South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no.

3, pp 72-81 72

Pulverized coal versus circulating fluidized-bed boilers

Perspectives and challenges for South Africa

M. Belaid1, R. Falcon2, P. Vainikka3

1 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg,
South Africa
2 School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, South Africa

3 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Jyvaskyla, Finland

Keywords: circulating fluidized bed, pulverized coal, emissions

Abstract—Power generation in South Africa has historically and continues to depend on the
use of pulverized coal combustion. The pulverized coal boilers are used by the majority of
power stations around South Africa. Although other types of technologies, such as
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) are available which are not used for this purpose in South
Africa. CFB technology is versatile with the advantage of fuel flexibility compared to
pulverized coal technology; it is able to burn coal of high ash and sulphur content and low
heating values without affecting the emissions of the greenhouse gases; furthermore it burns
other types of solid fuels such as low quality coal; lignite and coal blends. This paper
addresses the advantages, limitations and challenges of both technologies with the focus on
the behaviour of selected South African coals in CFB. The study was carried out using
Russian coal of a high calorific value and low ash content as a reference. We investigated
the emission trends of CO, CO2, SOx and NOx, HCl and other volatiles. It was found that the
emission was below the limit which didn’t exceed 250 ppm for SO2 with a combustion
efficiency of 98%.

INTRODUCTION
Power generation in South Africa for many decades has been and still is coming from the use of
pulverized coal combustion. The pulverized coal boilers are used by majority of the power
stations around South Africa, Eskom being the main one that has been and is still using this
technology.
Usage of coal and liquid fuel derive ed from coal accounts for around 86% of the 113 million
tons of carbon dioxide emissions South Africa produces annually (2006 estimate) and represents
around 40% of Africa's total coal derived CO2 emissions . Generally about two-thirds of sulfur
dioxide, one-third of carbon dioxide emissions and one quarter of the nitrogen oxides emissions
in the South Africa are produced by coal burning.1 South African coal plants currently have no
flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment fitted at present. Therefore, these plants account for
the majority of annual SO2, CO2, and NOx emissions in the country.
There are other technologies available but have not yet been used for this purpose in South
Africa despite various attempts by various researchers and stake holders, B North 2012 gave a
detailed historical and current research undertaken by his team in CSIR and others since 1983
refreeing to the studies done on bubbling fluidized bed.
The combustion of coal in circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, is a technology that has
not been recognized or explored in South Africa previously. Fluidized bed combustors (FBCs),
both circulating (CFBCs) and bubbling (BFBs) have been developed as combustion technologies
that are useful for widely different fuels such as coal, wastes and biomass. CFB combustion is
rapidly emerging as the most suitable technology as it offers various advantages.
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 73

Eskom’s challenges of not meeting energy demand and having lower reserve margins paved
the way for independent power producers (IPP), Khanyisa and Kuysa projects are great
examples in addtion to diversifed plan by the energy regulator NERSA, the plan is to increase
energy production using renewal energy and reduce the dependence on coal as a major source
of energy, nevertheless coal reserve, discard coal stock piles and technolgy cost will strengthen
the case of combustion technolgies using both coal and coal discard for electricity production
for the next 50 to 60 years.
This paper addresses the perspectives of using CFB as a technolgy of energy production in
South Africa, draw a comparison between PC and CFB boliers, addresses the challenges and
perspectives of both technologies and highlight the potential of usage of coal discard in power
generation.

PC BOILERS AND CURRENT CHALLENGES IN SOUTH AFRICA

Air Quality Act

In April 2010, Minimum Emission Standards were published in terms of the National
Environmental Management: Air Quality Act. There are standards for ‘existing plant’ which
come into effect in April 2015, and more stringent ‘new plant’ standards which come into effect
in April 2020. Existing plants are to comply with new plant standards by 2020.

Table 1. Emission compliance targets

2015 exisitng plant limt 2020 new plant limit

(mg/Nm3 at 10% O2) (mg/Nm3 at 10% O2
Particulate matter PM 100 50
Sulphur dioxide SO2 3500 500
Oxide of nitrogen as (NOx as NO2) 1100 750

A postponement of the compliance time frames of not more than 5 years may be applied for
according to the Minimum Emission Standards, and an exemption from the Standards may be
applied for in terms of section 59 of the Air Quality Act.2
There must also be compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. PM10 is the
greatest air quality problem in South Africa, but, when operating at normal emission levels,
power stations make only a small contribution to total ambient levels. Power stations are the
major source of SO2 in the Mpumalanga Highveld, and a major source of NOx, although
ambient levels are well below NOx limits

Power plant compliance with Air Quality Act (N 39 of 2004)

In terms of emissions abatement control on Eskom’s plants, the focus to date has primarily been
on particulate control.
With the advent of the minimum emissions standards, focus is now moving toward De-SOx
and De-NOx abatement. Kusile (new build) will be Eskom’s first coal fired power station to
employ a wet flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). Medupi (new build) will be retrofitted with a
wet-FGD during the first general overhaulseven years from into commissioning and made an
application for both Medupi and Kusile (new build) will comply with the NOx limits for new
plant from inception (low NOx burners plus over-fire air).
Medupi will be fully compliant with all the MES when the FGD retrofit is completed, by
April 2027 at the latest. Nevertheless, the Eskom’s emission reduction plan for the rest of the
fleet provides useful context. Eskom considers that it is not practically feasible or beneficial for
South Africa (when considering the full implications of compliance) to comply fully with the
MES by the 2015 and 2020 time frames stipulated. As a result, Eskom prefers to adopt a phased
and prioritized approach to compliance with the MES. Highest emitting stations will be
retrofitted first. Reduction of particulate matter (PM) emissions has been prioritized, as PM is
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 74

considered to be the ambient pollutant of greatest concern in South Africa. In addition, Eskom
proposes reducing NOx emissions at the four highest emitting stations.3
In addition to the compliance challenge Eskom have to deal with the plants age where more
than half the number of plant have already reached half-life or below as illustrated in the table
below.

Table 2. Power plants life and emission compliance4

Current compliance with existing plant standards Current compliance with new plant standards
Plant Decommissioning PM NOx SO2 PM NOx SO2
name date
50 years + life
Kusile 50 + Y Y Y Y Y Y
Medupi 50+ Y Y Y Y Y *
Majuba 2046-2051 Y N Y Y N N
Kendal 2048-2053 Y Y Y N Y N
Mathimba 2047-2051 Y Y Y N Y N
Lethabo 2045-2050 Y Y Y N N N
Tutuka 2045-2050 N N Y N N N
Duvha 1-3 2040-2044 Y Y Y Y N N
Duvha 4-6 2040-2044 Y Y Y N N N
Matla 2039-2043 N N Y N N N
Kriel 2036-2039 N N Y N N N
Arnot 2031-2039 Y Y Y Y N N
Hendrina 2030-2036 Y Y Y Y N N
Grootvlei 2021-2023 N Y Y N N N
Camden 2025-2028 Y Y Y N N N
Komati 2024-2028 Y N Y N N N
*: No (not compliant), will comply in 2027, Y: yes (compliant), N: No (not compliant)
Decommissioning date: Grey (plants passed mid- life), 2040-2044 and onwards (plant in mid-life, new and
relatively new)

Eskom greatest challenge is replacing the power plant which are nearing the end of their life
cycle in addition of the electricity demand in the next two decades and meeting the ever
changing air quality control standards, bearing in mind that both current and new power plant
standard are far more relaxed than the European’s ones which are more stringent.
In order to be fully compliant Eskom will have to invest huge sum of money to install
abatement retrofit techniques, namely—
• Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD)
• Low NOx burners (LNB)
• Fabric filter plants

PULVERIZED COAL (PC) VERSUS CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED BED

Benefits of CFB over PC

Circulating fluidized bed technology has been overtaking other combustion technologies; it is
particularly effective when burning reactive fuels with low heating values and high moisture
and ash contents. The development of the fluidized bed technology has allowed achievement of
higher efficiency levels while reducing emissions and increasing fuel flexibility, which are key
under current global market and environmental conditions. Technology employed for the
utilisation of coal in South Africa consists mainly of pulverized coal combustion (Eskom and
Sasol), fixed-bed coal gasification (Sasol) and grate-fired boilers (industry). South Africa has
abundant resources of high-ash and other low-quality coals which could be fired using
circulationf fluidized bed boilers.5,6
We take a close look at the two technolgies in various aspects such as boiler efficiency and
enviromental aspects (see Table 3).
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 75

Table 3. Benefits of CFB over PC in a plant (≤150 MW)6

Description CFB PC Benefits of CFB

Fuel size 6–12mm <75μm crushing cost is reduced
Fuel range (ash + up to 75% up to 60% accepts wider range
moisture)
Higher sulfur fuels (1–6%) Limestone FGD plant required less expensive SO2
injection removal system
Auxiliary fuel support (oil up to 20-30% up to 60% less oil gas consumption
and gas)
Auxiliary power slightly higher lower if FGD is used in PC,
consumption CFB power is lower
Emissions
SO2 ppm <200 <250 with FGD lower emissions in
process, less expensive
NO2 ppm <100 <100 with SCR no SCR system required
Boiler efficiency, % same same no difference
O&M cost (85% CF) 5–10% lower 5–10 % higher lower because of less
moving equipment
Capital cost 5–10 % higher 5–10% lower without –
FGD & SCR
8–15 % lower 8–15% higher with FGD –
& SCR

New CFBs are becoming increasingly efficient, larger, more reliable, and have decreasing
emissions. The CFB are designed to burn fuels spanning a range of qualities. At the low-grade
end they can handle fuels with low heating values (>6 MJ/kg), high moisture content (<55%),
and high ash content (<60%). High-ash discard coals are generally cheaper than fuels of better
quality, so the technology carries a cost benefit. Pollutant emissions from CFB boilers are
inherently lower than those from the competing technology, pulverized-fuel (PF) boilers. The
combustion temperature in CFBs (840–900°C) is much lower than that of PF boilers (1350–
1500°C), less NOx forms (from nitrogen in the fuel and the air), and by injecting limestone
(calcium carbonate, a sorbent) into the furnace, one can capture SO2 without resorting to an
expensive SO2-removal system. There are further savings in not having to pulverize the coal;
CFB boilers can handle a top size of 12 mm.
The furnace temperature in a coal circulting fluidized bed boiler is about (840–900°C) much
lower than pulverized coal fired boiler, the formation of N2O is more in favour of CFB, with
incresae of CFB boliers unit at larger capacity , controling N2O emssion is becoming more
important.8
At higher temperature N2O is thermally instable and it decomposes to

N2O → N2 + ½ O2 (1)

It is desirable to drive the decompostion of N2O in the CFB through different operating
condition using coal properties as mentioned by Svoboda who attributes the formation of N2O
to the following:7–9
• Coal properties coupled with char content within
• Coal rank
• Operating pressure
• Operating temperature
• Product gases H2O, CO2
• Excess air
• Limestone ratio and increase of coal particles size increased the formation of NOx and
decreased the formation of N2O
• The presence of oxygen even in small amount could deteriorate the catalytic
decomposition of N2O over the circulating ash

Cost factor
Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers provide economic and environmental efficiencies for
burning a wide variety of fuels namely:
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 76

• Maximum fuel flexibility

• Environmentally friendly burning of low grade, low cost or high sulphur fuels
• Excellent efficiency with low emissions
• High operational reliability
• Minimized operation and management costs and footprints
Below is typical cost evaluation for both CFB and PC technologies as reported by Kavadiss.6

Table 4. Typical economic evaluation for 125MW CFB versus PC with FGD power plant6

Description Units CFB PC with FGD

Unit size (gross) MWe 125.0 125.0
Unit size (net) MWe 112.5 112.0
EPC price $ 120,000.0 134,375.0
Capacity factor % 85.0 85.0
Coal heating value kcal/ kg 5,550.0 5,550.0
Coal cost $/MT 35.0 35.0
Limestone cost $/MT 8.0 8.0
Ash disposal cost $/MT 10.0 10.0
Annual O&M cost $ 3,000.0 3,300.0
% financed % 100.0 100.0
Debt payment term years 10.0 10.0
Description Units CFB PC with FGD
Interest rate % 9.0 9.0
Discount rate % 10.0 10.0
Tariff to yield 20 years, 10% ROI ($/MWh) 39.5 41.6
Payback period, at $45/MWh years 6.8 7.6

CFB has been proven to be able to provide low emission control costs and owner profit
margin increases and payback period improves as shown in table 4 above. Costs not included in
the table are items such as land, project development, permitting, escalation, taxes and owner's
costs, since these costs are common for both PC and CFB-based power plants.

CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED BED PERSPECTIVES IN SOUTH AFRICA

Current CFB initiatives in South Africa

Khanyisa project
Khanyisa project: IPP, Anglo American, Witbank, Emalheleni Mpumalanga region. A 450 MW
plant (3 modular units 150 MW each).
The supply of energy in South Africa is characterized by a shortage of electricity and future
increases in the price of the utility. These circumstances give investors good reason to build new
power-generating capacity in the country. Anglo American has a competitive advantage over
many other potential players in this market in that it has exclusive access to a fuel (discard coal)
a very little cost and its operations in South African demand continuously high, stable power.
Khanyisa IPP will exploit these advantages. Its location, furthermore, can take advantage of
Anglo American’s eMalahleni Water Reclamation Plant for much-needed water. The tender
went public in 2011.
Of the environmental and social impact assessment, the licensing process and the
interconnection arrangement with Eskom, can ground breaking begin. If all goes well the first of
three 150-MW CFB boilers could be commissioned in 2015.10
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 77

Kuyasa project
Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd of South Africa (Kuyasa) is planning to develop a multi-phased mine-
mouth coal-fired power project with a total generating capacity of 2,400 MW (gross). The first
phase of this proposed project will be the development of a 600 MW (gross) power plant
project, which will be constructed on a site located approximately 80 km east of Johannesburg
and about 20 km southeast of Delmas. The proposed project will be fuelled by low-quality coal
produced by Kuyasa’s Delmas Coal Mine. The proposed project will employ commercially
available fluidized-bed-boiler technology capable of burning low-quality coal or discard coal
without sacrificing boiler performance. The 600 MW (gross) power plant configuration will
consist of four units each capable of producing 150 MW (gross) electrical power. Each unit will
consist of one circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler supplying steam to a 150 MW (gross) steam
turbine generator. In addition, the unit will also include all associated material handling
systems for coal, sorbent, and ash, as well as all other auxiliary systems.11

CASE STUDY

Background
Discard coal has continued to accumulate over many years with current estimates stating that
there’s approximately 1.5 billion tonnes of discard coal in South Africa. As little attention was
placed in finding ways of beneficiating this material in the past due to the fact that discard coal
is considered to be a poor quality material. As a result of that, discard coal has continued to
accumulate over the years, occupying potentially useful land and polluting the environment i.e.
spontaneous combustion and ground water contamination. Today’s challenge is to understand
the composition and quantity of this material and hence investigate ways in which discard coal
can be beneficiated and apllied for power.1,12,13

Experimental study
This study was conducted by firing Russian coal as a refrence and SA discard coal in a pilot
plant circulating fluidized bed located at VTT testing centre in Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Coal analysis
Chemical analyses (proximate and ultimate) of South African coal and Russian coal used in the
study are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Coal analysis

Ash Volatiles Fixed carbon Calorific value Total

Moisture (%)
(%) (%) (%) MJ/kg sulphur (%)
Russian coal 3.2 15.4 34.0 47.4 26.6 0.2
SA discard coal 0.9 73.5 12.8 12.8 5.04 0.6

Combustion efficiency
The combustion efficiency is the ability of a combustor to burn carbon. For CFB, this is generally
higher (up to >99%) than for a bubbling fluidized bed combustor. Better mixing of bed mixture
and smaller fuel particles are the main factors, which contribute to that difference. SA Coal
discard efficiency reached 99.8% despite having an ash content above 70% (Figure 1).
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 78

100.0 %
99.8 %
99.8 %
99.6 %
99.4 % SA
99.2 %
99.0 %
98.8 % 98.7
98.6 % Russi
98.4 %
98.2 %
98.0 %
C
Combustion efficien
ncy

Figure 1.. Combustion efficiency

Emisssion impact
The fflue gas compposition wass measured u
using the FTIIR (Fourier trransform inffra-red) techn
nique.
Conccentrations off CO, NO, COO2, NO2, N2O
O, H2O, SO2 and HBr are shown in Fiigures 2–5.

Figurre 2. CO and N
NO concentrattions in the flu
ue gas

Figure 3. CO2 and N

NO2 concentra
ations in the fllue gas
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 79

Figure
e 4. N2O and H 2O concentra
ations in the fllue gas

Figurre 5. SO2 and H

HBr concentra
ations in the flue gas

Thhe emission trends show wn in Figuress 2–5 indicatte that discarrd coal of a llower qualitty and
high ash content can yield re esults well beelow minimmum requirem ments limits,, therefore discard
coal o
of better quality or blend
ded with otheer types of co
oal could be used
u for powwer generatio on.

Feas
sibility analysis of ele
ectricity ge
eneration using discard coal
The ffeasibility sttudy was carried out ussing one of Eskom’s larrgest power stations (Le ethabo
poweer station) in n the Vaal Triangle
T as a refrence. It is one of thhe few plantts in South Africa
A
which h can burn poor
p quality
y coal close tto discard with
w a calorific value of 114.MJ/kg annd ash
conteent of 38%. This
T suggestts that mostt of the otheer power sta ations are cuurrently unaable to
benefficiate the reemainder off the potentiially combustible discarrd in the reggion of about 1.5
billion tonnes. Th his plant cann generate up p to 3600 MWW at full cappacity, burniing close to 50
5 000
t/d oof coal. If thee plant buys raw coal at a cost of R1100 to R200 per
p tonne, it would amou unt to
appro oximately R11 825 million n per year oon the purchhase of coal. It has to bee consider thhat the
quan ntity of good quality coal is diminishin ng and existiing reserves are limited.114
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 80

Table 6. Discard coal power plant proposal

Fuel Heating Total fuel Assumed Total energy Power

consumption value energy input efficiency output output
kg/h MJ/kg MJ/h % MJ/h MW
2.08 6 8 1.67 7 40 6.67 6 1.85 3
2.08 6 9 1.87 7 40 7.50 6 2.08 3
2.08 6 10 2.08 7 40 8.33 6 2.31 3
2.08 6 11 2.29 7 40 9.17 6 2.54 3

2.08 6 12 2.50 7 40 1.00 7 2.77 3

2.08 6 13 2.71 7 40 1.08 7 3.00 3

2.08 6 14 2.92 7 40 1.17 7 3.23 3

Beneficiated discard coal could be used as a feed into CFB boilers for power generation and will
provide a platform for wider application at the source (Table 6). Discard coal beneficiation has
its own challenges and benefits:
¾ Beneficiation challenges:
• Lack of technological developments
• Composition of the discard material
• Initial capital cost
• Environmental concerns
• Location of the discard
¾ Beneficiation benefits:
• Techno-economic
• Job creation
• Environmental impact
• Regional development
• Localisation benefit

CONCLUSIONS
None of Eskom’s current plants has been designed with SO2 and NOx reduction in mind and
none of its plants will be able to comply with the 500 mg/m3 and 750 mg/m3 limit for SOx and
NOx, respectively, besides Matimba and Kendal for NOx compliance in addition to Kusile first
Eskom’s plant with FGD and Medupi retrofit ready for FGD addition few years after
commissioning.
The low-grade coal that Eskom generally utilizes has inherently low sulphur content
(typically between 0.8 to 1.2%); this is already a form of SO2 mitigation. Low sulphur content
yields higher ash resistivity which makes it more difficult to collect the ash particles in the
electrostatic precipitators.
Vast reserves of discard coal have accumulated in South Africa since the last inventory of
2001; there is close to 1.5 billion tones in existence. This discard coal calorific value falls within a
range 2–14 MJ/kg. Hence, amongst many other possible uses of this material, the beneficiation
of discard coal for power generation was found to be one of the most viable alternatives. One of
the proposed technologies for beneficiating such poor quality material is the circulating
fluidized bed boiler which has been demonstrated to be more efficient than the current PF
system. CFB technology is increasingly establishing itself as the technology of choice where fuel
flexibility and limestone addition as sorbent eliminates the capital cost of desulphurisation unit
used in PC technology. Łagisza power plant in Poland is a testimony to the maturity of the
technology. It was found that benefits that could result from beneficiating discard coal are
cheaper power generation and techno-economic benefits with a possible plant energy output of
3200 MW, similar to the current output achived at Lethabo power station.
It is recommended that encouraging projects such as Kuyasa and Khanyisa cannot only
elevate the burden of Eskom facing many constraints, both in power generation and making
 South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, 2014, no. 3, pp 72-81 81

capital investments to address emission issues, and to comply with national air quality act
which could change as South Africa is fully committed to its obligation towards climate change
forums such as cop 17 and other accords.

REFERENCES
1. Belaid, M., Falcon, R., Vainikka, P. and Patsa, K. 2013. Potential and technical basis for
utilising coal beneficiation discards in power generation by applying circulating
fluidised bed boilers. 2nd Int. Conference on Chemical, Ecology and Environmental
Sciences, June 17-18, London, U.K.
2. Wingrove, H. Overview of air quality and emission standards in south Africa.
Envirenment affairs and development planning. Mercury Emissions Inventory
Workshop, 19 August 2011.
3. Eskom. Medupi plant application for exemption from the minimum emissions
standards for the Medupi power station. October 2013.
4. Patel, E.M. 2011. Practical considerations in the implementation of emission reduction
solutions at Eskom’s coal plant. 4th EU-SA Clean Coal Technolgy workshop. 6
November 2011.
5. Xiangsong Hou et al . 2008. N2O decomposition over the circulating ashes from coal-
fired CFB boliers. Chemical Engineering Journal, 140:43-51.
6. Kavidass, S., Anderson, G.L. & Norton G.S Jr. 2007. Why build a circulating fluidized
bed boiler to generate steam and electric power. Chemical Business, 59–65.
7. Svoboda, K., & Pohorely, M. 2004. Influence of operating conditions and coal properties
on NO and N2O emissions in pressuried fluidised bed combustion of submitiminious
coals. Fuel, 83:1095-1103.
8. De Diego, L.F. 1996. Influence of operating parameters on NOx and N2O axial profiles
in circulating fluidized bed combustor. Fuel, 75(8):971-78.
9. Bonn, B. et al. 1995. Formation and decomposition of N2O in fluidized bed boilers. Fuel,
74(2):165-171.
10. Hall, I., Eslait, J. & den Hoed, P.. 2011. Khanyisa IPP a 450 MW CFB project: Practical
challenges. In proceeding of IFSA 2011 conference, SAIMM, pp.47–56.
11. Aziz, T. & Dittus, M.H. 2011. Kuyasa mine-mouth coal-fired power project: Evaluation
of circulating fluidized-bed technology” In proceeding of IFSA 2011 conference,
SAIMM, pp.11–29
12. Engelbrecht, A.D. 2007. Investigation into the gasification characteristics of South
African power station coals. CSIR Materials Science and Manufacturing, pp.1–21.
13. DME. 2001. National inventory of discard and duff coal. Summary report. Department
of Minerals and Energy, South Africa.
14. North, B. 2012. Utilisation of low grade fuels in fluidised bed combustion. PhD thesis,
Uiversity of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.