy and steam consumption as
discussed in sections 2 and 3. However, loss of profit due to business interruption caused by the long
outage period required for implementation of Options 2 and 1a is not considered in OPEX calculation.

The calculation of OPEX savings for Option 2 in comparison to Options 1a and 1b is summarized in
Table 3.3.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 20 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

Table 3.3 OPEX savings for Option 2

OPEX savings in t€/a

Cost saving factor Option 2
Energy saving ID Booster Fan 218.7
Energy saving Recirculating Pumps FGD Absorber 22.6
Energy saving GGH 3.7
Maintenance saving GGH 265.0
Total OPEX saving 510

3.3.3 Amortization
Under consideration of the foregoing mentioned values for CAPEX and OPEX the payback period of the
investment for Option 2 is approx. 5.7 years compared to Option 1a and approx. 18.4 years compared
to Option 1b.

Considering variability of the electricity price between 40 and 100 €/MWh the OPEX and the respective
payback periods show the sensitivity according to Figure 3.1.

800 25
OPEX savings Option 2
Payback Period compared to Option 1a
Payback Period compared to Option 1b
700 20
OPEX savings Option 2 in €/a

Payback period in a

600 15

500 10

400 5

300 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Electricity price in €/MWh

Figure 3.1: Sensitivity of OPEX savings for Option 2 and payback periods
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 21 of 23
3. Evaluation of the Options Date 17.01.2017

OPEX savings for Option 2 vary in a range of 460 to 755 t€ per year, the payback periods of Option 2
between 6.3 to 3.8 years (compared to Option 1a) respectively 20.4 to 12.5 years (compared to Option
1b).

3.3.4 Reduction of CO2 emissions

Another aspect worth to be evaluated is the reduction of CO2 emissions as a consequence of the
reduced electrical energy demand after Option 2 would be implemented.

The specific CO2 emissions of TPP Herne Unit IV are about 835 g/kWh. The reduction of electrical
power consumption of about 4,900 MWh per year would result in a CO2 reduction of approx. 4,100 t per
year, if Option 2 would be implemented instead of Option 1. Due to low price level of CO2 emissions,
the potential CO2 reduction is not considered in OPEX savings for Option 2 yet.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 22 of 23
4. Recommendation Date 17.01.2017

4. Recommendation

As a final conclusion and recommendation it shall be noted that a change from flue gas reheating with
GGH to wet stack discharge could be an opportunity for Unit IV of TPP Herne only in case STEAG is
faced with the necessity to modernize the flue gas treatment system (e.g. caused by damaged
equipment and components, like the existing GGH), giving STEAG the option not to renew / replace the
GGH system and go to wet stack operation instead. The long outage period prevents STEAG from
changing the discharge system for economic reasons only. Making things worse the required
TM
investment for implementation of the Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARD Block Lining System is
quite high specifically at TPP Herne due to the huge stack. This results in a long payback time, when
comparing with current configuration and continuing operation with the existing GGH.

However, when comparing wet stack option with the replacement of the existing with a new GGH, the
payback period is reduced to a tolerable value between 6.3 to 3.8 years depending on the electricity
TM
price. In such case the Wet Stack Discharge with PENNGUARD Block Lining System is a quite
interesting alternative. In addition to the economic attractiveness also the ecological benefit of reducing
CO2 emissions can be considered as advantage for that technology.
Technical Report

Technical and economical comparison of flue gas discharge options From ES-ET-PE2
Doc. no.: HerneIV-SES-EDD-001 Rev. 01
Page 23 of 23
5. Annex Date 17.01.2017

5. Annex

1. HerneIV-SES-EDD-002-Operating and design information for TPP Herne Unit IV-00