Coupling Power Generation With Syngas-Based Chemical Synthesis A Process Chain Evaluation From A Power Plant Viewpoint

Clemens Forman
Coupling Power
Generation with
Syngas-Based
Chemical Synthesis
A Process Chain Evaluation
from a Power Plant Viewpoint
Coupling Power Generation with
Syngas-Based Chemical Synthesis
Clemens Forman
Coupling Power
Generation with
Syngas-Based
Chemical Synthesis
A Process Chain Evaluation
from a Power Plant Viewpoint
Clemens Forman
Freiberg, Germany
Dissertation TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany, 2017
OnlinePlus material to this book is available on

http://www.springer.com/978-3-658-22609-1
ISBN 978-3-658-22608-4 ISBN 978-3-658-22609-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22609-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946541
Springer Vieweg
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer Vieweg imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
Acknowledgments
The present thesis was developed as research associate at the Institute of

Energy Process Engineering and Chemical Engineering at TU Bergakad-
emie Freiberg. Parts of the results were generated during the project ‘Con-
cept studies of coal-based Polygeneration-Annex-plants (funding code
03ET7042A)’, which was financially supported by the German Federal Min-
istry for Economic Affairs and Energy and RWE Power AG.
I would like to express my gratitude to
▪ my academic advisor Prof. Bernd Meyer for his support, confidence as

well as the opportunity to prepare this thesis,
▪ my second evaluator Prof. Manfred Wirsum for his critical review,
▪ my colleagues at the institute for the good and supportive atmosphere

especially the workgroup members of ‘Process chain development’ and
‘Thermochemical conversion’,
▪ my former workgroup leader Dr. Robert Pardemann for his versatile ad-
vice particularly in the early stages of this work,
▪ my colleague Christian Wolfersdorf for our scientific discussions about

power plant technologies and his hints on improving the modeling eval-
uation,
▪ my parents, family and friends for their individual and moral support all
these years.
Table of Contents
List of Figures ..................................................................................... XI

List of Tables ..................................................................................... XV
List of Abbreviations and Characters .............................................. XXI
1. Introduction and Motivation .............................................................1
2. Material Processing of Coal .............................................................3
2.1 Current Coal-Based Conversion Routes ...................................... 3
2.2 Polygeneration Concepts ............................................................. 5
2.3 Polygeneration-Annex Concepts .................................................. 8
3. Reference Case Lignite-Fired Power Station ................................. 13
3.1 Design of a Present and Future Steam Power Plant................... 13
3.1.1 Boundary Conditions ......................................................... 15
3.1.2 Process Description and Parameterization of
Existing Power Plant ......................................................... 16
3.1.3 Process Description and Parameterization of
Future Power Plant ........................................................... 26
3.2 Modeling of the Part Load Behavior ........................................... 33
3.2.1 Sliding Pressure Operation and Pressure Drops ................ 34
3.2.2 Steam Turbines and other Turbomachinery ....................... 36
3.2.3 Cold End and further Heat Exchangers .............................. 40
3.2.4 Coal Handling and Combustion ......................................... 43
3.2.5 Boiler Characteristics ........................................................ 46
3.2.6 Flue Gas Treatment .......................................................... 49
Table of Contents
VIII Table of Contents
3.3 Evaluation of the Reference Models........................................... 51

3.3.1 Overall Analysis ................................................................ 51
3.3.2 Performance Indicators and CO2 Emissions ...................... 59
3.3.3 Model Validation................................................................ 65
4. Syngas-Based Annex Plant ............................................................ 67
4.1 Gasifier Island and Gas Treatment............................................. 67
4.1.1 Entrained-Flow Gasifier ..................................................... 67
4.1.2 Fluidized-Bed Gasifier ....................................................... 69
4.2 Synthesis Routes....................................................................... 70
4.2.1 Methanol-to-Gasoline ........................................................ 70
4.2.2 Fischer-Tropsch ................................................................ 71
5. Coupling of Power Block and Annex Plant .................................... 73
5.1 Framework for Modeling ............................................................ 73
5.2 Considered Interfaces and their Technological Evaluation.......... 78
5.2.1 Steam Streams ................................................................. 80
5.2.2 Residue and Gases ........................................................... 83
5.3 Modeling Results ....................................................................... 85
5.3.1 Technical Considerations .................................................. 86
5.3.2 Efficiency Evaluation ......................................................... 90
5.3.3 Coal Savings ................................................................... 100
5.3.4 CO2 Emissions ................................................................ 105
5.4 Preferential Technology Combination ...................................... 109
Table of Contents IX
6. Evaluation of Preferential Technology Combination .................. 111

6.1 Electrolysis Integration............................................................. 111
6.2 Minimum Power Feed to the Grid............................................. 115
6.3 Expansion of the Annex Plant Capacity.................................... 117
6.4 Improvement of the Annex Steam Parameters ......................... 119
7. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................ 123
References ........................................................................................ 129
Appendix ........................................................................................... 147
List of Figures
(1) Flowsheet of important coal transformation routes

(own diagram based on [19-22]) .................................................... 4
(2) Concepts of coal-based polygeneration
(own diagram based on [17,27]) .................................................... 6
(3) Scheme of ‘Polygeneration-Annex’ concept................................. 10
(4) Increase of the power plant’s load elasticity
as seen from the grid by Annex integration .................................. 12
(5) Air / flue gas path of existing power plant .................................... 17
(6) Water-steam cycle of existing power plant ................................... 23
(7) Air / flue gas path of future power plant ....................................... 27
(8) Water-steam cycle of future power plant...................................... 31
(9) Characteristic curves of sliding pressure operation
based on boiler capacity.............................................................. 35
(10) Isentropic efficiency of different steam turbines
as a function of inlet mass flow.................................................... 38
(11) Isentropic efficiency of turbomachinery
as a function of inlet mass flow.................................................... 39
(12) Load-dependent subcooling effect (top) and pressure decline
(bottom) in condenser as a function of steam inlet mass flow....... 41
(13) Heat transfer coefficient factors per fluid type
as a function of respective inlet mass flow ................................... 42
(14) Desorption isobar (top) and bond enthalpy (bottom) in
fluidized-bed drying as a function of residual moisture content..... 45
(15) Characteristic curves of tube-side outlet temperatures
(SHT) based on boiler capacity ................................................... 47
(16) Characteristic curves of tube-side outlet temperatures
(RHT, EVAP, ECO) based on boiler capacity .............................. 48
(17) Load-dependent flue gas temperature leaving the boiler
as a function of live steam mass flow .......................................... 49
List of Figures
XII List of Figures
(18) Simulation results for the EPP’s air / flue gas path
(reference case) .......................................................................... 53
(19) Simulation results for the FPP’s air / flue gas path
(reference case) .......................................................................... 54
(20) Simulation results of the EPP’s water-steam cycle
(reference case) .......................................................................... 55
(21) Simulation results of the FPP’s water-steam cycle
(reference case) .......................................................................... 56
(22) Net plant efficiency change and specific auxiliary power
(reference cases) ........................................................................ 60
(23) Absolute and specific auxiliary power of EPP
(reference case) .......................................................................... 61
(24) Absolute and specific auxiliary power of FPP-D
(reference case) .......................................................................... 62
(25) Absolute and specific CO2 emissions (reference cases) .............. 64
(26) Literature review of net plant efficiency over the load ................... 66
(27) Process chain of syngas production via entrained-flow
gasification and gas treatment..................................................... 68
(28) Process chain of syngas production via fluidized-bed
gasification and gas treatment..................................................... 69
(29) Process chain of methanol and gasoline synthesis ...................... 71
(30) Process chain of low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ...... 72
(31) Thermal rating of Annex integration scenarios
by category, quantity and quality ................................................. 77
(32) Annex steam stream integration across the load ......................... 82
(33) Energy balancing of Annex integration
(Q̇: thermal energy – based on LHV if applicable) ........................ 85
(34) Net plant efficiency change with Annex integration for EPP/
FPP-D/FPP-M and its deviation range from the reference case ... 92
(35) Net plant exergy efficiency change with Annex integration
for EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M and its deviation range from the
reference case ............................................................................ 94
List of Figures XIII
(36) Annex integration efficiency per input type and plant model
(averaged over load and scenarios) ............................................ 97
(37) Total Annex integration efficiency and total Annex exergy
replacement factor (averaged over load) ..................................... 99
(38) Coal savings compared to EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M reference case .. 102
(39) Coal savings potential and exergy replacement potential
(averaged over load) ................................................................. 104
(40) CO2 emissions savings compared to EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M
reference case ......................................................................... 107
(41) Relative power feed to the grid in relation to PP reference
case – bars indicate range between nominal (top) and
minimum (bottom) plant load ..................................................... 116
------------------------------------ A P P E N D I X ------------------------------------
(42) Exit losses at the final stage of LPST .......................................... 11
(43) Comparison of relative flue gas temperature
per boiler section along the flue gas path .................................... 15
(44) Air / flue gas path of EPP with stream indications ........................ 21
(45) Water-steam cycle of EPP with stream indications ...................... 22
(46) Air / flue gas path of FPP with stream indications ........................ 23
(47) Water-steam cycle of FPP with stream indications....................... 24
List of Tables
(1) Design characteristics of the power plant processes.................... 14

(2) Coal analysis of Rhenish lignite................................................... 16
(3) Composition of ambient air.......................................................... 16
(4) Boiler design parameterization of existing power plant................. 19
(5) Spot heights for piping between turbine and boiler house ............ 22
(6) Configuration of steam turbine in existing power plant ................. 24
(7) Boiler design parameterization of future power plant ................... 28
(8) Configuration of steam turbine in future power plant .................... 33
(9) Key operation parameters per plant model in comparison............ 52
(10) Selected operation parameters per plant model in comparison .... 52
(11) Steam-coal ratio on energy and exergy basis (reference cases) .. 63
(12) Major modeling boundary conditions of reviewed literature .......... 66
(13) Energy balance and performance characteristics
of Annex plant (data mostly from [18,141]) .................................. 74
(14) Overview of Annex input streams (data extracted from [141]) ...... 75
(15) Load-dependent operation conditions
at determined interfaces of Annex integration .............................. 79
(16) Composition (at STP,wet) of the sour and residual gases
from Annex plant ......................................................................... 84
(17) Relative live steam savings with Annex integration
(minimum/maximum across the load) .......................................... 87
(18) Injection ratio and temperature drop at interface A4
(19) Exit steam quality of LPST and BFWPT
(20) SO2 concentration at the FGD unit with Annex integration
List of Tables
XVI List of Tables
(21) Overall energy efficiency of Annex concepts

(22) CO2 emissions at power plant (mean boiler capacity) for refer-
ence case and Annex integration in relation to total CO2 emis-
sions by Annex concept or respective stand-alone solutions...... 106
(23) Overview of the results discussion via ranking of criteria
per PP model with Annex integration ......................................... 109
(24) Energy balance and performance characteristics of EFG-MTG
cases (data mostly from [141,169])............................................ 113
(25) Composition (at STP,wet) of the sour and residual gases
from EFG-MTG cases ............................................................... 114
(26) Comparison of modeling results for EFG-MTG with/without
water electrolysis ...................................................................... 115
(27) Comparison of modeling results for regular and
doubled EFG-MTG.................................................................... 117
(28) Technical considerations for 2x EFG-MTG-H2MAX inputs
(minimum/maximum across the load) ........................................ 118
(29) Comparison of performance characteristics between
regular and improved EFG-MTG-H2MAX .................................. 121
------------------------------------ A P P E N D I X ------------------------------------
(30) Modeling results of fluidized-bed drying unit (at nominal load)
compared to the literature ........................................................... 14
(31) Stream report of EPP reference .................................................. 25
(32) Key performance parameters of EPP reference........................... 26
(33) Stream report of FPP-D reference ............................................... 27
(34) Key performance parameters of FPP-D reference ....................... 28
(35) Stream report of FPP-M reference .............................................. 29
(36) Key performance parameters of FPP-M reference ....................... 30
(37) Stream report of EPP-EFG-MTG ................................................. 31
(38) Stream report of EPP-EFG-FT .................................................... 32
(39) Stream report of EPP-FBG-MTG ................................................. 33
List of Tables XVII
(40) Stream report of EPP-FBG-FT .................................................... 34

(41) Stream report of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2AVG .................................... 35
(42) Stream report of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX.................................... 36
(43) Stream report of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2 .............................. 37
(44) Stream report of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 ........................ 38
(45) Stream report of FPP-D-EFG-MTG ............................................. 39
(46) Stream report of FPP-M-EFG-MTG ............................................. 40
(47) Stream report of FPP-D-EFG-FT ................................................. 41
(48) Stream report of FPP-M-EFG-FT ................................................ 42
(49) Stream report of FPP-D-FBG-MTG ............................................. 43
(50) Stream report of FPP-M-FBG-MTG ............................................. 44
(51) Stream report of FPP-D-FBG-FT ................................................. 45
(52) Stream report of FPP-M-FBG-FT ................................................ 46
(53) Stream report of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2AVG ................................ 47
(54) Stream report of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2AVG ................................ 48
(55) Stream report of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX ................................ 49
(56) Stream report of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX ................................ 50
(57) Stream report of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2 ........................... 51
(58) Stream report of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2........................... 52
(59) Stream report of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .................... 53
(60) Stream report of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .................... 54
(61) Key performance parameters of EPP-EFG-MTG ......................... 55
(62) Key performance parameters of EPP-EFG-FT............................. 55
(63) Key performance parameters of EPP-FBG-MTG ......................... 55
(64) Key performance parameters of EPP-FBG-FT............................. 55
(65) Key performance parameters of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2AVG ............ 56
(66) Key performance parameters of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX ............ 56
XVIII List of Tables
(67) Key performance parameters of

EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2......................................................... 56
EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .................................................. 56
(69) Key performance parameters of FPP-D-EFG-MTG...................... 57
(70) Key performance parameters of FPP-M-EFG-MTG ..................... 57
(71) Key performance parameters of FPP-D-EFG-FT ......................... 57
(72) Key performance parameters of FPP-M-EFG-FT ......................... 57
(73) Key performance parameters of FPP-D-FBG-MTG...................... 58
(74) Key performance parameters of FPP-M-FBG-MTG ..................... 58
(75) Key performance parameters of FPP-D-FBG-FT ......................... 58
(76) Key performance parameters of FPP-M-FBG-FT ......................... 58
(77) Key performance parameters of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2AVG ......... 59
(78) Key performance parameters of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2AVG ........ 59
(79) Key performance parameters of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX......... 59
(80) Key performance parameters of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX ........ 59
FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2 ..................................................... 60
FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2..................................................... 60
FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .............................................. 60
FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .............................................. 60
(85) Selected flue gas compositions at related boiler capacity
of EPP reference......................................................................... 61
of EPP-EFG-MTG ....................................................................... 61
of EPP-EFG-FT .......................................................................... 61
List of Tables XIX

of EPP-FBG-MTG ....................................................................... 61
of EPP-FBG-FT .......................................................................... 61
of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2AVG .......................................................... 61
of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX .......................................................... 62
of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2..................................................... 62
of EPP-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .............................................. 62
of FPP-D reference ..................................................................... 62
of FPP-M reference..................................................................... 62
of FPP-D-EFG-MTG.................................................................... 62
of FPP-M-EFG-MTG ................................................................... 63
of FPP-D-EFG-FT ....................................................................... 63
of FPP-M-EFG-FT....................................................................... 63
of FPP-D-FBG-MTG.................................................................... 63
of FPP-M-FBG-MTG ................................................................... 63
of FPP-D-FBG-FT ....................................................................... 63
of FPP-M-FBG-FT....................................................................... 64
XX List of Tables

of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2AVG....................................................... 64
of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2AVG ...................................................... 64
of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX ...................................................... 64
of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX ...................................................... 64
of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2 ................................................. 64
of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-F2 ................................................. 65
of FPP-D-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100........................................... 65
of FPP-M-EFG-MTG-H2MAX-SH100 .......................................... 65
(112) Properties of coal-related compounds at 298 K and
1.013 bar [171]............................................................................ 67
(113) Reaction exergies of common compounds at 298 K
and 1.013 bar [172] ..................................................................... 68
List of Abbreviations and Characters
A Annex
abs absolute
AI Annex integration
AIE Annex integration efficiency
aux auxiliaries
BFW boiler feed water
BFWP boiler feed water pump
BFWPT boiler feed water power turbine
BTX benzene, toluene and xylene
C coal
CM coal mills
CP condensate pump
CR carbonaceous residue
CSP coal savings potential
CTF cooling tower fan
CWP cooling water pump
daf dry & ash-free
DME dimethyl ether
ECO economizer
eff efficiency
EFG entrained-flow gasifier
el electric
List of Abbreviations and Characters

XXII List of Abbreviations and Characters
EPP existing power plant

ERF exergy replacement factor
ERP exergy replacement potential
ESP electrostatic precipitator
EVAP evaporator
FBD fluidized-bed drying
FBG fluidized-bed gasifier
FDF forced draft fan
FG flue gas
FGD flue gas desulfurization
FGT flue gas treatment
FPP future power plant
FPP-D future power plant (duo block operation)
FPP-M future power plant (mono block operation)
FT Fischer-Tropsch
G generator / gas(es)
HC hard coal
HHV higher heating value
HP high pressure
IDF induced draft fan
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle
IP intermediate pressure
L lignite
LHV lower heating value
LP low pressure
List of Abbreviations and Characters XXIII
LPG liquefied petroleum gas

LS live steam
max maximum
MeOH methanol
min minimum
MP medium pressure
MTG methanol-to-gasoline
NPE net plant efficiency
NPEE net plant exergy efficiency
P product(s)
PP power plant
R residue
ref reference
rel relative
RG residual gas(es)
RHT reheater
S steam
SCR selective catalytic reduction
SHT superheater
SNG substitute/synthetic natural gas
STP standard properties
SR sour gas(es)
ST steam turbine
th thermal
W water
XXIV List of Abbreviations and Characters
A surface area in m²
°C degree Celsius
𝐸̇ exergy flow in kW or MW
e exergy in kJ∙kg-1
h hour(s), enthalpy in kJ∙kg-1
K degree Kelvin
k heat transfer coefficient in kW∙m-2∙K-1
kg kilogram(s)
kJ kilojoule(s)
kW kilowatt(s)
kWh kilowatt hour(s)
M molar mass in g∙mol-1 or kg∙kmol-1
𝑚̇ mass flow in kg∙s-1 or t∙h-1
m², m³ square, cubic meter(s)
MJ megajoule(s)
MW megawatt(s)
MWh megawatt hour(s)
n amount of substance in mol or kmol
P power in kW or MW
p pressure in bar or mbar
pp percentage point(s)
𝑄̇ heat flow in kW or MW
s second(s), entropy in kJ∙kg-1∙K-1
T temperature in °C
t ton(s)
List of Abbreviations and Characters XXV
u velocity in m∙s-1
𝑉̇ volume flow in m³∙s-1 or m³∙h-1
v specific volume in m³∙kg-1
𝑥 steam quality, mass fraction
𝑥̅ mean steam quality
vol.% volume percent
wt.% weight percent
𝛼̅ Baumann factor
𝜆 air ratio
𝜂 efficiency in %
𝜌 density in kg∙m-3
𝜙 Stodola mass flow coefficient
𝜁 friction coefficient
1. Introduction and Motivation
Coal recently undergoes a massive image change. Ever since, it played

the most important role as primary energy carrier besides petroleum not
least because of its abundance worldwide. Being mainly used for electricity
generation, this demand more than doubled in the past 40 years and now-
adays has the highest share of 41 % (2014) among the other fuels [1].
Thus, coal can be considered as a cornerstone of the present wealth of
industrial nations. The big drawback using coal mostly via combustion is
the high release of CO2 into the atmosphere. At the latest since COP21 in
Paris 2015 coal in general is increasingly criticized as climate killer. Con-
sequently, strategies for a global coal phase-out until 2030 or 2050 are
developed.
In Germany, further aspects have to be taken into account. Coal-based

electricity generation was and still is the mainstay (2015: 42.3 % [2,3]). Lig-
nite as the only domestic fuel in relevant magnitude plays a special role.
The last decade of the German energy supply is characterized by a strong
growth of renewable energy sources, which however contribute to high
fluctuations in the electric grid (with a further rise expected). This develop-
ment in turn has to be compensated by the fleet of fossil-fuel power plants.
Once designed for base and mid-merit load, pulverized coal combustion
power plants have to increasingly meet an operation with highly flexible
load and high load elasticity [4-7]. Although there is also a national action
plan for a coal phase-out, the fossil-fuel power plants are considered as
levelling units as long as no large-scale and long-term electricity storage
system is established [8,9]. Studies reveal the need for a further lowering
of the minimum plant load allowing high load flexibility and avoiding fre-
quent startup/ shutdown events at the expense of lifetime and economic
efficiency [10-15].
1. Introduction and Motivation

C. Forman, Coupling Power Generation with Syngas-Based Chemical
Synthesis, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22609-1_1
2 1. Introduction and Motivation
How can such changed demand profile of coal-fired power plants be en-
countered in the near future? Recently, power plant operators took various
retrofit measures comprising several components in almost every plant
area in order to raise the plant’s operational flexibility [4,16]. Coupling
power generation with syngas-based chemical synthesis at one shared lo-
cal site holds further potential and offers several synergy effects. The con-
cept of linking a coal gasification and synthesis unit as a power sink to a
pulverized coal combustion power plant has been developed at TU
Bergakademie Freiberg [17]. Since fossil-fuel power generation declines in
this country [3], there will be mining capacities of lignite that could be used
as feedstock for chemical processes. This would reduce Germany’s import
dependency of petroleum and increase the local adding value at the same
time. Latest investigations mainly evaluated the continuously operated pro-
cess chain from coal to chemicals (and power) by techno-economic means
[17,18].
This work now emphasizes a load-dependent evaluation by simulation for

the integration of this concept from the power plant’s viewpoint. Interfaces
at the power plant are identified and influences or possible limitations are
characterized by appropriate parameters. Analyses are done for an exist-
ing power plant (EPP) as well as a future power plant (FPP). The major
outcome is a quantification of any effects such as an enhancement of load
elasticity leading to an improvement of availability.
2. Material Processing of Coal
The transformation routes of coal are manifold. Depending on the raw coal
composition, there are preferred process chains with their corresponding
product ranges. Compared to petroleum refining almost any hydrocarbon
substance of the chemical industry can be also derived from coal because
key components for syntheses have an alternative coal-based production
process. In the following subsections, further details about a material use
besides the common energetic use of coal are provided. This includes the
idea of coupling power generation with syngas-based chemical synthesis.
2.1 Current Coal-Based Conversion Routes
Beginning with coal as the general feedstock, there are three main pro-
cesses of conversion for a material-based use – namely carbonization, di-
rect liquefaction and gasification [19]. Concerning energetic use, it is com-
bustion of the solid or gaseous matter. Figure 1 gives an overview of the
various transformation to the major product lines. Carbonization is the
heating of coal (900–1,200 °C) in the absence of air for coke production
[20]. Via pyrolysis, the byproducts are coal gas and coal tar. While coke is
used as adsorbent or for metallurgical processes including the chain from
calcium carbide to acetylene to polyvinylchloride, coal tar is treated via hy-
dro refining/cracking and further refined to aromatics with emphasis on
benzene, toluene and xylene (BTX).
A direct liquefaction of coal commonly means a slurry-phase conversion

(450–500 °C) upon Bergius-Pier where coal suspended in oil and mixed
with a powdery catalyst is split into hydrocarbons thereby consuming addi-
tionally provided hydrogen at up to 300 bar [23]. The intermediate product
of coal oil being refined leads to light ends, gasoline, diesel and refined oil.

4 2. Material Processing of Coal
combustion IGCC electricity / heat …
gypsum H2 / CO / N2 / S … … olefins
methanol methanol
MeOH DME
synthesis processing
… LPG
methanation SNG
oil / wax gasoline
coal gasification syngas Fischer-Tropsch diesel
direct liquefaction coal oil refining light ends
carbonization coal tar hydrorefining/-cracking refined oil BTX
coke … … …
Figure 1: Flowsheet of important coal transformation routes (own diagram based on

[19-22])
Compared with these two conversion technologies gasification has great-

est importance. Depending on the type of gasification process – each suit-
able for different qualities of coal (high/low rank, ash content) – the feed-
stock is thermo-chemically treated at temperatures of 800–1,700 °C with
pressures of 1–100 bar [24]. Exposed to steam and controlled amounts of
air or oxygen, the solid fuel primarily turns into raw gas, which consists of
CO, H2, CO2, H2S+COS and other impurities in that composition order. A
typical coproduct from raw gas cleanup is elemental sulfur via the Claus
process or sulfuric acid via the contact process. After scrubbing, acid gas
removal and CO-shift conversion, syngas offers a variety of options. Just
based on its main components in combination with other reactants, there
are routes leading to ammonia, urea, acetic acid and dimethylformamide
each with subsequent processes. By synthesis upon Fischer-Tropsch (FT),
various fractions of oil, wax or diesel are gained. Moreover, methanation
of syngas enables the production of substitute natural gas (SNG). The
probably most important commodity, however, is methanol (MeOH) being
2.2 Polygeneration Concepts 5
considered as the basic chemical and energy feedstock of the future [25].
Besides the usage as a fuel or a reactant especially for higher alcohols and
formaldehyde, methanol is also processed to other key products via par-
ticular syntheses. These are methanol to gasoline, dimethyl ether (DME)
or olefins, with the latter mainly representing ethylene and propylene being
subsequently polymerized. Additional byproducts equivalent to liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) result from product preparation of methanol and re-
lated downstream compounds.
As soon as syngas is generated for combustion, the process of the inte-

grated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is involved. Cleaned raw gas is
sent to a gas turbine and the remaining heat in the flue gas is recovered
by a steam cycle, which is also interconnected with the heat recovery from
the gasification process chain. Similar to the combustion of coal in a regular
power plant (sulfur is recovered via flue gas desulfurization and formed to
gypsum as saleable byproduct) the respective products are electricity and
heat.
2.2 Polygeneration Concepts
Concepts of polygeneration take up versatile transformation routes – as

presented in Section 2.1, Figure 1 – for a simultaneous production of at
least one value-added substance, electricity and heat (and/or cold) out of
one main feedstock [26]. The principle of a cogeneration unit for example
driven by a gas engine is also covered by the terminology ‘polygeneration’
but excluded from the following considerations. In the literature, various
studies on polygeneration have been conducted. An overview about coal-
based routes is provided by Pardemann [27], which is adopted and ex-
panded for this work. There are essentially three types of polygeneration
concepts as shown in Figure 2.
chemical chemical
synthesis product(s)
gasification & syngas

a) coal
raw gas cleanup splitting
chemical chemical
synthesis product(s)
power electricity
block (& heat)
gasification & syngas unconverted

b) coal
raw gas cleanup splitting syngas
chemical product chemical

synthesis preparation product(s)
combustion & steam electricity

flue gas cleanup generation (& heat)
exchange
c) coal
streams
gasification & chemical chemical

raw gas cleanup synthesis product(s)
Figure 2: Concepts of coal-based polygeneration (own diagram based on [17,27])
Syngas from gasification and raw gas cleanup is variably split into two or
more chemical syntheses with their respective product range (a). A modi-
fication thereto is a distribution of syngas still to at least one chemical syn-
thesis but also to a power block consisting of a gas turbine single or com-
bined cycle for electricity generation (b). There are variations where un-
converted syngas after product preparation is partly/completely recircu-
lated for synthesis and/or sent to the power block possibly instead of any
2.2 Polygeneration Concepts 7
fresh syngas. Both polygeneration concepts (a, b) are characterized by a

sophisticated system integration. In contrast to a syngas splitting, the third
concept intents a combination of material-based and energetic use already
beginning from the feedstock (c). Coal is gasified as well as combusted.
The chemical plant and power plant allow an exchange of several streams.
More details about this integration and further aspects of the concept are
provided in the subsequent section.
Relating to polygeneration with syngas splitting, the following conclusions

from the literature review [27-59] can be drawn. Most of the concepts in-
volve the combination of chemicals production (especially MeOH and FT
liquids, also SNG and ammonia/urea) and power generation, aiming for an
increase in product flexibility and resource utilization [28-30]. Compared to
the respective stand-alone solutions, higher total efficiencies can be
achieved [29,31-33]. Furthermore, the overall plant economics are im-
proved [34-45]. Lower capital and operational costs result from a better
gasifier capacity utilization [29] and fewer plant components according to
site-specific polygeneration configurations. Optimizations for example
arise out of higher syngas conversion via partial recirculation or a smaller
once-through synthesis where unconverted syngas is sent to the power
block [31,35,43-45]. As soon as a penalty for CO2 is considered in the eco-
nomic evaluation, polygeneration concepts can reduce these costs accord-
ing to the above-mentioned benefits [36-39]. A co-gasification of biomass
by up to 50 % could significantly mitigate the CO2 emissions, however, at
the expense of efficiency and product yield because of disadvantageous
fuel properties (heating value, carbonization) [41,48]. Downsizing or an
elimination of the water-gas shift reaction during raw gas treatment pro-
vides further scope for less capital and operational expenditure. One ap-
proach could be that some of the (unconverted) syngas is combusted be-
sides a recirculation for synthesis and therefore needs less or no adjust-
ment in composition [40]. Other concepts are based on a switch in feed-
stock away from coal to coke oven gas [46] or natural gas (plus biomass)
[47-49] where hydrogen for syngas adjustment is typically derived from the
feedstock stream and even no CO2 removal might be needed. Apart from
those process particularities, polygeneration plants can be also designed
for flexible operation in order to achieve a maximum degree of flexibility

[29,30]. Corresponding studies [42,48] show operational concepts, which
have an increased added value but with higher requirements for load gra-
dients and part load capabilities of the process units [30]. Producing elec-
tricity during peak hours, while switching to the production of chemicals
during off-peak hours compensates uncertainties in feedstock and com-
modity prices [51].
Put into the context of a growing intermittency of renewable energy

sources, polygeneration concepts reveal additional potential. Several stud-
ies have been conducted where excess electricity is integrated into the
gasification-based synthesis process chain by a production of hydrogen
via water electrolysis [17,29,48,52-54]. Thus, renewable energy is turned
into chemical product. Besides process improvements concerning effi-
ciency and product yield, the enhancement of operation flexibility by a stor-
age of the syngas should be noted though being investigated for the exclu-
sive electricity generation (i.e. IGCC process) [55,56]. Research thereby
also addresses changed circumstances at the gas turbine (firing tempera-
tures, material stability and burner design) [57-59]. However, an increase
of flexibility is accompanied by increased capital costs [17].
A key challenge for coal-based polygeneration despite the explained ben-

efits remains cost-effectiveness. Due to the high plant complexity and
higher coal-related efforts (solids handling, gas purification, effluents treat-
ment), the investment and operational costs exceed those for oil-based
conversion routes [17,27,29].
2.3 Polygeneration-Annex Concepts
This is where the concept of ‘Polygeneration-Annex’ starts. It meets both

demands: cost reduction and flexibility increase. A couple of studies with
different focus have been conducted and discussed by the Institute of En-
ergy Process Engineering and Chemical Engineering at TU Bergakademie
Freiberg [17,18,60-67]. Figure 3 indicates the general scheme of coupling
power generation with syngas-based chemical synthesis.
2.3 Polygeneration-Annex Concepts 9
At the location of a given pulverized coal combustion power plant infra-

structure, a commercial-scale coal gasifier of lower thermal capacity (com-
pared to the one of the power plant) with downstream chemical synthesis
– referred to as the ‘Annex’ – is planned. The process chains of both the
power plant and the Annex plant are interconnected at various areas,
which offers several synergy effects:
▪ Coal handling: starting with the coal being delivered onsite (power
plant), it is crushed and handled for combustion. A fraction of this coal
is sent to the Annex plant for gasification where merely a unit for further
grinding and if necessary drying is needed. It is possible that suchlike
process equipment also already exists at a power plant. Oxygen is sup-
plied by an air separation unit as regular part of the Annex plant.
▪ Gasification: in the case of entrained-flow gasification slag is constituted

and deposited, while carbonaceous residue occurs during fluidized-bed
gasification (bed ash still has a significant fraction of unconverted car-
bon), which is sent to the power plant. There, it can be burnt and then
landfilled together with the other ash from coal combustion. Conse-
quently, no process unit for incineration has to be installed at the Annex
plant.
▪ Gas and product treatment: another possibility of interconnection is pro-

vided at the raw gas cleanup as well as at the product preparation after
chemical synthesis. Sour gas (H2S and some CO2) respectively resid-
ual gas (light hydrocarbons) can be again thermally treated at the power
plant. Formed sulfur oxides (mostly SO2) are recovered in the regular
flue gas path at the already existing flue gas desulfurization unit there
being turned into gypsum. A sulfur recovery at the Annex plant via the
Claus or contact process is spared.
ash gypsum
10
Figure 3:
coal coal flue gas path
coal clean gas + CO2
handling combustion & cleanup
steam cycle electricity
water
water electric
treatment = grid
air
carbonaceous steam sour residual water

water
residue demand/supply gas gas electrolysis
O2
air grinding
Scheme of ‘Polygeneration-Annex’ concept

separation & drying H2
coal water water-gas acid gas chemical chemical

N2 O2 gasification scrubber shift removal synthesis product(s)
material & heat integration
slag CO2
2. Material Processing of Coal
2.3 Polygeneration-Annex Concepts 11
▪ Wastewater treatment: Annex process units such as a raw gas quench

or the water scrubber accumulate black- or gray-water. This solids-
laden water permits only a limited reprocessing and needs to be dis-
posed after all. The power plant’s after-burning section allows a thermal
treatment of concentrated wastewater and saves respective equipment
at the Annex plant. Other wastewater possibly being organically loaded,
originates usually from acid gas removal or chemical synthesis includ-
ing product preparation. After an appropriate pretreatment (e.g. acti-
vated carbon filter), this water can be further processed at the existing
utilities of the power plant thus realizing additional savings.
▪ Heat integration: apart from solid/liquid/gaseous material streams,

steam is central to the exchange options. At the Annex plant, heat is
fully integrated from gasification down to chemical synthesis. Local de-
mands such as for distillation columns are satisfied. The typically high
heat release during chemical reaction of industrial-scale syntheses as
considered in this work (↦ Section 2.1, Figure 1) enables the genera-
tion of steam in large amounts. Excess steam is transferred to the
steam cycle of the power plant instead to a separate steam turbine for
electricity generation, as it would be the case for a stand-alone solution.
The respective feed water is provided by the power plant thus saving
additional facilities for makeup. If still required, steam of particular qual-
ity could be supplied by the power plant. Hence, there is also no need
for an aux boiler at the Annex plant during startup events.
▪ Power management: concerning electricity supply, the corresponding

and already existing infrastructure of the power plant creates further
advantages for the Annex concept. All auxiliary units can be integrated
with less effort than by a stand-alone plant construction. Moreover, the
Annex plant in turn represents a permanent power sink during operation
and reduces the power plant’s minimum feed to the electric grid. The
power plant benefits thereof especially during times of high renewable
energy penetration because it gains a smaller impact to the grid via
coupling. Such a situation can be further expanded by installing a water
electrolysis at the Annex plant. On the one hand, external hydrogen
improves the syngas composition for chemical synthesis at less need

for water-gas shift reaction enabling a higher product yield [24]. Simul-
taneously generated oxygen slightly unloads the air separation unit for
coal gasification. On the other hand, the electricity consumption by wa-
ter electrolysis reduces the power plant’s minimum feed to the electric
grid even further. This means more operational flexibility due to the ‘Pol-
ygeneration-Annex’ concept.
Figure 4 illustrates the above-mentioned increase of load elasticity (range

between minimum and maximum load). Its quantification is part of this
work. Techno-economic studies reveal a reduction in capital investment of
15–21 % [17,18] according to the shared infrastructure as explained. Re-
lated considerations are excluded here.
max
load elasticity
power plant load range
min
Annex plant auxiliaries
min
water electrolysis
min
operational flexibility
Figure 4: Increase of the power plant’s load elasticity as seen from the grid by Annex
integration
3. Reference Case Lignite-Fired Power Station
The following framework provides an investigation of a lignite-fired power

station. Two cases of generic power plants of different power class and
design are considered in order to cover an evaluation for both current and
future boundary conditions. Using the commercial simulation software EB-
SILON® Professional 11.04 [68], a subcritical unit of the kind built in the
1970s and an ultra-supercritical unit of the kind to be built after 2020 are
modeled. Every process step in the model is typically represented by a
particular component, which can be parameterized for design and off-de-
sign operation.
3.1 Design of a Present and Future Steam Power Plant
The older existing power plant (EPP) is supposed to be retrofitted via the
Annex concept, while the now viable future power plant (FPP) incorporates
the Annex plant by design. Table 1 indicates their common design charac-
teristics based mostly on or following published data of corresponding
power plant projects [69-71]. Some of the numbers already represent mod-
eling results (values are rounded).
One important aspect is that the FPP has two similar blocks feeding only
one steam turbine. The steam cycle is divided beginning from the inlet to
the boiler feed water tank and reunites around the respective turbine con-
nections [72,73]. Two major advantages result from this: specific invest-
ment costs of duo block power plants are 13 % below those of respective
single block power plants [74]. By shutting down one of the two blocks
(mono block operation), the power plant achieves a fast and extremely high
load flexibility/elasticity [75].

14 3. Reference Case Lignite-Fired Power Station
Table 1: Design characteristics of the power plant processes
Design data Existing power plant Future power plant

Rated thermal input * 1,715 MW 2 x 1,155 MW
Coal demand 670 t/h 2 x 450 t/h
Gross electric output 650 MW 1,100 MW
Net electric output 604 MW 1,046 MW
Gross efficiency * 38.0 % 47.6 %
Net efficiency * 35.4 % 45.3 %
Live steam generation 1,850 t/h 2 x 1,385 t/h
Live steam parameter 170 bar; 530 °C 285 bar; 605 °C
Cold/hot reheat steam 34/30 bar; 300/540 °C 56/51 bar; 340/620 °C
Condenser pressure 66 mbar 35 mbar
Wet cooling tower Hybrid cooling tower
Cooling system (natural draft) (forced draft)
*) based on LHV
In contrast to the EPP, 35 % of the rated thermal input is covered by dried

lignite using a fluidized-bed drying process with a final moisture content of
12 wt.% and vapor condensation according to data from the literature [76-
79]. For this purpose, steam is extracted from the IP/LP crossover section
of the steam turbine. Another difference between the EPP and the FPP
appears in the cooling system. The FPP is set to use a hybrid cooling tower
with forced draft because of a higher public acceptance by the reduced
overall height against wet cooling towers with natural draft [70,72].
3.1 Design of a Present and Future Steam Power Plant 15
3.1.1 Boundary Conditions

Comparisons between various simulation works require a common calcu-
lation basis. The following aspects are uniformly defined in the models:
▪ Fluid properties & reference values: the water-steam circuit is calcu-

lated upon IAPWS-IF97 (International Association for the Properties of
Water and Steam). Concerning the other fluid properties, correlations
provided by FDBR (Fachverband Dampfkessel-, Behälter- und
Rohrleitungsbau e.V.) are used in terms of ideal gases. Lower heating
values (LHV) and exergies apply to a reference temperature of 25 °C
[80,81]. The reference concentration of oxygen is set to 6 vol.% [82]
according to combustion of solid fuels. Standard properties (STP) are
defined as 273.15 K and 101.325 Pa. Functions for heat transition co-
efficients derive from technical guidelines [83,84] unless otherwise
identified.
▪ Fuel data: the considered lignite is of Rhenish provenience and has a

representative composition as shown in Table 2. Raw coal has a tem-
perature of 15 °C [85].
▪ Ambient air & water: the average conditions of ambient air are assumed
15 °C, 1.01325 bar and 60 % humidity [85]. Table 3 indicates the cor-
responding composition. Due to an interior intake, combustion air is
warmed up to 20 °C [81,86]. Makeup water for any purpose arrives with
15 °C [87].
▪ Simulation procedure: every power plant model is run to achieve a cer-

tain gross electric output at the generator. Thereon the amount of live
steam needed is set and determines the respective coal feed. Multi-
strandedness such as those for steam piping, coal mills and parts of the
flue gas cleaning is excluded in the flowsheet simulation.
Table 2: Coal analysis of Rhenish lignite
Ultimate analysis Proximate and heating value analysis

C wt.% (dry) 63.00 Fixed carbon wt.% (dry) 42.00
H wt.% (dry) 4.51 Volatile matter wt.% (dry) 48.12
N wt.% (dry) 0.72 Ash wt.% (dry) 9.88
O wt.% (dry) 20.98 Moisture wt.% 55.4
S wt.% (dry) 0.87 Lower heating value MJ/kg 9.24
Cl wt.% (dry) 0.04 Higher heating value MJ/kg 10.97
Ash wt.% (dry) 9.88 LHV dried lignite (12 %) MJ/kg 20.81
Table 3: Composition of ambient air
Components Unit Value

Nitrogen (N2) wt.% (wet) 74.86
Oxygen (O2) wt.% (wet) 22.94
Argon (Ar) wt.% (wet) 1.28
Carbon dioxide (CO2) wt.% (wet) 0.05
Water (H2O) wt.% 0.87
3.1.2 Process Description and Parameterization of Existing Power Plant

Beginning with the fuel and the flue gas path, Figure 5 illustrates the sec-
tions being passed in the existing power plant. The process parameteriza-
tion is described per unit.
fresh
clean ECO
air preheated BFW
gas
forced cold reheat

regenerative RHT1
draft fan
heater
BFW
1
SHT3
2
cooling steam air
tower preheater hot
RHT2 reheat
flue gas
desulfurization air preheater BFW
live
SHT4 steam
electrostatic
raw
precipitator
lignite SHT2
SHT1
induced coal mills with
draft fan flue gas retraction
flue
dust EVAP
burner/
furnace
ash
flue gas recirculation
Figure 5: Air / flue gas path of existing power plant
Raw lignite is grinded in beater-wheel mills (↦ Appendix A.1.1) and dried

via flue gas retraction at the same time. With seven mills in operation at full
load, a throughput of 95 t/h each is maintained. Referring to performance
class data [88], the auxiliary power demand of milling per coal input equals
7.65 kWh/t or 27.5 kJ/kg. At the outlet duct, coal dust is reported to have a
moisture content of 15–20 wt.% [82,85,89,90] and a temperature of 120–
180 °C [80,82,85,89]. For simulation, 17 wt.% and 140 °C are defined. In-
ternal energy balance calculations in the model then determine the amount
of flue gas being retracted at 1,000 °C [80,82,85] and the partial flow of
preheated combustion air as transport gas and cooling agent in order to
meet the mentioned outlet conditions and a coal dust density of
0.4 kg/m³ (STP) [82]. The pressure drop in the mills reaches 20 mbar [90].
Additionally, false air with a share of 20 vol.% [89] in the outlet gas stream
and assumed heat losses of 1 % are taken into account.
The ignition of the coal dust starts at the tip of the burner units and com-
bustion takes place in the furnace section of the boiler. Both process steps
are represented in the model in one common block (↦ Appendix A.1.2),
which is subject to statistical combustion calculation. The total stoichio-
metric air ratio of the boiler is set to 1.15 [90,97]. Thus, a distinction be-
tween primary and secondary air for combustion or burnout is neglected.
Further parameterizations define the distribution of the released heat.
There are losses for radiation (fuel-dependent empirical correlation [81]),
unburnt coal (0.8 % [82]), ash separation (via temperature and specific
heat capacity [81]) and the structural surface (0.25 % [85]). Besides the
flue gas composition (gas radiance), the radiant heat transfer to the evap-
orator depends on the geometry and the defined outlet temperature
(1,000 °C) of the furnace. Concerning emissions, the concentrations of CO
and NOx in the flue gas are fixed by average literature values of
100 mg CO/m³ (STP) [86] and 180 mg NOx/m³ (STP) [86] with regard to
the specified O2 reference value.
Within the boiler, the flue gas from the radiation zone then passes several
heat exchanger sections, which are also part of the water-steam cycle. A
total relative pressure drop of 2.5 % [85] (with regard to inlet pressure) is
applied to the gas flow. Based on appropriate literature values of lignite-
fired boilers [80,82,87,89,91-95], the convective heat exchange units and
corresponding flue gas path segments are parameterized by geometry,
flow regime, tube material as well as tube-side pressure drops and outlet
temperatures. The latter two had to be adapted to the operation conditions
of this model (↦ Section 3.1, Table 1). An overview is provided by Table 4.
After the economizer, the flue gas has a temperature of 330 °C [86,91].
Leaving the boiler, an amount of additional false air equivalent to a share
of 3 vol.% [82] of the combustion air has accumulated.
Next unit is the combustion air preheater (↦ Appendix A.1.3). According to

an upper temperature difference of 20 K [80], a leakage airflow of 5 vol.%
[82,85,87] and a general heat loss of 1 %, the combustion air reaches ap-
proximately 300 °C. Besides, a pressure drop of 15 mbar [85] is applied.
In order to avoid local dew point corrosion within the apparatus (typically
below 150 °C [89]), the fresh air is already preheated by a steam fed heat
exchanger (↦ Appendix A.1.4) to 40 °C [86]. The fresh air fan (↦ Appen-
dix A.1.5) overcomes all pressure drops from intake to the burners (over-
pressure: 10 mbar [85]).
Table 4: Boiler design parameterization of existing power plant
Parameter (unit) EVAP SHT1 SHT2 SHT4 RHT2 SHT3 RHT1 ECO
Flue gas segment W: 20 W: 20 W: 20 W: 20 W: 20 W: 20 W: 20 W: 20
geometry per with, D: 20 D: 20 D: 20 D: 20 D: 20 D: 20 D: 20 D: 20
depth, height (m) H: 60 H: 20 H: 60 H: 3 H: 3 H: 3 H: 3 H: 15
Heat exchanger counter counter counter
coflow coflow coflow coflow coflow
flow regime (–) flow flow flow
Tube material (–) ├ 13CrMo4-4 ┤ ├–––––––––––– 10CrMo9-10 –––––––––––┤ 16Mo5
Tube wall
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
thickness (mm)
Tube inner
34.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 34.5 31.4 34.5 25.0
diameter (mm)
Longitudinal
n/a n/a 0.065 0.065 0.050 0.073 0.050 0.043
pitch (m)
Transversal
n/a n/a 0.480 0.480 0.240 0.240 0.120 0.120
pitch (m)
Tube system (–) n/a n/a aligned aligned aligned offset offset offset
Number of
1196 596 6 6 12 12 24 24
parallel tubes (–)
Surface area (m²) 7,680 3,070 5,730 11,460 16,170 21,010 31,570 24,020
Tube-side
22.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5 5.0 1.0 3.0
pressure drop (bar)
Tube-side outlet
389 433 463 530 539 502 455 294
temperature (°C)
EVAP: evaporator | SHT: superheater | RHT: reheater | ECO: economizer
Cooled down to about 180 °C, the flue gas enters the electrostatic precip-
itator (↦ Appendix A.1.6). There, 99.87 % [86,87] of the fly ash is sepa-
rated. A pressure drop of 10 mbar [89] and a heat loss of 0.5 % [85] is
taken into account. The electricity demand of this process step derives
from 34.5 kJ/kg ash [89] and peripheral equipment (blower) of 230 kW [86].
Some of the dust-free cold flue gas is recirculated by a separate fan to the
furnace for temperature control, which has an isentropic efficiency of
78.5 % [96].
The majority of flue gas is sucked by the induced draft fan (↦ Appen-
dix A.1.7) and further transferred downstream. Despite a slight compres-
sion – the isentropic efficiency lies at 85 % [85] – to overcome the subse-
quent pressure losses, the flue gas cools down a few degrees because of
assumed thermal losses of 5 % via housing and duct piping.
Last step of flue gas cleaning is the flue gas desulfurization (↦ Appen-
dix A.1.8), realized by wet scrubbing. The processes in the absorber are
logically integrated in the model. Sulfur dioxide and limestone plus water
and oxygen form gypsum and carbon dioxide. The stoichiometry of this
chemical reaction is adjusted by a factor of 1.5 [80] because of the inactivity
of some limestone (20 wt.% solids concentration in suspension) and a
short contact time between flue gas and absorbent. In practice, a desulfu-
rization of 85–95 % [80,82,86] (model: 90 %) and a separation of almost
all the remaining dust is achieved.
The formation of few CO2 and the entry of unreacted O2 (and N2) by oxida-
tion air into the cleaned gas is taken into account. An interaction of chlo-
rides and heavy-metal compounds in the system is neglected. Passing the
absorber, gas pressure and temperature change as follows: due to four
spray levels [86] and redirections in the flow path, a pressure drop of
15 mbar (10–25 mbar [85,97]) is considered. The flue gas is saturated dur-
ing scrubbing and meanwhile cooled down to 65 °C [82,86] because of
evaporative cooling. In order to support natural draft at the vent and to
avoid any dew point corrosion meanwhile, the clean gas is reheated to
around 120 °C by arriving warm flue gas (entering the absorber at 130 °C)
in a regenerative flue gas heater (↦ Appendix A.1.9) [80,82,85,89]. Con-
cerning the auxiliary power demand, calculations include five sump agita-
tors (90 kW each according to technical data sheets), a forced draft fan for
air injection and four load-dependent recirculation pumps to the spray lev-
els for two absorber units plus 250 kW of peripheral drives [86]. Isentropic
efficiency in that turbomachinery is set to 80 % [96].
Finally, the clean gas is exposed to the atmosphere through the wet cooling
tower. A chimney draft effect of 5 mbar (adapted from [82]) is applied,
which in the end relieves the pressure increase at the induced draft fan.
Switching to the steam cycle, Figure 6 shows all considered components

and piping. Again, key parameterization is provided for each step starting
with cold condensate.
The main condensate pump (isentropic efficiency: 78 % [86]) transports

the fluid through the low pressure feed water heating section (↦ Appen-
dix A.1.10) to the feed water tank and overcomes the occurring pressure
losses. These are 1.5 and 0.5 bar for each feed water preheater and cor-
responding after cooling [80,85,98]. The upper temperature difference be-
tween feed water and tapped steam is defined 5 K [85,99]; between con-
densate and feed water it is 7 K [80,87]. At the second feed water pre-
heater, a pump (isentropic efficiency: 85 % [86]) feeds the upstream col-
lected condensates into the main pipeline while the other condensate is
sent to the condenser. Entering the feed water tank, there is another pres-
sure drop of 2.0 and 0.5 bar due to geodetic height difference [80] and inlet
strainers [98].
After five stages of feed water heating, the boiler feed water pump (↦ Ap-
pendix A.1.11) boosts the pressure level to 239 bar against a total pres-
sure loss of 59 bar from that point to the boiler outlet thus maintaining the
live steam parameter (↦ Section 3.1, Table 1). Additional drops are 3.0 or
1.0 bar (per preheater or after cooling) along the high pressure feed water
heating section (↦ Appendix A.1.12) and geodetic height differences being
described further below [80,85,98]. The boiler feed water pump is divided
into two parts (intermediate pressure: 20 bar [86]), avoiding cavitation at
the impeller because of a too high pressure change. Isentropic efficiencies
of 85.5 % and 82.5 % for backing pump and main pump determine their
performances [86]. The upper temperature differences during feed water

heating are set to 2 K [87] (preheater) and 5 K [85,99] (after cooling).
Last stage before entering the boiler is a desuperheater (↦ Appen-

dix A.1.13). Its parameterization is subject to two boundary conditions. The
pressure level and related boiling point of the incoming steam and the final
boiler feed water outlet temperature to be achieved. In accordance with
literature correlations [80,87,99], both aspects result in a predefined steam
outlet condition of still 40 K of superheating. The feed water then reaches
238 °C (close to comparable modeling work [98]) via counter flow heat ex-
change.
Long piping between turbine and boiler houses are modeled by definition
of geodetic height differences and a relative pressure loss of 5 % [85]. For
pipes carrying steam, a relative heat loss of 0.3 % [87] is also applied. The
respective altitudes are taken from sectional views of comparable boilers
or specific values from the literature [86,89-91] and needed to be adjusted
to some extent. Table 5 summarizes the numbers.
Table 5: Spot heights for piping between turbine and boiler house
Section Spot height (m)

Basement of steam turbine and boiler 0
End of furnace hopper 15
End of combustion chamber (radiation part) 60
Outlet of final superheater 70
Outlet of final reheater 90
Inlet of reheater 95
Inlet of economizer 110
Outlet of economizer 115
End of heat exchanger piping (convective part) 125
superheater
Figure 6:
reheater HP IP LP LP LP LP G
evaporator
auxiliary
steam
economizer
desuperheater
condenser condenser
#7
makeup
cooling
water
Water-steam cycle of existing power plant

pump
cooling
tower
#6
2 1
condensate pump
#4 #3 #2 #1
attemperators #5
feed water
tank
feed water preheater
boiler feed water pump

23
Height differences of heat exchanger piping (↦ Table 4) and connecting

tubes from one section to another are taken into account by pressure drops
of 0.5–3.0 bar, depending on whether this includes further losses through
piping headers or not [80,86,89,91]. Besides, temperature controls in-be-
tween particular heat exchanger sections (↦ Figure 5) are modeled. High
pressure feed water is injected at the superheater or reheater amounting
to 5 % [80,87] or 1 % [87] with reference to the boiler feed water mass flow.
Having passed the economizer, evaporator and superheater once-through,

live steam enters the high pressure steam turbine. The outlet pressure de-
rives from defined inlet conditions at the intermediate pressure steam tur-
bine plus respective losses in-between (as mentioned above). Expanded
to around 5.6 bar, low pressure steam is directly transferred to the next
turbine segments. A slight pressure loss via the overflow pipe of 2.5 %
[80,85] is considered. The configuration of the whole steam turbine (↦ Ap-
pendix A.1.14) in the model is subject to both in parts adapted literature
values [69,80,82,85-87,98-100] and thermodynamic dependencies within
the steam cycle. Table 6 provides an overview.
Table 6: Configuration of steam turbine in existing power plant
Parameter (unit) HPST IPST LPST

Number of housings / flow segments (#) 1/1 1/2 2/4
Number of steam tappings per flow segment (#) 0 2 3
1: 5.50
1: 28
2: 2.17
Inlet pressure per stage of flow segment (bar) 1: * 162 2: ** 17
3: 0.86
3: *** 10
4: 0.28
Mechanical efficiency (%) 99.5 99.5 99.5
Isentropic efficiency (%) 91.0 92.0 90.0
ST: steam turbine | HP: high pressure | IP: intermediate pressure | LP: low pressure
*) resulting from upstream piping losses | **) fixed for desuperheater | ***) determined by feed water tank
According to the terminal temperature differences in the HP and LP feed

water heating, the amount of extracted steam is self-adjusted. At the cold
reheat, a constant steam mass flow of 5 kg/s [98] is drawn off for continu-
ous boiler cleaning and heating of various apparatus. The isentropic effi-
ciency per steam turbine section is assumed constant, because the overall
error via turbine modeling is minimized using averaged values [98]. Special
focus lies on the LP section concerning final moisture content in the ex-
panding steam and exit losses. The latter are adapted from operational
data out of the literature [98], specifically defined by 25 kJ/kg. A degrada-
tion of the expansion work due to condensing steam can be taken into ac-
count by the Baumann factor [101]. It is fixed to 0.9 [102] in the model. The
IP section is excluded from this consideration (no moisture content) and
therefore modeled as one flow segment only. At the generator, mechanical
energy is converted into electric energy by an overall efficiency of 98.5 %
[100].
Flowing through the condensers, off-steam is turned into liquid at defined

66 mbar and related 38 °C by discharge of large quantities of condensation
enthalpy. The required total mass flow of cooling water at the cold end
(↦ Appendix A.1.15) derives from an upper temperature difference of 3 K
(1.5–5 K) at the heat exchanger and a cooling range of 15 K (10–16 K)
within the single wet natural draft cooling tower [80,85,87,103]. One big
circulation pump (isentropic efficiency: 87 % [86]) supplies both conden-
sers combined in parallel overcoming a tube-side pressure drop of 0.5 bar
and a geodetic height difference of 13 m (10–15 m [80,85,103]). By con-
densation on the heat exchanger surface, water forms droplets then falling
down. During that hold-up time, it is subcooled. This effect is modeled by
a heat consumer reducing the condensate temperature by 1.5 K [98].
Electric drives for all mentioned turbomachinery (pumps, fans) in the plant
model are parameterized by a mechanical efficiency of 99 % [85] and an
assumed electric efficiency of 95 % (in the case of less than 300 kW power
demand: 90 %). Moreover, load-independent sums of electricity consump-
tion from auxiliaries are estimated based on the literature [80,86] in the
amount of 300 kW and 280 kW for water treatment plus smaller units such
as oil pumps, turning gears and the wet ash removal.
3.1.3 Process Description and Parameterization of Future Power Plant

Analogous to the existing power plant, fuel and flue gas path as well as
steam cycle of the future power plant are explained. However, the param-
eterization is only pronounced by its differences to the previous plant model
(↦ Section 3.1.2).
Figure 7 represents the flue gas side of one of the identical two power
blocks. Raw lignite is divided into a fraction of 32 wt.% sent to fluidized-
bed drying and 68 wt.% fed to the regular combined process of grinding
and drying via flue gas retraction. This results in a share of 35 % of the
rated thermal input (based on LHV) by dried lignite at full plant load. Both
fuel fractions are appropriately mixed at the burner inlet ports. The condi-
tions around the beater-wheel mills (↦ Appendix A.2.1) are configured an
outlet temperature of 140 °C, a final moisture content of 15 wt.% and a
specific auxiliary power demand of 7.67 kWh/t or 27.6 kJ/kg (seven mills,
65 t/h throughput each [88]).
The fluidized-bed drying of the coal (↦ Appendix A.2.2) is depicted in Fig-

ure 8 illustrating the shared steam cycle of both power blocks. In the model,
two units are considered with a coal inlet stream of up to 145 t/h each,
which fits with capacities already achieved in reality [76,104]. Being
grinded twice, fine raw lignite (preheating is excluded) enters the dryer op-
erating at 110 °C [76,87] and 1.1 bar [76]. For heating, LP steam (4 bar
[76]) is provided thereby transferring its sensible and latent heat indirectly
to the process. A heat loss of 1 % is applied [85]. The expelled water from
the coal turns into vapor and is carried out of the dryer due to the fluidiza-
tion. Half of it is recirculated as fluidizing medium by a blower (isentropic
efficiency: 80 % [85]), which also has to overcome pressure losses of
200 mbar [105]. Leaving the process, dried lignite contains only 12 wt.% of
water [76,85,106]. For safety reason, it is cooled down to 90 °C [85] by
ambient air. Another blower transports the fuel to the burner units via dense
phase conveying. The overall auxiliary power demand results from load-
dependent turbomachinery via modeling and a specific milling effort of
6.7 kWh/t or 24.3 kJ/kg [105] (referring to dried coal).
clean
gas
fresh
air ECO
preheated BFW
NOx
stack
removal
flue gas forced cold reheat
RHT1
desulfurization draft fan
BFW
SHT3
flue gas heat transfer system
raw
lignite hot
RHT2 reheat
4 2
3 1 air preheater BFW
live
SHT4 steam
fluidized-bed
HP & LP bypass electrostatic
drying
economizer precipitator
SHT2
flue gas retraction

SHT1
induced
draft fan coal dry
mills lignite
flue
dust EVAP
burner/
furnace
ash
flue gas recirculation
Figure 7: Air / flue gas path of future power plant
Within the furnace, a slight improvement of combustion efficiency is taken

into account by fewer losses via unburnt coal (0.5 % [80]). Furthermore,
the end temperature is assumed to rise by 50 K to 1,050 °C [87,107] be-
cause of dry lignite co-firing.
Concerning the boiler configuration (↦ Appendix A.2.3), all data on geom-

etries for the flue gas segments and tubing relies on the parameterization
of the existing power plant (↦ Section 3.1.2, Table 4). The justification is
that the new boiler refers to a comparable power class of the power block
(550 vs. 650 MW) and that dry lignite co-firing requires enlarged boiler di-
mensions in order to take away the released heat in the combustion cham-
ber (higher flue gas temperature) [108]. Besides, the better performance
of the future power plant is significantly determined by the enhanced steam

parameters at the boiler, which is duly considered in the model. Table 7
lists the changing parameterization.
Table 7: Boiler design parameterization of future power plant
Parameter (unit) EVAP SHT1 SHT2 SHT4 RHT2 SHT3 RHT1 ECO
Geometries (–) ├––––––––––––––––––––––––– see Table 4 –––––––––––––––––––––––┤
X20CrMoV12-1
X20CrMoV12-1
X20CrMoV12-1
10CrMo9-10
10CrMo9-10
10CrMo9-10
10CrMo9-10
Tube material (–)
15Mo3
Tube data (–) ├––––––––––––––––––––––––– see Table 4 –––––––––––––––––––––––┤
Tube-side
10.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.5
pressure drop (bar)
Tube-side outlet
429 460 502 605 620 568 500 333
temperature (°C)
EVAP: evaporator | SHT: superheater | RHT: reheater | ECO: economizer
The exit temperature of the flue gas lies at 347 °C. Since there are higher
temperatures during combustion, the formation of thermal NOx increases
[89,90]. It is assumed that the NOx limit value of 200 mg/m³ (STP) has ex-
ceeded by 10 % in the model. By selective catalytic reduction via ammonia
water (25 wt.% NH3 [82,103]), up to 90 % [87] of nitrogen oxides can be
removed. An inlet temperature above 300 °C [80,82,89] in terms of reac-
tion activation energy is ensured. The respective component in the model
(↦ Appendix A.2.4) considers a stoichiometric reduction [80,82] to ele-
mentary nitrogen plus the formation of water apart from the injected water
via the reduction agent. The ammonia slip is limited to 5 ppm [80,89] and
a pressure drop of 10 mbar [109] is applied.
Continuing the flue gas path, the boiler flue then is split. One third of the
flue gas flows to so-called air preheater bypass economizers (↦ Appen-
dix A.2.5) while the remaining two thirds are sent to the air preheater
[69,93,110]. The intention is to better integrate the available flue gas heat
into the power plant process thus reducing losses downstream especially
at the flue gas desulfurization due to quenching [111,112]. Published tem-

perature profiles before/after the HP and LP bypass economizer (from
350 °C to 230 °C to 160 °C) are included for modeling [85,111]. Both flue
gas streams reunite and result in a mixing temperature of approximately
170 °C. Combustion air at the outlet of the preheater (↦ Appendix A.2.6)
has a temperature of 320 °C [82,90].
The efficiency improvement in this context implies another heat transfer

system (↦ Appendix A.2.7). Besides a linking with the water-steam circuit,
flue gas from right before the flue gas desulfurization is used for preheating
combustion air [69,111,113]. A separate pressurized water cycle trans-
ports the heat from one fluid to the other. Dew point corrosion at the flue
gas cooler is handled by all-plastic heat exchanger tubes. Configurations
for the model derive from operational data [113]. The air temperature
reaches 115 °C. Fresh air is provided by the forced draft fan, which has an
isentropic efficiency of 87.5 %. This value is adapted from the induced draft
fan [109] and set for flue gas recirculation, too. Concerning the electrostatic
precipitator, no changes in component parameterization are made.
Arriving at the flue gas desulfurization (↦ Appendix A.2.8), the inlet tem-
perature is only around 110 °C. In the scrubber, a separation of 99 % of
sulfur oxides is set as reported by latest technology developments
[114,115]. Compared to the existing power plant, the pressure drop along
the flue gas path rises because of special built-in components (intensifica-
tion of contact between liquid and gas) enabling such a high desulfuriza-
tion. It is assumed to be 20 mbar [97]. The forced draft fan for air injection
has an isentropic efficiency of 85 %. At the inlet/outlet ports of the unit,
there is no need for regenerative heat exchange since current regulations
allow an exit temperature of 50 °C [87] for cleaned gas through a stack. In
the model, this value is met with a temperature difference of at least 10 K.
The chimney draft effect is considered 2.5 mbar [82].
From steam cycle viewpoint (↦ Figure 8), the design of a duo block power
plant brings some important differences. Again, only changes to previous
explanations are highlighted.
Beginning with the main condensate pump (isentropic efficiency: 80 %),

the LP feed water heating (↦ Appendix A.2.9) still has five stages including
the feed water tank. A pressure drop of 1.0 bar per stage plus 0.5 bar in
the case of after cooling is applied. However, two modifications can be
seen around the fourth feed water preheater. First, a fraction of the water
mass flow bypasses this unit in order to capture heat equally from the flue
gas stream of each power block via the LP bypass economizer [69]. Its
technical realization would provide a natural circulation evaporator feeding
a separate preheater [116], which is excluded in the model. Second, the
water-steam circuit is split after the preheater supplying the respective feed
water tank per power block [72]. The distribution is located at that point
because the load-dependent operation of each boiler is intended to be in-
dividual. Consequently, downstream following equipment is realized twice.
The pressure increase to 337 bar relating to subsequent losses and live
steam parameters (↦ Section 3.1, Table 1) to be maintained is provided
by a steam turbine driven boiler feed water pump (↦ Appendix A.2.10).
Backing and main pump as well as the power turbine are uniformly param-
eterized by an isentropic efficiency assumed to be 90 %. The outlet pres-
sure of the turbine is 40 mbar [85] provided by an own condenser, which
has an upper temperature difference of 5 K [80,85] and entails subcooling
by 8 K [98]. Cooling water is supplied by the cold end of the plant.
piping from 2nd block
superheater
Figure 8:
auxiliary
reheater HP IP IP LP LP LP LP LP LP G
steam
evaporator
economizer c
4 4
piping to 2nd block condenser
a
a
desuperheater
condenser condenser
#9 b
cooling
#8 water
pump cooling
tower
#7
Water-steam cycle of future power plant

makeup waste water
treatment
2 1 1
d
#6 raw lignite
3 3
#3 #1
c circulation
#4 #2
blower
#5 feed condensate fluidized-bed drying
water pump b
tank feed water
preheater dry lignite cooler
transport
2 d blower
a
burner/furnace
attemperators feed water tank BFW turbine & pump HP feed water heating boiler 2nd block
boiler feed water
turbine & pump
31
Pressure losses downstream the feed water pump caused by geodetic

height differences (↦ Section 3.1.2, Table 5) and long piping – except for
tube-side boiler parameterization (↦ Table 7) – are adopted from the
model of the existing power plant. Along the five stages of HP feed water
heating (↦ Appendix A.2.11), pressure drops of 2.0 or 1.0 bar per pre-
heater or after cooling are applied. The desuperheater (↦ Appen-
dix A.2.12) defines tapped steam leaving this heat exchanger at 60 K of
superheating according to a feed water outlet temperature of 295 °C [116].
A fraction of the HP feed water is withdrawn from the main pipeline towards
feed water heating and sent to the HP bypass economizer. Having col-
lected heat from the flue gas, it reunites right after the desuperheater.
Live steam from both boilers arrives at the common steam turbine (↦ Ap-
pendix A.2.13). The configuration of the whole unit in the model follows the
same procedure as described for the existing power plant. Based on the
literature [69-72,80,85,98], own assumptions and steam cycle dependen-
cies, the resulting parameterization is shown in Table 8. Due to larger
amounts of steam, a third housing with two more flow segments at the LP
section is needed. Technical background is a limitation of the maximum
possible turbine blade length determining the exhaust area and respective
volume flow per segment. Exit losses are supposed to be reduced to
20 kJ/kg. The piping of extracted steam from the HP and IP section is again
split because of the duo block design. Analogous to this, the returning hot
reheat steam is joined at the IP turbine inlet. Expanded steam of 4.8 bar
passes the overflow pipe to the LP section while parts of it are taken for
heating the lignite drying process. For electricity generation, the conversion
efficiency is set to 99.5 % [80].
3.2 Modeling of the Part Load Behavior 33
Table 8: Configuration of steam turbine in future power plant
Parameter (unit) HPST IPST LPST

Number of housings / flow segments (#) 1/1 1/2 3/6
Number of steam tappings per flow segment (#) 1 3 3
1: 50 1: 4.68
1: * 271 2: ** 35 2: 2.06
Inlet pressure per stage of flow segment (bar)
2: 78 3: 20 3: 0.76
4: *** 10 4: 0.23
Mechanical efficiency (%) 99.8 99.8 99.8
Isentropic efficiency (%) 94.0 96.0 93.0
ST: steam turbine | HP: high pressure | IP: intermediate pressure | LP: low pressure
*) resulting from upstream piping losses | **) fixed for desuperheater | ***) determined by feed water tank
Speaking of the cold end (↦ Appendix A.2.14), the three condensers op-
erate at 35 mbar and have an upper temperature difference of 1.5 K
[85,87]. Connected in parallel, they are supplied by cooling water from one
hybrid cooling tower (forced draft). Its auxiliary power demand is calculated
internally by the model based on fan efficiency and pressure drop. The
cooling range is reduced to 7 K. The circulating pump’s isentropic effi-
ciency is assumed 89 %. Finally, the slightly subcooled condensate closes
the cycle. Referring to feed water heating, large amounts of this conden-
sate then recover the released heat of vapor condensation from lignite dry-
ing bypassing the first three feed water preheaters.
3.2 Modeling of the Part Load Behavior
In Section 3.1, the plant models (EPP, FPP) are described by design and
operation at full load. To evaluate the load-dependency of the processes,
part load behavior is included. The investigated load range refers to the
boiler capacity, i.e. the amount of live steam being generated. In the case
of the EPP it is set to 50–100 % [82,93] whereas the FPP reaches a mini-
mum boiler capacity of 40 % [75,89,117]. The selected increment for the
simulation of the quasi-stationary states of partial load operation is 5 %-
points (pp).
According to the duo block design, the FPP is considered to change load
in both boilers simultaneously. During mono block operation, the steam
cycle’s load significantly drops because live steam at the HP turbine inlet
is supplied from one boiler only. Even at full load of this power block, it
would reach at most half of the design conditions. Regarding a report from
practice [118] it is possible to slow down a duo block power plant via mono
block operation to 22 % of its nominal electric output, which is mainly de-
termined by the steam turbine at that point. The limitations are ventilation
and inadmissible rises in outlet temperature especially at the LP section
[119-122]. For the FPP plant model, this means a restriction of minimum
load to 45 % of boiler capacity once only one block is run.
Initial state for the calculation of part load behavior in EBSILON® Profes-
sional is a fully parameterized plant model at nominal load providing per-
formance characteristics as design reference values (index ‘0’). Switching
to ‘off-design’ simulation, components are further defined by load-depend-
ent characteristic curves. These functions – linear, cubic or fourth order
correlations – are normalized to design condition thus returning a relative
deviation of component-specific characteristics (e.g. isentropic efficiency)
based on a relatively changing load-dependent input value such as typi-
cally mass flow. This data derives from the literature or technical
datasheets. In addition, component configurations can be individually de-
fined or overwritten via ‘EbsScript’, which is an imperative and procedural
programming language of the simulation software itself.
The following subsections present the adjustments made to the plant mod-
els (EPP, FPP).
3.2.1 Sliding Pressure Operation and Pressure Drops

Both plants are operated via sliding pressure of live steam upon common
practice [80,89]. In contrast to constant pressure, no throttling at the steam
turbine is needed, enabling a more advantageous operation characterized
by better flow conditions, less material wear and faster load changes
amongst other aspects [82,123]. Moreover, the boiler feed water (BFW)
pump has to maintain lower pressure levels during part load resulting in
smaller power consumption, which less affects the corresponding plant ef-
ficiency [98]. Figure 9 indicates the linear pressure change for the EPP and
the FPP as a function of live steam being generated at the boiler.
1,1
1.1
1,0
1.0
0,9
0.9
0,8
0.8
0,7
0.7
p/p0 (rel)
0.6
0,6
0.5
0,5
0.4
0,4
0.3
0,3
0.2
0,2
0.1
0,1 EPP
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
1,1
1.1
1,0
1.0
0,9
0.9
0,8
0.8
0,7
0.7
p/p0 (rel)
0.6
0,6
0.5
0,5
0.4
0,4
0.3
0,3
0.2
0,2
0.1
0,1 FPP
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 9: Characteristic curves of sliding pressure operation based on boiler

capacity
Changing mass flows in the model effect a deviation from the pressure
drops per respective component as determined by design. Any single-
phase flow along a certain path length is subject to pressure loss in de-
pendency of its mean density 𝜌 and velocity 𝑢 as well as a friction coeffi-
cient 𝜁 (based on Reynolds number) and a geometry factor 𝑎 (by flown
cross section) [84,101,124]:
𝜌 𝑢2
∆𝑝 = 𝜁 𝑎 (1)
2
Furthermore, pressure drop is also described by Bernoulli’s equation con-

sidering the differences of static pressure, velocity (dynamics) and geo-
detic height between two states. Investigations by Rupprecht [109] have
shown that calculations via Equation 1 excluding Bernoulli are still in good
agreement with corresponding measurement data taking the example of
power plant boiler sections. Bigger deviations only occur at the evaporator
due to the phase change. Analogous to Sailer [98], the simplified approach
is used in this work as generally implemented in the simulation software.
Assuming constant friction coefficients and geometry factors, Equation 2
describes relative pressure losses solely as a function of relative mass
flows and densities:
∆𝑝 𝜌 𝑢2 𝜌 𝑉̇ 2 𝑚̇2 𝜌0
= = = ∙ (2)
∆𝑝0 𝜌0 𝑢02 𝜌0 𝑉0̇ 2 𝜌 𝑚̇02
3.2.2 Steam Turbines and other Turbomachinery

According to the above-described sliding pressure operation, two pressure
levels are always given in the steam cycle – namely the inlet pressure of
the HP steam turbine by the BFW pump and the outlet pressure of the LP
steam turbine by the condenser condition. Every steam turbine segment
in-between depends on this boundary as follows. In the model, the steam
turbine flow segments are represented by several turbine elements appro-
priate to the number of stages for steam tapping (↦ Section 3.1.2/3.1.3,
Table 6/8).
Each inlet pressure per turbine element determines the outlet pressure of
the respective upstream turbine element. In consideration of the passing
mass flow and preset outlet pressure, the calculation of the inlet condition
during part load is subject to Stodola’s ellipse law. Equation 3 gives the
mass flow coefficient 𝜙 (as a function of mass flow 𝑚̇𝑖𝑛 , pressure 𝑝𝑖𝑛 and
specific volume 𝑣𝑖𝑛 ) remaining constant in a multistage turbine [125]:
𝑣𝑖𝑛
𝜙 = 𝑚̇𝑖𝑛 √ = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡. (3)
𝑝𝑖𝑛
This coefficient is proportional to the following pressure ratio [125]:
2 2
𝑝𝑖𝑛 − 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡 2
𝜙~√ 2 = √ 1 − ( ) (4)
𝑝𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑖𝑛
Setting Equation 4 into relation with its expression of design reference val-
ues, this eliminates the proportionality constant and allows an iterative so-
lution of the inlet pressure (plus interdependence of specific volume and
pressure). Analyses by Sailer [98] confirmed a very good accordance of
simulation data with corresponding measurements.
The performance of the expansion process in steam turbines is influenced

by a number of factors. Losses occur because of flow separation, gap leak-
age, moisture content, friction, ventilation and turbine exit [80,123]. From
HP to LP section, flow separation increases (especially in the LP section)
while gap losses are decreasing [123,126]. This explains best isentropic
efficiencies at the IP section closely followed by the HP section and worse
characteristics at the LP section.
During part load, the pressure of incoming steam declines, but its specific
volume rises and overcompensates the reducing turbine mass flow. How-
ever, a deviation from design conditions mainly causes profile losses at the
turbine blades [98]. In the model, this behavior is considered by a degra-
dation of the isentropic efficiency. Characteristic curves for the different
flow segments – see Figure 10 – are adapted from the literature [98]. HP
and IP section show only minor changes. At the LP section, the optimum
is shifted towards part load. Concerning the BFW turbine, a steady fall can
be observed, which could be explained by variable rotational speed and
worsening flow conditions. The further turbine efficiency correction due to
moisture content via Equation 5 [101] including Baumann factor 𝛼̅ and
mean steam quality 𝑥̅ is internally solved in the model component:
𝜂 = (1 − 𝛼̅ (1 − 𝑥̅ )) ∙ 𝜂𝑥=1 (5)
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 4 + 𝑏𝑥 3 + 𝑐𝑥 2 + 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑒
1,02
1.02 f(x): HP/IP
1,00
1.00
a: 0.0365
b: -0.1541
0,98
0.98 c: 0.1596
d: -0.0088
0,96
0.96
e: 0.9665
0,94
0.94
f(x): LP
ƞ/ƞ0 (rel)
0,92
0.92 a: -0.0289
b: -0.0207
0.90
0,90
c: 0.0084
0.88
0,88 d: 0.0773
e: 0.9545
0.86
0,86
0.84
0,84 HP/IP f(x): BFW
LP a: -0.0463
0.82
0,82 BFW b: 0.2685
c: -0.5681
0.80
0,80
0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5
0,5 0.6 0,7
0,6 0.7 0,8
0.8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1 1.2
1,2
d: 0.6190
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel) e: 0.7269
Figure 10: Isentropic efficiency of different steam turbines as a function of inlet mass
flow
Exit losses at the LP section increase with dropping volume flow [98,109].
A normalized parabolic characteristic curve (↦ Appendix A.1.14/A.2.14) is
implemented for the final stage of flow segment applying to the specific
loss value by design (↦ Section 3.1.2/3.1.3). The conversion to electric en-
ergy is considered by constant mechanical efficiency at the turbine and a
preset load-dependent characteristic curve for generator efficiency.
Other turbomachinery – namely pumps and fans – are again characterized

during part load by relative curves for isentropic efficiency as illustrated in
Figure 11.
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 3 + 𝑏𝑥 2 + 𝑐𝑥 + 𝑑
1,05
1.05 f(x): pump 1
1,00
1.00
a: 0.0365
b: -0.1541
0,95
0.95 c: 0.1596
d: -0.0088
0,90
0.90
0,85
0.85 f(x): pump 2
a: -0.0289
ƞ/ƞ0 (rel)
0,80
0.80 b: -0.0207
c: 0.0084
0.75
0,75
d: 0.0773
0.70
0,70
f(x): fan
0.65
0,65 a: -0.0463
0.60
0,60
pump 1 b: 0.2685
pump 2 c: -0.5681
0.55
0,55 fan d: 0.6190
0.50
0,50
0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5
0,5 0.6 0,7
0,6 0.7 0,8
0.8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1 1.2
1,2
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 11: Isentropic efficiency of turbomachinery as a function of inlet mass flow
The curve progressions are adopted qualitatively from the literature

[99,127,128]. Larger pump units are assumed to have a slightly better part
load performance. Function ‘pump 1’ is used for BFW and cooling water,
while ‘pump 2’ refers to the pumps for condensates and recirculation.
The electric drives are subject to linear dependency by mass flow for me-
chanical and electrical efficiency following standard configuration:
𝑚̇ 𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙: 𝑎 = 0.02; 𝑏 = 0.98

𝜂 = (𝑎 + 𝑏) ∙ 𝜂0 { (6)
𝑚̇0
𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙: 𝑎 = 0.15; 𝑏 = 0.85
3.2.3 Cold End and further Heat Exchangers

Steam exiting the turbine is condensed and collected in the hotwell of the
condenser. The occurring effect of subcooling (↦ Section 3.1.2) dimin-
ishes in part load operation because of a declining temperature difference
between condensation and cooling water [98]. Concerning the cooling cir-
cuit, a constant recirculation is maintained across the load. The cooling
system thus becomes oversized in part load causing a pressure decline
[98], which has a positive impact on the power plant performance. Linear
dependencies are implemented in the model [98] as indicated in Figure 12.
Indirect heat transfer in the simulation is modeled by different heat ex-

changer components each considering particular fluids. Besides the con-
denser, these are heaters for air and feed water by flue gas, steam or wa-
ter. Internal calculations take flow conditions and specifics in convective
heat transmission into account. Every unit is typically configured by termi-
nal temperature differences, which result by design in an overall heat trans-
fer coefficient as product of heat transition coefficient 𝑘 and respective sur-
face area 𝐴. Equation 7 describes the general relation for heat flows 𝑄̇
[129]:
∆𝑇1 − ∆𝑇2
𝑄̇ = 𝑘 𝐴 (7)
𝑙𝑛∆𝑇1 − 𝑙𝑛∆𝑇2
The part load behavior of heat exchangers is integrated by characteristic

curves degrading the overall heat transfer coefficient. These are provided
per fluid type by the simulation as standard deriving from manufacturer
specifications or the literature [83,84] and are shown in Figure 13 as a func-
tion of mass flow.
1,1
1.1
1,0
1.0
0,9
0.9
0,8
0.8
0,7
0.7
dT/dT0 (rel)
0.6
0,6
0.5
0,5
0.4
0,4
0.3
0,3
0.2
0,2
0.1
0,1 EPP/FPP
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
1,02
1.02
1,00
1.00
0,98
0.98
0,96
0.96
0,94
0.94
p/p0 (rel)
0,92
0.92
0.90
0,90
0.88
0,88
0.86
0,86
0.84
0,84
0.82
0,82 EPP/FPP
0.80
0,80
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0,7
0.7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 12: Load-dependent subcooling effect (top) and pressure decline (bottom) in
condenser as a function of steam inlet mass flow
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎𝑥 2 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐
1,1
1.1 f(x): condensing steam
1,0
1.0
a: -0.1766
b: 0.3588
0,9
0.9 c: 0.8145
0,8
0.8
f(x): water
0,7
0.7 a: -0.2845
b: 1.2086
kA/kA0 (rel)
0.6
0,6 c: 0.0706
0.5
0,5
f(x): air
0.4
0,4 a: -0.4790
b: 1.2363
0.3
0,3 condensing steam
c: 0.2367
water
0.2
0,2
air f(x): flue gas
0.1
0,1 flue gas a: -0.4955
b: 1.1600
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
c: 0.3246
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 13: Heat transfer coefficient factors per fluid type as a function of respective
inlet mass flow
In the model, the relative changes of both 𝑘𝐴-values (primary and second-
ary fluid) are multiplied to the total design reference value upon Equation 8:
𝑘𝐴 𝑚̇1 𝑚̇2
= 𝑓𝑘𝐴1 ( ) ∙ 𝑓𝑘𝐴2 ( ) (8)
(𝑘 𝐴)0 𝑚̇1,0 𝑚̇2,0
Further differentiation for heat exchange calculations applies to the feed

water preheater component, because tapped steam is first desuperheated
before condensation. The latter determines the pinch point, which shifts
during part load operation. In the simulation, an approach by Rábek [130]
includes this consideration (avoiding pinch point errors) by default. It shows
very good consistency to real plant data over the full load range [98,109].
3.2.4 Coal Handling and Combustion

Auxiliary power for grinding of the coal and flue gas retraction by induced
draft via the rotating beater-wheel is calculated based on a specific value
(↦ Section 3.1.2/3.1.3). In practice, up to seven mills are operated over
plant load as per staged order [131]. Both grinding and retraction are han-
dled as one integral unit in the model. By using linear dependency over
load instead of a certain step function, a minor error is accepted.
In contrast to the EPP, the mills at the FPP are considered operating on a
variable speed, which enables a larger control range [89]. At minimum
load, the speed is assumed being linearly reduced by 15 % thus saving
almost 40 % of auxiliary power according to its cubic proportionality over
power [89].
This effect is applied to the above-mentioned specific value over load re-
sulting in Equation 9 referring to the coal throughput 𝑚̇𝐶 :
3
𝑚̇𝐶 𝑘𝐽
𝑃𝑒𝑙 = (0.25 + 0.75) ∙ 27.6 ∙ 𝑚̇𝐶 (9)
𝑚̇𝐶,0 𝑘𝑔
Retracted flue gas dries the coal while grinding. Because of no or limited
change in speed of the beater-wheel, too much flue gas passes the unit
during part load operation. Drying intensifies and the outlet duct tempera-
ture climbs to a threshold of 180 °C despite increased cooling according to
technical datasheets and the literature [82,89]. Standard characteristic
curves are used in the model.
Concerning the fluidized-bed drying, an equilibrium between vapor temper-

ature and residual moisture content in the coal particles is established at a
particular pressure level (here: 1.1 bar) [76]. The energy input for drying
also depends on the residual moisture content. This aspect is expressed
by the specific bond enthalpy of water to be overcome. Both characteristic
curves, shown in Figure 14, are included in the model and are valid for
Rhenish lignite deriving from the literature [76,132]. Hence, little variation
in the heating steam temperature occurring over load slightly influences
the drying performance. A validation of the design modeling data is pro-

vided in Appendix A.2.2.
At the FPP, the mass flow of dried lignite sent to the furnace is kept con-
stant over load as far as its share reaches 50 % of the rated thermal input.
From this point (considered as a technical maximum), the share is fixed
therefore automatically determining the reduced amount of dried lignite in
the model.
Coal combustion is configured by the stoichiometric air ratio (here set to

1.15 in total). Lowering the boiler capacity requires burner units respec-
tively the associated coal mills to be stepwise turned off. For protection,
these units are still cooled by air. Furthermore, additional combustion air is
needed during part load in order to shift the heat exchange from the fur-
nace towards the convective section thus maintaining the reheater exit
temperature [109]. This behavior sets in below a rated thermal input of
65 % (no changes above). A linear dependency between coal throughput
𝑚̇𝐶 and stoichiometric air ratio 𝜆, represented by Equation 10, is extracted
from the literature [109]:
𝑚̇𝐶 𝑚̇𝐶
𝜆 = (−0.6 + 1.38) ∙ 𝜆0 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: < 0.65 (10)
𝑚̇𝐶,0 𝑚̇𝐶,0
In addition to the modification of the combustion airflow, an adjustment of

the furnace outlet temperature is implemented in both plant models. Its
upper limit is controlled by the recirculation of cold flue gas freed from dust
(↦ Section 3.1.2/3.1.3, Figure 5/7). Consequently, this procedure is only
effective in the upper load range.
1,02
1.02
1,00
1.00 T* = 118 °C
0,98
0.98
0,96
0.96
0,94
0.94
T/T* (rel)
0,92
0.92
0.90
0,90
0.88
0,88
0.86
0,86
0.84
0,84
0.82
0,82 desorption (1.1 bar)
0.80
0,80
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
x (rel)
1,1
1.1
1,0
1.0 h* = 102 kJ/kg
0,9
0.9
0,8
0.8
0,7
0.7
h/h* (rel)
0.6
0,6
0.5
0,5
0.4
0,4
0.3
0,3
0.2
0,2
0.1
0,1 bond enthalpy
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
x (rel)
Figure 14: Desorption isobar (top) and bond enthalpy (bottom) in fluidized-bed
drying as a function of residual moisture content
3.2.5 Boiler Characteristics

The part load performance of the boiler is described by characteristic
curves for each heat exchanger unit. A linear efficiency 𝐸𝐹𝐹 – see Equa-
tion 11 – based on tube-side mass flow 𝑚̇ is internally applied to the heat
transition calculations of the related model component as standard [68].
Moreover, the simulation uses a plausibility check in order to detect unre-
alistic results for required overall heat transfers during part load configura-
tion (fixed surface area and tube-side outlet temperature). An investigation
by Trompelt [133] using the software’s boiler components shows good con-
sistency between design/off-design calculations and operational data. The
results are subject to a certain degree of offset but reproduce the same
trend as measured. Since this work considers generic power plants, this
deviation can be accepted as systematic error.
𝐸𝐹𝐹 𝑚̇
= 0.3 + 0.7 (11)
𝐸𝐹𝐹0 𝑚̇0
Load-dependent temperature curves are extracted from an enthalpy-pres-

sure diagram [91], which shows the heat absorption of the individual heat
exchanger surfaces of a pulverized coal-fired boiler. Data is provided for
45, 67 and 100 % of boiler capacity. The values for temperature are trans-
mitted into linear equations defined in sections. Figure 15 and Figure 16
show the respective characteristic curves per heat exchanger (sub-)sec-
tion. These are relatively applied to the tube-side outlet temperatures as
listed in Table 4/7 (↦ Section 3.1.2/3.1.3). Spray attemporators control the
final temperatures for superheated and reheated steam. The ones for live
steam are kept constant over load while the reheater attemporator is turned
off below 70 % of boiler capacity [91,98,109].
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑡
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 = ]0.40; 0.67[ ∪ [0.67; 1.00]
1,05
1.05 f(x): SHT4
1,04
1.04
m: 0.0000 | 0.0000
t: 1.0000 | 1.0000
1,03
1.03
f(x): SHT3
1,02
1.02
m: 0.0560 | -0.0373
1,01
1.01 t: 0.9748 | 1.0373
T/T0 (rel)
1.00
1,00 f(x): SHT2
m: 0.0000 | -0.0925
0.99
0,99
t: 1.0305 | 1.0925
0.98
0,98
f(x): SHT1
0.97
0,97 SHT4
m: 0.0928 | 0.0000
SHT3
0.96
0,96
t: 0.9378 | 1.0000
SHT2
0.95
0,95 SHT1
0.94
0,94
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0.6
0,5 0,6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 15: Characteristic curves of tube-side outlet temperatures (SHT) based on

boiler capacity
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑡
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 = ]0.40; 0.67[ ∪ [0.67; 1.00]
1,02
1.02 f(x): RHT2
1,00
1.00
m: 0.1118 | 0.0000
t: 0.9251 | 1.0000
0,98
0.98
f(x): RHT1
0,96
0.96
m: 0.0441 | 0.0000
0,94
0.94 t: 0.9704 | 1.0000
T/T0 (rel)
0.92
0,92 f(x): EVAP
m: 0.4132 | 0.2410
0.90
0,90
t: 0.6436 | 0.7590
0.88
0,88
f(x): ECO
0.86
0,86 RHT2
m: 0.1502 | 0.1365
RHT1
0.84
0,84
t: 0.8544 | 0.8635
EVAP
0.82
0,82 ECO
0.80
0,80
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0.6
0,5 0,6 0.7
0,7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 16: Characteristic curves of tube-side outlet temperatures (RHT, EVAP, ECO)
based on boiler capacity
Concerning the boiler outlet temperature, the standard characteristic curve

is taken and adapted iteratively to the requirements (plausibility check,
boundary conditions for combustion air preheater) during part load simula-
tion. Figure 17 shows the resulting dependencies in the model for EPP and
FPP.
1,02
1.02
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑡
1,00
1.00
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 = ]0.5; 0.8[ ∪ [0.8; 1.0]
0,98
0.98
0,96
f(x): EPP
0.96
m: 0.1118 | 0.0000
0,94
0.94 t: 0.9251 | 1.0000
T/T0 (rel)
0,92
0.92
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 = ]0.4; 0.6[ ∪ [0.6; 1.0]
0.90
0,90
f(x): FPP
0.88
0,88 m: 0.1118 | 0.0000
0.86
0,86
t: 0.9251 | 1.0000
0.84
0,84
EPP
0.82
0,82
FPP
0.80
0,80
0.0
0,0 0.1
0,1 0.2
0,2 0.3
0,3 0.4
0,4 0.5 0,6
0,5 0.6 0,7
0.7 0.8
0,8 0.9
0,9 1.0
1,0 1.1
1,1
ṁ/ṁ0 (rel)
Figure 17: Load-dependent flue gas temperature leaving the boiler as a function of
live steam mass flow
3.2.6 Flue Gas Treatment

Both plants have two steps of flue gas treatment in common: dust removal
via electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) via
wet scrubbing with hydrated lime slurry. The FPP also includes a high-dust
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx removal. In the model, the load-
dependent deposition rates of ESP and SCR are covered by standard
characteristic curves, which are subject to a degradation of 20–30 % as
the minimum load is approached. The ESP’s auxiliary power is calculated
based on specific value (↦ Section 3.1.2), while the electricity consump-
tion by SCR equipment (solvent pump, dilution air blower) is included in
the sum for general plant auxiliaries.
The FGD unit is considered individually per plant model. At the EPP, an
own approach is used according to technical datasheets and the literature
as follows: two absorbers with four spray levels each operate at a liquid/gas
ratio of 14 l/m³ (STP,wet) [89,97], which is assumed to raise by up to 40 %
during part load. With reference to the amount of flue gases (50–100 %
load) and the slurry conditions (density), the mass flow of absorbent recir-
culation is calculated. The respective pumps have to overcome the related
geodetic height differences and a nozzle pressure of 0.7 bar. Towards min-
imum load, the fourth spray level is first turned off and then the third one is
throttled [86,109]. Concerning the flue gas path, a pressure drop of
2.5 mbar is considered per active spray level. The total pressure drop de-
creases by up to 40 % over the full load range.
The FGD’s auxiliary power results from static (agitators and processing)
and variable (recirculation pumps and oxidation air blower) electricity de-
mands. It fits well to an average consumption of
6
2,000 kWh/10 m³ (STP,dry) [85]. Further details are available in Appen-
dix A.1.8.
At the FPP, an approach by two characteristic curves for auxiliary power

and pressure drop is used in the model. These derive from the literature
[109] and apply to the FGD unit of a state-of-the-art 1,000 MW(el) lignite-
fired power plant. Equation 12 describes the electricity consumption as a
function of the incoming sulfur content 𝑥𝑆𝑂2 and the specific flue gas vol-
ume 𝑣𝐹𝐺,𝑆𝑇𝑃,𝑑𝑟𝑦 at the inlet duct:
𝑥𝑆𝑂2 𝑚3
𝑃𝑒𝑙 = 3.5 𝑀𝑊 ∙ (1 + 384.6 ) (12)
𝑣𝐹𝐺,𝑆𝑇𝑃,𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑘𝑔
The pressure drop depends on the superficial velocity of the flue gas and
the amount of recirculated slurry respectively the number of active spray
levels. Equation 13 partly embeds the correlation of Equation 12 extended
by the inlet flue gas volume flow 𝑉̇𝐹𝐺 :
𝑥𝑆𝑂2 𝑚3
1 + 384.6 𝑣 𝑘𝑔 ̇ 2
𝐹𝐺,𝑆𝑇𝑃,𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑉𝐹𝐺
∆𝑝 = 5449.4 𝑠 + 5.6 ∙ ( ) 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟 (13)
𝑉̇𝐹𝐺 3 𝑉̇𝐹𝐺,0
( ( 𝑚 ) )
3.3 Evaluation of the Reference Models 51
Both approaches are simplified by linear dependencies, which in return al-

low a better comparison between different simulation scenarios evaluating
the part load behavior.
3.3 Evaluation of the Reference Models
The simulations were run in ‘design’ mode setting the respective gross
electric output to get the nominal operation conditions. This determined the
live steam demand and the corresponding coal input. In ‘off-design’ mode,
the steam capacity was regulated, which determines the coal demand and
the gross electricity generation.
3.3.1 Overall Analysis

Figure 18 and Figure 19 present the main results of the EPP and FPP cal-
culations in terms of the air / flue gas path. Important stream data of the
water-steam circuit are indicated in Figure 20 (EPP) and Figure 21 (FPP).
All flowcharts also include the major auxiliary demands per equipment. Fur-
ther details about every stream in the model can be extracted from Appen-
dix B.1 and B.2. Referring to the FPP, the displayed numbers apply to one
boiler (Figure 19) during duo block operation and the shared water-steam
circuit (Figure 21) fed by both boilers. The modeling results for mono block
operation are provided in Appendix B.2.2.
Energy and exergy flows via Sankey diagram are not depicted because
there would be no other findings than in the literature. Comprehensive
analyses are made by Rode [85] and Rupprecht [109]. Energy is lost the
most by steam condensation after the turbine. Additional losses happen at
the boiler by the exiting flue gas. The biggest exergy loss occurs at the
furnace followed by the boiler due to irreversibilities (combustion) and tem-
perature differences in relation to the flue gas (steam generation). The
ranges of selected operation parameters per plant model between mini-
mum and maximum load are compared, discussed and listed in Table 9
and Table 10 – for related calculations see Appendix C.1 and Appen-
dix C.2.
Table 9: Key operation parameters per plant model in comparison
Operation parameter (unit) EPP FPP-DUO FPP-MONO

Boiler capacity (%) 50 … 100 40 … 100 45 … 100
Gross electricity generation (MW) 309.9 … 650.0 429.6 … 1,100.0 245.0 … 550.0
Net electricity generation (MW) 292.7 … 604.2 407.5 … 1,046.6 228.2 … 516.5
Gross energy efficiency (%) 34.0 … 38.0 44.6 … 47.6 43.6 … 45.7
Net energy efficiency (%) 32.1 … 35.4 42.3 … 45.3 40.6 … 42.9
Gross exergy efficiency (%) 32.7 ... 36.6 42.8 … 45.8 41.9 … 43.9
Net exergy efficiency (%) 30.9 … 34.0 40.6 … 43.5 39.1 … 41.3
Auxiliary power (MW) 17.2 … 45.8 22.1 … 53.4 16.8 … 33.5
Specific auxiliary power (%) * 5.56 … 7.05 5.13 … 4.85 6.85 … 6.09
Specific auxiliary power (%) ** 1.89 … 2.68 2.29 … 2.31 2.99 … 2.79
Coal input (kg/s) 98.9 … 185.6 104.8 … 251.0 61.0 … 130.7
Net heat rate (MJ/kWh) 11.21 … 10.17 8.51 … 7.95 8.87 … 8.39
CO2 emissions (kg/s) 101.7 … 190.7 54.0 … 129.4 62.9 … 134.8
Specific CO2 emissions (g/kWh) *** 1,251 … 1,136 954 … 890 993 … 939
*) based on gross electricity generation | **) based on coal heat input | ***) based on net electricity generation
Table 10: Selected operation parameters per plant model in comparison
Operation parameter (unit) EPP FPP-DUO FPP-MONO

Boiler capacity (%) 50 … 100 40 … 100 45 … 100
Boiler efficiency (%) 86.4 … 87.2 91.7 … 90.3 91.6 … 90.3
Flue gas retraction (wt.%) 22.9 … 17.1 12.1 … 10.5 11.9 … 10.5
Combustion air preheating (°C) 274.8 … 302.1 274.0 … 322.3 280.1 … 321.3
Live steam generation (kg/s) 257.4 … 514.2 307.9 … 768.8 164.1 … 364.3
Live steam pressure (bar) * 82.9 … 161.8 111.8 … 272.1 125.8 … 273.4
Hot reheat steam (kg/s) * 237.3 … 475.3 276.5 … 686.4 149.0 … 330.0
Hot reheat steam (°C) * 523.8 … 533.7 596.3 … 614.3 599.7 … 614.3
Final feed water temperature (°C) 205.8 … 238.2 240.7 … 296.8 213.5 … 261.6
Steam cycle efficiency (%) 39.2 … 43.5 44.7 … 50.6 44.2 … 48.4
Heat consumption (MJ/kWh) * 9.18 … 8.28 8.05 … 7.11 8.14 … 7.44
Steam consumption (kg/kWh) * 2.99 … 2.85 2.58 … 2.52 2.41 … 2.38
HPST shaft power (%) 33.5 … 29.9 33.3 … 29.7 38.7 … 35.0
IPST shaft power (%) 31.6 … 31.5 39.7 … 40.0 36.8 … 37.7
LPST shaft power (%) 34.9 … 38.6 27.0 … 30.3 24.5 … 27.3
*) at steam turbine
0.998 384.2
330.0 989.6
fresh
p: bar h: kJ/kg clean ECO
air preheated BFW
T: C m: kg/s gas
1.013 20.2 0.999 522.7
20.0 648.9 443.1 986.9
forced cold reheat
127.7
1005.2
regenerative RHT1
draft fan
3.187 MW
heater
1.058 24.8 1.000 709.4
1.008
112.7
1.018 73.2 BFW
24.5 648.9 589.0 984.5
65.0 1005.2
1
SHT3
2
1.001 833.5
147.3
999.6
cooling steam air preheater
683.0 982.1
tower 1.048 40.5 hot
3.662 MW
1.033
130.2
40.0 648.9
RHT2 reheat
flue gas
1.002 954.5
desulfurization air preheater 772.8 979.7
BFW
live
1.038 207.9 steam
0.983 208.8 1.043 310.6 SHT4
182.6 999.6
183.6 1022.0 302.1 616.5

1.003 1047.5
electrostatic 840.7 977.3

raw
208.3
999.6
precipitator
lignite SHT2
0.973
182.9
1.003 1270.4
1000.0 201.9
11.370 MW
SHT1
induced coal mills with
45.1
draft fan 185.6
1270.4
1179.2
0.256 MW flue gas retraction

1.013
15.0
1.003
1000.0
flue
dust EVAP
1.043 310.6 burner/
302.1 288.0
5.198 MW
furnace
0.973 208.3
Figure 18: Simulation results for the EPP’s air / flue gas path (reference case)
0.143 MW 1.013 916.1
182.9 15.0
ash 850.0 1.5
1.023 217.2
flue gas recirculation 190.5 15.0

53
clean gas
54
p: bar h: kJ/kg
T: C m: kg/s
1.011 70.162 0.999 397.1
63.0 673.3 fresh 347.3 744.6
air ECO
preheated BFW
NOx 1.013 20.2 1.000 497,7
stack
2.213 MW removal 20.0 476.5 431.9 742.2
1.034 126.7 0.989 397.2 cold reheat

flue gas forced
114.0 665.3 345.9 749.6 RHT1
desulfurization draft fan
2.073 MW
1.057 24.4 1.001 687.4
5.514 335.4 6.486 335.5 BFW
24.1 476.5 583.8 740.0
80.0 190.0 80.0 190.0
0.023 MW SHT3
6.000 568.0
flue gas heat 1.047 117.1 1.002 870.1
135.0 190.0
transfer system 115.3 476.5 724.9 737.8
raw lignite hot

1.013 45.1 RHT2 reheat
15.0 125.5
4 2 1.003 1029.0
259.9
247.4
179.1
247.4
3 1 air preheater 844.3 735.4
BFW
397.2
247.4
live
0.985
230.0
0.980
160.0
SHT4 steam
0.989
345.9
1.003 1137.2
fluidized-
HP & LP bypass electrostatic 924.1 733.2
bed drying
economizer precipitator
191.9
773.4
1.043 193.1 SHT2
172.5 665.3 flue gas 1.004 1346.8
0.975
171.6
8.350 MW
retraction 1075.7 86.3
0.171 MW SHT1
induced 45.1
85.4
180.8
20.9
draft fan
1346.8
819.5
1.042 331.8
coal dry
90.2
mills lignite
1.013
15.0
322.3 452.7
1.023
1.004
1075.7
flue
dust EVAP
1.042 331.8 burner/
332.3 306.7
2.441 MW
furnace
Figure 19: Simulation results for the FPP’s air / flue gas path (reference case)
0.965 191.4
0.964 MW 1.013 916.1
171.0 103.2
ash 850.0 0.9
1.023 200.3
flue gas recirculation 178.7 103.2

3. Reference Case Lignite-Fired Power Station
170.00 3372.3
28.128 3534.6 5.525 3076.2
530.0 514.2
533.7 475.3 306.2 409.6
5.667 3076.2
29.542 3545.2 306.4 409.6
superheater 161.77 3362.2
539.0 475.3
523.0 514.2
199.24 2742.8
389.0 489.4 reheater HP IP LP LP LP LP G

34.417 2975.6
32.556 2966.7 34.417 2975.6 650 MW
evaporator 298.2 514.2
292.6 470.6 298.2 470.6 auxiliary
221.95 1289.6 steam
291.7 489.4
2975.6
38.6
economizer
3375.5
17.7
10.045 3223.0
34.417
298.2
380.6 23.6 5.667 3076.2
217.61 1032.2
17.077
456.2
306.4 24.4 2.180 2877.5
238.2 489.4 203.8 18.6
0.865 2716.6
119.3 18.6 0.281 2556.1
67.6 16.6
228.72 1042.6
0.066 2410.0 0.066 2410.0
240.4 489.4
38.0 177.9 38.0 177.9
desuperheater
2899.7
17.7
2.850 84.3
3375.5
17.7
condenser 20.0 12785
condenser
1025.4
489.4
16.184
242.0
9.532 3223.0 5.382 3076.2 2.071 2877.5 0.821 2716.6 0.267 2556.1
16.214
455.7
1031.0
38.6
380.2 23.6 306.1 24.4 203.5 18.6 119.1 18.6 66.5 16.6
231.75
236.6
#7
32.667
238.6
2975.6
38.6
2.350 146.9
153.1
194.4
makeup
32.667
296.1
cooling
35.0 12785
water
0.066
36.5
0.066 63.0
2.881 MW
235.78 859.6 pump
873.2
38.6
15.0 5.1 cooling
753.5
4.1
3223,0
4.1
199.4 489.4
1.013 84.1 tower
32.617
204.5
#6 20.0 12875
9.532
177.8
9.532
380.2
0.066 153.1
2899.7
17.7
2 1 36.5 177.9
5.331 518.1 2.020 406.2
181.9
16.6
123.3 24.4 96.9 43.0
16.021
241.7
condensate pump
630.9
439,0
258.6
377.4
238.81 784.5
1.017 MW
0.217
43.4
19.621 154.4
182.1 489.4
17.603
61.4
12.055
149.6
#4 #3 #2 #1 36.4 377.4
attemperators #5
9.532 753.5 0.267 278.2
p: bar h: kJ/kg
488.9
439.0
377.7
439.0
feed water 0.821 394.6

177.8 518.9 66.5 16.6
tank 94.2 61.7 T: C m: kg/s
5.382 652.3 2.071 509.4
14.072
116.3
16.090
89.9
238.81 784.5
feed water preheater
17.182 MW 154.6 24.4 121.3 43.0
182.1 29.5 2.441 MW
boiler feed water pump
Figure 20: Simulation results of the EPP’s water-steam cycle (reference case)
55
piping from 2nd block

4.689 2990.2 4.574 2990.2
263.6 254.0 263.4 508.0

285.00 3476.5
605.0 384.4
3701.4
686.4
superheater 51.121 3712.5
48.738
614.4
620.0 343.2 272.07 3466.1
597.7 768.8
305.86 2639.1
auxiliary
430.0 365.9 reheater HP IP IP LP LP
steam
56.499 3032.1 76.233 3104.8
evaporator 53.554 3023.0

342.6 10.0 385.0 31.1
336.5 339.8
315.33 1490.7 56.499 3032.1
330.7 365.9 342.6 48.0
economizer c 2.014 2820.8
175.3 13.4
309.97 1312.1
9.762 3176.0
296.8 365.9
4 4 358.2 30.0
2652.5
12.9
19.515 3380.7
332.45 1468.3 piping to 2nd block 0.224 2486.9
460.0 51.2
327.0 50.0 62.5 11.5
0.739
91.4
34.129 3569.3 4.689 2990.2
551.6 28.7 263.6 23.8

desuperheater 32.488 3569.3
550.9 14.3
323.14 1260.6 72.6 3104.8

2980.3
condenser
14.3
286.5 315.9 382.2 15.6
#9
1281
0.213 2486.9
15.6
18.578 3380.7
32.460
297.6
459.5 25.6 61.4 11.5

1192.1
2652.5
72.642
15.6
288.3
12.9
72.596
271.5
325.95 1166.3 9.292 3176.0 4.468 2990.2
0.703
90.1
266.7 315.9 357.8 15.0 263.2 23.8
2980.3
#8
14.3
32.151
1178.0
327.82 1024.8
297.2
39.6
235.9 315.9 1.917 2820.8

0.035 105.1
658.6
100.0
458.7
100.0
53.837
175.0 13.4
268.6
#7 25.1 168.1
12.601
12.601
1026.7
156.0
109.2
53.9
32.105 906.0
211.7 53.9 2 1 1
32.151
237.7
330.64 896.6
156.8
1.870 387.7
11.5
206.9 315.9
#6
238.1
246.9
129.8
246.9
621.5
416.2
479.4
273.3
92.5 13.4
3 3
891.7
#3 #1 0.166
64,7
37.4
14.967
16.388
11.670
12.601
147.4
114.1
#4 #2
56.6
30.6
18.578
208.7
3380.7
788.7
315.9
359.9
273.3
14.8
0.213 257.1
333.45 788.7
#5 feed 0.703 377.2
61.4 11.5
c
181.9 71.9
water
333.45
18.578
90.1 26.4
14.020
181.9
459.5
1.917 499.0
feed water
85.7
tank 0.026 MW
387.8
118.9 13.4
458.7
392.4
preheater
622.1
21.9
23.8
0.045 MW
621.5
208.1
333.45
12.601
181.9
12.601 441.1
109.2
4.468
147.6
2 d 105.0 319.1
15.512 MW
11.670
147.4
(shaft power) a
750.1
387.8
attemperators feed water tank BFW turbine & pump HP feed water heating
20.000
boiler feed water

176.9
turbine & pump
Figure 21: Simulation results of the FPP’s water-steam cycle (reference case)
2990.2 4.574 2990.2
254.0 263.4 508.0

3701.4
686.4
48.738
614.4
IP LP LP LP LP LP LP G
1100 MW
c 2.014 2820.8
175.3 13.4
3176.0
30.0 0.035 2297.5 0.035 2297.5 0.035 2297.5

2652.5
12.9
0.224 2486.9 26.6 156.7 26.6 156.7 26.6 156.7 condenser

62.5 11.5
0.739
91.4
9 2990.2 2.850 75.4

0.040 2332.1
a
6 23.8 17.9 14409 a
28.7 14.8
condenser condenser
0.040 87.1
0.213 2486.9
20.8 29.6
b
61.4 11.5
2652.5
2.350 104.7
12.9
8.148 MW
24.9 11683
0.703
90.1
cooling
7.567 MW
water 0.035 105.1
25.1 156.7
1.013 75.2
pump cooling
17.9 37788
tower 0.035 105.1
820.8 25.1 156.7
0.035 105.1
3.4
25.1 168.1 1.113 209.4
makeup
50.0 39.6 waste water
0.035 63.0
0.035 130.4
0.632 MW 14.519 132.3
treatment
26.6 319.1 31.2 319.1
15.0 10.1 d
156.8
1.870 387.7
11.5
1.113 2696.1
raw lignite
238.1
246.9
129.8
246.9
127.6
246.9
92.5 13.4
110.5 39.6
#1
0.166
37.4
4.689 2990.2
c
14.967
16.388
0.568 MW circulation
0.035
#2
56.6
30.6
26.6
263.6 44.8
blower 1.542 MW
fluidized-bed drying
359.9
273.3
431.1
0.213 257.1
44.8
0.703 377.2
61.4 11.5
condensate 1.313 2733.0
90.1 26.4 pump 129.6 39.6

14.020
b
3.901
102.8
feed water
85.7
0.045 MW preheater dry lignite cooler

transport 0.018 MW
blower
p: bar h: kJ/kg
burner/furnace
e & pump HP feed water heating boiler 2nd block T: C m: kg/s
Beginning with electricity generation, the minimum gross/net outputs rela-

tively expressed lie 0.5–1.6 pp below the corresponding relative boiler ca-
pacities. This is an indication for worsened part load performance. It is to
be expected that the efficiencies drop across the load. Moreover, the FPP’s
gross/net energy efficiency decreases by 1.9/2.4 pp at nominal load once
one boiler is shut down. Exergy efficiencies are generally reduced by
around 1.5 pp here. The curve progressions including auxiliary power and
CO2 emissions are further discussed in Section 3.3.2. Compared to the lit-
erature, the auxiliary shares (based on gross electric output) at nominal
load fit in the range of those with a comparable output class: 6–10 %
[69,134] for the EPP and 4–6 % [69,109] for the FPP.
For the boiler efficiency, an opposite trend can be observed. The EPP’s
efficiency declines after an optimum of 87.6 % at 80 % of boiler capacity
while the FPP’s efficiencies continue to rise towards minimum boiler ca-
pacity. An efficiency around 90 % fits to data as mentioned in the literature
[87]. This can be explained by the growing co-firing ratio of dried lignite
from 35 % to 50 % (based on rated thermal input). Losses via fuel moisture
vaporization in the exiting flue gas are reduced. Keeping the absolute
amount of the dry lignite feed constant as well, this enables a full utilization
of the fluidized-bed dryer as long as possible. Only at a ratio of 50 % –
being considered as a technical maximum in the boiler model – this mass
flow has to be adjusted below 65 % of boiler capacity. The dryer’s part load
of lignite input finally reaches 61.3/68.5 % during duo/mono block opera-
tion. Differences between EPP and FPP are also distinct concerning the
amount of flue gas being retracted for drying while grinding. At nominal
load, the EPP’s mass fraction lies in a reported range of 16–19 % [82] (or
equals on average to a flue gas mass flow demand of 1.4 kg per kg of raw
lignite [85]), but it increases by up to 34 % during part load against 15 % at
the FPP.
Referring to the other parameters, changes from duo to mono block oper-
ation of the FPP should be emphasized. The final BFW temperature sig-
nificantly falls and explains the drop in plant efficiency (lower thermody-
namic mean temperature), which recurs at the steam cycle efficiency.
Though operating at nominal load with one boiler, the steam turbine’s load
constitutes 46 % only. Therefore, less electricity is generated out of the
thermal energy collected at the boiler resulting in a higher heat consump-
tion. However, the live steam consumption per generated electricity slightly
improves because of a better part load performance of the LP turbine as
reported by Sailer [98]. The lower the turbine load, the smaller the final
moisture content with less Baumann correction (↦ Section 3.2.2) and the
fewer the specific exit losses. In addition, the condenser pressure is
stronger reduced. Evaluating the contribution of each steam turbine sec-
tion to the total shaft power, a shift relatively towards the HP section can
be observed across the load.
3.3.2 Performance Indicators and CO2 Emissions

Figure 22 shows the net plant efficiency, indicated as change, and the spe-
cific auxiliary power (based on gross electric output) for both reference
power plant models. It is evident that the FPP features a better part load
performance even during mono block operation (FPP-M). The EPP
reaches a maximum efficiency loss of 3.2 pp. At this boiler capacity, the
FPP’s duo operation (FPP-D) has lost merely 1.6 pp. Below 65 % of boiler
capacity the limitation of dry lignite co-firing causes a significantly stronger
decline.
As for the specific auxiliary power, a steady decrease can be observed for
the EPP, mainly effected by a drop in specific work – cubic dependency of
pressure drop over flow – at the turbomachinery. This aspect comes into
effect especially at the big consumers namely the induced draft fan (IDF)
and the boiler feed water pump (BFWP). The rebound effect at the FPP,
which intensifies during mono block operation with elevated values, results
from the high electricity demand of the cooling system even during part
load. Beginning with 29 % at nominal load, its share rises to 52 %.
0.5
0,5 11
0.0
0,0 10
-0.5
-0,5 9
net plant efficiency change (pp)
specific auxiliary power (%)

-1.0
-1,0 8
-1.5
-1,5 7
-2.0
-2,0 6
-2.5
-2,5 5
-3.0
-3,0 4
EPP (eff) FPP-D (eff) FPP-M (eff)

-3.5
-3,5 3
EPP (aux) FPP-D (aux) FPP-M (aux)
-4.0
-4,0 2
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 22: Net plant efficiency change and specific auxiliary power (reference cases)
Figure 23 provides the EPP’s absolute auxiliary power distribution as well

as selected specific demands per incoming fluid flow. Analogous to this,
the respective numbers for the FPP at duo block operation can be found in
Figure 24.
Legend: IDF – induced draft fan | FDF – forced draft fan | CM – coal mills
FGT/D – flue gas treatment/desulfurization | BFWP – boiler feed water pump
CP – condensate pump | CWP – cooling water pump | AU – ancillary units
50
45 IDF
40
35 FDF
auxiliary power (MW)
CM
30
FGT
25
BFWP
20
15
10
5 CP
CWP
0 AU
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
36 18
32 CWP: 0.225 kJ/kg 16
CM
28 14
auxiliary demand (kJ/m³ STP,dry)
auxiliary demand (kJ/kg)
24 12
BFWP
20 10
IDF
16 8
FGD
12 6
◼
FDF

8 4
4 2
CP
0 0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 23: Absolute and specific auxiliary power of EPP (reference case)
Legend: IDF – induced draft fan | FDF – forced draft fan | FBD – fluidized-bed dryer
CM – coal mills | AU – ancillary units | FGT – flue gas treatment/desulfurization
CTF – cooling tower fan | CP – condensate pump | CWP – cooling water pump
55 IDF
50
45
40
FDF
auxiliary power (MW)
35
FBD
30 CM
25 FGT
20 CTF
15
CP
10 CWP
5
AU
0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
40 20
CWP: 0.216 kJ/kg

36 18
FBD: 0.038-0.040 kJ/kg
32 16
auxiliary demand (kJ/m³ STP,dry)
CM
28 14
auxiliary demand (kJ/kg)
24 12
20 10
IDF
16 8
◼ 12 6
FGD

8 4
FDF
4 2
CP
0 0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 24: Absolute and specific auxiliary power of FPP-D (reference case)
The flue gas desulfurization (FGD) has the only specific demand growing
with falling plant load. A rise by up to 34 % in comparison to the EPP can
be explained by the FPP unit’s higher deposition rate. In addition, two dif-
ferent approaches are defined in the plant models (↦ Section 3.2.6). Rode
states an overall FGD demand of 2,000 kWh per 106 m³ (STP,dry) flue gas
[85], which however exceeds the averaged model calculations of 1,750
(EPP) and 1,840 (FPP).
With reference to later evaluations of Annex integration, there are two more
plant characteristics of interest: the generated amount of live steam per
related coal demand and the CO2 emissions. Expressed as a ratio of col-
lected to provided thermal energies or exergies, Table 11 shows the
steam-coal ratio of both plant types.
Table 11: Steam-coal ratio on energy and exergy basis (reference cases)
Steam-coal ratio (MW/MW) EPP FPP-D FPP-M

Boiler capacity (%) 50 … 100 40 … 100 45 … 100
Energy basis:  across load range 0.743 … 0.719 0.841 … 0.741 0.801 … 0.723
 on average 0.731 0.788 0.758
 at mean capacity 0.731 (75 %) 0.783 (70 %) 0.755 (72.5 %)
Exergy basis:  across load range 0.347 … 0.359 0.417 … 0.398 0.396 … 0.384
 on average 0.355 0.409 0.390
 at mean capacity 0.356 (75 %) 0.408 (70 %) 0.390 (72.5 %)
Whether on energy or exergy basis, the presented steam-coal ratio slightly

improves towards minimum load. This can be explained by the following
aspects. Sliding pressure operation enables an increase of the specific
heat collection at the evaporator section during part load. At this boiler sec-
tion, the more efficient radiant heat transmission dominates and results in
a little less coal demand. Across the load, the averaged values are very
close to the ones of mean boiler capacity. Therefore, later comparisons
use the prior calculations as reference.
The load-dependent CO2 emissions per plant model – depicted in Fig-

ure 25 – deviate as expected in a parabolic respectively linear manner (in
relation to the net plant efficiency respectively boiler capacity). During
mono block operation, a little more coal has to be fired in that one boiler
compared to the individual FPP-D boiler because of the drop in final feed
water temperature. As a result, the absolute CO2 emissions are a bit
higher.
1300 290
1250 260
EPP (g/kWh)
1200 230
FPP-D (g/kWh)
FPP-M (g/kWh)
1150 200
CO2 emissions (g/kWh)
EPP (kg/s)
CO2 emissions (kg/s)

FPP-D (kg/s)
1100 FPP-M (kg/s)
170
1050 140
1000 110
950 80
900 50
850 20
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 25: Absolute and specific CO2 emissions (reference cases)

3.3.3 Model Validation

As described in Section 3.2, several adaptions/modifications were made to
particular model components in accordance with findings from other scien-
tific work [98,109,133, 135]. Thus, the plant models are supposed to be
capable of predicting their part load performance. The results from simula-
tion have been compared with other modeling work. In the literature, differ-
ent studies can be found addressing only one load-dependent character-
istic curve. This is the net plant efficiency for the respective power plant
processes, each of which is displayed in Figure 26 by relative number,
without any differentiation. Table 12 shows additional information about the
related major modeling boundary conditions.
The part load performances of both the EPP and FPP fit well with other
published data. There are variations mainly because of different steam pa-
rameters (and corresponding boiler modeling) but also concerning various
coverage of auxiliaries. The EPP’s performance lies between that found by
Hanak et al. [96] and Atsonios et al. [140]. For the FPP, the curve charac-
teristic is close to Linnenberg & Kather [102] and Rupprecht [109]. A vali-
dation by absolute net efficiencies among lignite-fired power plants was not
possible because of individual model configurations: Atsonios et al. pub-
lished 34.1–37.4 % against 32.1–35.4 % for the EPP. This can be ex-
plained by augmented live steam parameters and less auxiliary demands.
Rupprecht identified less efficiency of 40.5–43.0 % against the FPP’s
42.3–45.3 % due to slightly worse steam parameters and no dry lignite co-
firing.
102
100
98
relative net plant efficiency (%)
FPP
96
94
92 Brachthäuser 1998 Chalmers 2007

EPP Linnenberg 2009 Elsner 2011
90 Ziems 2012 Roeder 2014
Hanak 2015 Atsonios 2015
88 Rupprecht 2016
86
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 26: Literature review of net plant efficiency over the load
Table 12: Major modeling boundary conditions of reviewed literature

Atsonios et al.
Linnenberg &
Brachthäuser
Gibbins 2007
Roeder et al.
Kather 2009
Elsner et al.
Chalmers &
Hanak et al.
Ziems et al.
Rupprecht
et al. 1998
Parameter Unit
2011
2012
2014
2015
2015
2016
[86] [136] [102] [100] [137] [138] [139] [140] [109]
Fuel type – L HC HC HC HC HC HC L L
Net output MW(el) 450 750 1,040 460 550 600 660 310 1,050
bar 265 245 285 275 262 285 242 200 272
Live steam
°C 545 600 600 560 545 600 537 540 600
Hot reheat bar 55 n/a 60 50 54 60 42 33 59
steam °C 560 600 620 580 562 620 565 540 610
Condenser mbar 45 n/a 39/49 59 n/a 40 100 60 28/35
HC: hard coal | L: lignite
4. Syngas-Based Annex Plant
Concerning the Annex plant, no modeling and simulation was conducted

in this work. Instead, referring data was extracted from a separate/related
study [18,141]. The results derive from calculations being carried out via
the commercial simulation software Aspen® Plus V8.6. They are handled
as fixed boundary condition and are provided in Section 5. In the following
subsections, the process chains of syngas-based chemical synthesis are
explained with emphasis on the Annex integration concept (↦ Sec-
tion 2.3).
4.1 Gasifier Island and Gas Treatment
Two types of commercially available gasifiers are considered. These are

Siemens Fuel Gasification and High-Temperature Winkler technology for
entrained-flow and fluidized-bed gasification (EFG and FBG). For in-depth
information about the gasifier island and downstream gas treatment, refer-
ence is made to further literature [24,142-149].
4.1.1 Entrained-Flow Gasifier

Syngas production by entrained-flow gasification is illustrated in Figure 27.
Raw lignite is prepared by grinding and fluidized-bed drying (with internal
waste heat utilization) and injected on top into the gasifier via a dry-feeding
system using CO2 as transport gas. Oxygen of 99 vol.% purity is provided
by an air separation unit. The operation conditions for gasification are
1,450 °C and 40 bar. Thus, carbon conversion is near complete. A cooling
screen generates saturated MP steam at 47 bar and 261 °C. Raw gas leav-
ing the gasifier is fully quenched; vitreous slag and black-water are contin-
uously taken away.

68 4. Syngas-Based Annex Plant
electricity
MP 47/261
MP steam
MP 42/263
MP steam
grinding
coal
& drying LP 8/180
LP steam
SG-EFG
sour gas
air
air
separation
entrained-flow total water water water-gas acid gas

syngas
N2 O2 gasification quench scrubber shift removal
water
wastewater
gray-water
slag &
black-water
CO2
BFW 2.5/30 boiler

feed water
Figure 27: Process chain of syngas production via entrained-flow gasification and
gas treatment
A water scrubber removes fines and dissolving impurities. At the two-stage

water-gas shift section, CO and H2O (moisture) are catalytically converted
into H2 and CO2. The released heat is recovered by MP steam generation
of 42 bar and 263 °C (10 K superheating). Partially bypassing the reactors,
syngas composition is adjusted for downstream chemical synthesis. This
stream is further cooled by generation of LP steam at 8 bar and 180 °C
(10 K superheating). Subsequently, both H2S and CO2 are captured in a
selective acid gas removal unit, which is represented by the Rectisol pro-
cess. The heat demand for regeneration of the washing agent is internally
provided by the LP steam. Sour gas (mainly consisting of H2S) as well as
the generated steam are sent to the power plant. In return, electricity and
boiler feed water are supplied by the power plant.
4.1 Gasifier Island and Gas Treatment 69
4.1.2 Fluidized-Bed Gasifier

Syngas production by fluidized-bed gasification is illustrated in Figure 28.
Raw lignite is also grinded and dried but the coal remains coarser in terms
of the fluidized bed. It is injected at the bottom into the gasifier via a rotary
valve and a downpipe using CO2 as transport gas. Oxygen (99 vol.%) is
again provided by an cryogenic air separation unit. The freeboard operates
– moderated by steam – around 1,050 °C at a pressure of 40 bar. Carbon
conversion reaches 92 %; the bed ash with a significant fraction of uncon-
verted carbon is sent to the power plant. A quench-water injection on top
of the gasifier freeboard prevents fouling and maintains a raw gas exit tem-
perature of 900 °C. Further reducing this temperature, MP steam is gener-
ated by a convective heat exchanger at 42 bar and 263 °C (10 K super-
heating). The gas treatment is carried out the same way as for entrained-
flow gasification (↦ Section 4.1.1). One important aspect is that additional
steam has to be injected for water-gas shift reaction because of insufficient
moisture in the raw gas. Excess steam after internal supplies, sour gas and
carbonaceous residue are sent to the power plant; electricity and boiler
feed water are received.
electricity
MP 42/263
MP steam
grinding
coal
& drying LP 8/180
LP steam
SG-FBG
sour gas
air
air
separation
fluidized-bed convective water water-gas acid gas

syngas
N2 O2 gasification cooler scrubber shift removal
water
wastewater
gray-water
CO2
CR carbonaceous
residue
BFW 2.5/30 boiler

feed water
Figure 28: Process chain of syngas production via fluidized-bed gasification and gas
treatment
4.2 Synthesis Routes
The synthesis of chemical products is covered by two commercially avail-

able processes. Syngas is converted either into methanol and subse-
quently gasoline or directly into syncrude via low-temperature Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis. The latter mainly consists of diesel and wax. For in-
depth information about methanol, gasoline and Fischer-Tropsch synthe-
sis, reference is made to further literature [25,44,150-165].
4.2.1 Methanol-to-Gasoline
Methanol-based gasoline synthesis is schematically indicated in Figure 29.
First, raw methanol is produced in a quasi-isotherm fixed-bed reactor upon
the Lurgi process. The molar ratio of H2 to CO was set to 2.07 in the syn-
gas, which is converted by 97 %. Saturated steam generation of 40 bar
and 251 °C maintains the reaction temperature. Off-gas and some recy-
cling gas are released and sent to the power plant. Second, the untreated
methanol is converted into gasoline in two stages of fixed-bed reactors
upon the Methanol-to-Gasoline® (MTG) process. Dimethyl ether acts as
intermediate product. Excluding 56 wt.% of water, the final product con-
sists of 90 wt.% naphtha and 10 wt.% LPG. The exothermal reactions are
handled by generation of saturated MP steam at 50 bar and 264 °C. After
having separated the reaction water, the product is prepared also recover-
ing light-ends. These gases and the steam streams are transferred to the
power plant. Boiler feed water and electricity are obtained from the power
plant.
4.2 Synthesis Routes 71
electricity
MP 40/251
MP steam
MP 50/264
MP steam
RG-M1&2
residual gas
RG-MTG
residual gas
methanol gasoline product

syngas gasoline
synthesis synthesis preparation
wastewater
BFW 2.5/30 boiler

feed water
Figure 29: Process chain of methanol and gasoline synthesis
4.2.2 Fischer-Tropsch
Low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis is schematically indi-
cated in Figure 30. Arriving syngas with a molar ratio of 2.05 for H2 to CO
is fed into a fixed-bed Fischer-Tropsch reactor. One possible smaller scale
reactor design is that upon the Velocys process using micro channels. Heat
recovery (reactor and product cooling) is realized by generation of satu-
rated MP steam at 30 bar and 234 °C. Excluding 55 wt.% of reaction water,
the syncrude composition is as follows: 46 wt.% heavy oils and waxes
(C22+), 22 wt.% middle distillates (C11-C22), 20 wt.% naphtha (C5-C10),
6 wt.% LPG and 6 wt.% methane. The products are prepared respectively
fractionated and purge gases (mostly light-ends) are converted back to
syngas via steam reforming in order to raise the product output. Heat re-
covery at the reformer enables further MP steam generation also covering
the internal steam demand. Excess steam is transferred to the power plant,
which in turn provides electricity and boiler feed water.
electricity
MP 30/234
MP steam
steam CO2
reforming
Fischer-
product product
syngas Tropsch syncrude
cooling preparation
synthesis
wastewater
BFW 2.5/30 boiler

feed water
Figure 30: Process chain of low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

5. Coupling of Power Block and Annex Plant
According to the description in Section 2.3 and the schemes of Figures 27–
30 explained in Section 4, coupling power generation with syngas-based
chemical synthesis means an exchange or integration of electricity, boiler
feed water, steam, residual and sour gases, carbonaceous residue, and
wastewater of various contamination. The latter is excluded from further
consideration due to a lack of data. Furthermore, handling these streams
is more a matter of costs and technological solutions (treatment) than of
energetic evaluation. A possible additional auxiliary demand at the power
plant is neglected.
5.1 Framework for Modeling
In terms of the Annex concept, the gasifier is supplied with the same raw
lignite as the power plant (↦ Section 3.1.1, Table 2). Table 13 summarizes
the externally gained results per process chain of syngas-based chemical
synthesis. Focusing on the integration into the power block, Table 14
shows the major characteristics of incoming streams from the Annex plant.

74 5. Coupling of Power Block and Annex Plant
Table 13: Energy balance and performance characteristics of Annex plant (data
mostly from [18,141])
EFG FBG
Parameter Unit
MTG FT MTG FT
MW(th) * 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0
Dry coal input
kg/s 9.76 9.76 9.76 9.76
MW(th) * 104.9 91.6 95.5 90.9
Product output
kg/s 2.45 2.16 2.23 2.14
Stream output MW(th) 72.8 68.6 82.0 76.2
– Steam generation MW(th) 62.2 67.7 48.9 60.6
– Gas release MW(th) * 10.6 0.9 18.5 0.9
– Residue release MW(th) * 0.0 0.0 14.7 14.7
kg/MWh 394.3 504.1 381.5 451.8
CO2 emissions 1
kg/s 11.49 12.83 10.12 11.41
Auxiliary demand MW(el) 19.6 17.2 18.3 16.4
– Coal preparation MW(el) 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.1
– Air separation MW(el) 9.4 9.4 7.9 7.9
– Gasification MW(el) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
– Gas treatment MW(el) 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.9
– MeOH synthesis MW(el) 2.3 0.0 2.0 0.0
– MTG synthesis MW(el) 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.0
– FT synthesis MW(el) 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.4
Product efficiency 2 % 52.5 45.8 47.8 45.5
Thermal efficiency 3 % 88.9 80.1 88.8 83.6
Annex efficiency 4 % 80.9 73.8 81.3 77.2
Product yield % ** 25.15 22.11 22.89 21.93
Carbon retention % 38.71 33.53 35.22 33.27
*) based on LHV | **) mass basis | 1) specific: per product output | 2) product output only
3) product output and stream outputs | 4) thermal efficiency including auxiliaries
5.1 Framework for Modeling 75
Table 14: Overview of Annex input streams (data extracted from [141])
Annex EFG FBG

Unit
stream MTG FT MTG FT
MP 50/264 kg/s 3.66 0.00 3.38 0.00
50 bar | 264 °C
2,794 kJ/kg MW(th) 10.24 0.00 9.43 0.00
MP 47/261 kg/s 1.31 1.31 0.00 0.00
47 bar | 261 °C
2,800 kJ/kg MW(th) 3.66 3.66 0.00 0.00
MP 42/263 kg/s 11.65 9.55 8.05 6.84
42 bar | 263 °C
2,837 kJ/kg MW(th) 33.05 27.08 22.85 19.41
MP 40/251 kg/s 5.37 0.00 4.90 0.00
40 bar | 251 °C
2,803 kJ/kg MW(th) 15.05 0.00 13.73 0.00
MP 30/234 kg/s 0.00 6.81 0.00 7.34
30 bar | 234 °C
2,804 kJ/kg MW(th) 0.00 19.09 0.00 20.57
LP 8/180 kg/s 0.09 6.42 1.02 7.39
8 bar | 180 °C
2,792 kJ/kg MW(th) 0.24 17.93 2.86 20.63
CR kg/s 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28
1 bar | 100 °C
11.497 MJ/kg MW(th) * 0.00 0.00 14.71 14.71
SG-EFG kg/s 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00
1 bar | 30 °C
MJ/kg 5.26 5.46 0.00 0.00
MW(th) * 0.92 0.91 0.00 0.00
SG-FBG kg/s 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16
1 bar | 30 °C
MJ/kg 0.00 0.00 5.71 5.90
MW(th) * 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.92
RG-M1 kg/s 0.21 0.00 0.42 0.00
1 bar | 30 °C
MJ/kg 22.90 0.00 29.72 0.00
MW(th) * 4.88 0.00 12.36 0.00
RG-M2 kg/s 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.00
1 bar | 30 °C
MJ/kg 14.93 0.00 17.53 0.00
MW(th) * 1.46 0.00 2.14 0.00
RG-MTG kg/s 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00
1 bar | 30 °C
MJ/kg 44.65 0.00 44.65 0.00
MW(th) * 3.35 0.00 3.04 0.00
*) based on LHV
As for the evaluation of the Annex plant scenarios, every process chain
has its individual benefits. For further discussion and details, see the liter-
ature references [18,141]. From an energetic viewpoint, scenario EFG-
MTG has the best performance parameters including product yield and
carbon retention despite the highest auxiliary demand. In terms of integra-
tion, a different picture emerges. Figure 31 illustrates the thermal rating on
energy and exergy basis in accordance with the numbers of Table 14.
By quantity, EFG-MTG (followed by EFG-FT) has the highest share of MP

steam, but the total heat input is on third place. Among all four Annex inte-
gration scenarios, there is an overall thermal energy of 68.6–82.0 MW(th)
where MP and LP steam range around an average of 58.3 MW(th). This
corresponds to 3.9/7.4 % (EPP), 2.7/6.1 % (FPP-D) and 5.1/10.5 % (FPP-
M) of the nominal/minimum heat transmission to the steam cycle in the
boiler(s). Comparing the gasifiers per type of synthesis, the two gasification
operations and their corresponding raw gas compositions – also with rela-
tion to various CO-shift conditions – result in a different steam generation
output via diverse heat recovery (↦ Section 4.1). Moreover, the scenarios
with FBG have the highest shares of residue and gases because of the
bed ash with its carbon content and a related good heating value.
By quality, it can be seen that only an exergetic evaluation reveals the dif-
ferences between the scenarios: the exergy input ranges more widely from
23.6 to 50.3 MW(th). Excluding the residue, distinctly better values are
shown for the gasoline synthesis routes (MTG) than those with FT synthe-
sis. The reason is the exergetic contribution by MP steam and gases
against LP steam. With regard to the steam inputs only, the EFG scenarios
are more advantageous.
5.1 Framework for Modeling 77
MP steam LP steam Residue Gases

Annex integration scenarios
FBG 82.0
MTG
EFG 72.8
FBG 76.2
FT
EFG 68.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
energy: thermal rating (MW)
Energy MP steam LP steam Residue Gases

FBG-MTG 46.0 2.9 14.7 18.4
EFG-MTG 62.0 0.2 0.0 10.6
FBG-FT 40.0 20.6 14.7 0.9
EFG-FT 49.8 17.9 0.0 0.9
MP steam LP steam Residue Gases

FBG 50.4
MTG
EFG 32.9
FBG 35.5
FT
EFG 23.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
exergy: thermal rating (MW)
Exergy MP steam LP steam Residue Gases

FBG-MTG 16.5 0.8 14.7 18.4
EFG-MTG 22.2 0.1 0.0 10.6
FBG-FT 14.0 5.9 14.7 0.9
EFG-FT 17.6 5.1 0.0 0.9
Figure 31: Thermal rating of Annex integration scenarios by category, quantity and
quality
5.2 Considered Interfaces and their Technological Evaluation
Focusing on the steam input parameters; pressure and temperature are

determined by the Annex operation conditions for several reasons. Since
the BFW for steam generation at the Annex plant is provided by the power
plant, a contamination by syngas or any other fluid in the case of a leakage
has to be prevented. Thus, the tube-side pressure is set 2 bar higher than
the respective shell-side. Depending on the feed water pressure level and
the hot fluid temperature, generated steam is superheated by up to 10 K in
order to avoid early condensation downstream. At the methanol synthesis
reactor, both requirements (pressure and temperature) for heat recovery
cannot be met due to the quasi-isotherm control of the reaction process.
This results in a defined condition of the saturated steam (temperature and
corresponding pressure). A technical realization would consider a second-
ary circuit for heat transfer.
The identification and determination of the interfaces at the power plant is

subject to a list of criteria. For the existing power plant, more aspects have
to be included because it is already designed and in operation. Any cou-
pling point should be easily accessible and require little constructional ef-
fort only. Table 15 shows the chosen interfaces and their reference opera-
tion conditions per plant model (↦ Appendix B.1, Figures 44–47).
In both plant cases, carbonaceous residues (FBG only) and gases are sent
to the after-burning section of the furnace – interface A1 – for combustion
or thermal treatment.
5.2 Considered Interfaces and their Technological Evaluation 79
Table 15: Load-dependent operation conditions at determined interfaces of Annex

integration
Annex Plant
p (bar) T (°C) m (kg/s)
interface model
A1 EPP 1.013 850–1,000 n/a

(direct
injection) FPP 1.013 850–1,000 n/a
EPP 2.500 34.3 … 36.2 n/a
A2 FPP-D 2.500 24.4 … 26.6 n/a
(extraction)
FPP-M 2.500 21.5 … 24.4 n/a
EPP 7.6 … 19.6 34.4 … 36.4 n/a
A3
(indirect FPP-D 4.9 … 16.4 26.6 … 30.6 n/a
injection)
FPP-M 2.6 … 6.8 21.6 … 25.2 n/a
EPP 16.5 … 34.4 300.4 … 298.2 237.3 … 470.6
A4
(direct FPP-D 21.7 … 56.5 347.8 … 342.6 276.5 … 679.6
injection)
FPP-M 13.7 … 32.5 277.9 … 275.3 149.0 … 326.8
A5 FPP-D 8.0 … 18.6 452.8 … 459.5 15.9 … 51.2
(direct
injection) FPP-M 4.5 … 9.5 459.2 … 466.5 7.9 … 22.5
A6 FPP-D 2.0 … 4.7 262.1 … 263.6 26.1 … 44.8
(direct
injection) FPP-M 1.1 … 2.4 273.5 … 275.6 12.3 … 21.4
EPP: 50–100 % | FPP-D: 40–100 % | FPP-M: 45–100 %
Regarding the steam, which is constantly generated at the Annex plant

(feed water supply from interface A2), potential coupling locations along
the steam cycle were checked based on the load-dependent results of the
reference models. Once direct injection has been chosen, the pressure
applied over the plant load primarily limits the possibilities. The second cri-
terion is the temperature: excessive cooling has to be avoided. In addition,
mass flow rates can cause restrictions. Indirect injection solves the pres-
sure dependency, but means an additional heat exchanger and higher
costs. Steam streams could be premixed and throttled before insertion.
A separate study was launched as master thesis to investigate various

steam integration options. Quassowski [166] considered 21 interfaces in a
state-of-the-art lignite-fired power plant at maximum and minimum load.
This work provided the preferred interfaces by thermodynamic means and
revealed the fact that there are only very minor differences e.g. in plant
efficiency (some hundredths of percentage points) between the best three
coupling locations – regardless of direct or indirect injection – per steam
input. Therefore, the following interfaces are of interest.
The best results for the EPP are achieved with MP steam being injected
into the cold reheat pipeline (interface A4) and LP steam fed into an addi-
tional feed water heater (interface A3), bypassing the existing LP feed wa-
ter heating track. For the FPP the circumstances are changed because of
elevated steam parameters. MP steam is also injected into the feed line
(interface A5) of the power turbine for the BFW pump. LP steam is sent to
the fluidized bed drying unit (interface A6). Sliding pressure operation en-
ables a switch of interfaces across the load, which is presented in the sub-
sequent section.
5.2.1 Steam Streams

Most of the Annex steam is merely saturated (↦ Section 5.1, Table 14) and
should pass condensate traps during transfer. Arriving at the power plant,
selected streams are mixed and thus step-by-step throttled to the respec-
tive lowest pressure level. For the FPP, the steam is inserted before any
split of piping to each boiler. In the simulation, steam to interface A5 is
equally distributed per power block for modeling reason only. Figure 32
illustrates the load-dependent steam stream integration per plant model.
Speaking of FPP-D, all MP steam is injected at interface A5 down to 70 %

of boiler capacity. Below this load, a switch to interface A4 is possible for
steam with a pressure level higher than 30 bar. At mono block operation,
this procedure sets in already at maximum plant load because of the part
load of the steam cycle. In addition, lowered pressure levels around the
turbine allow a mixture of every MP steam at interface A4 below 95 % of
boiler capacity. At the EPP, stream ‘MP 30/234’ is switched from interface
A3 to A4 below 90 %.
The steam tappings of HP and IP turbine can be controlled via valves re-
ducing the mass flow rates due to the additional Annex steam. Bypassing
the EPP’s whole LP feed water heating track shifts the same to consistent
part load. Both impacts will lead to less internal heat demand within the
steam cycle. As a consequence, more steam is used for electricity gener-
ation, but more energy is also lost at the condenser.
Further impacts during part load operation with Annex integration could be
an extreme minimum load of individual feed water heaters (heating steam
mass flow below 40 % of reference condition). The direct steam injections
are monitored for the share of incoming steam. Another aspect is a possi-
ble drop of steam quality at the outlet of the power turbine which would
cause blade erosion. Special focus lies on interface A4 since incoming An-
nex steam at this location bypassed the evaporation at the power plant.
Hence, less live steam has to be generated, but the Annex steam still re-
quires heat for superheating at the reheater section. The furnace of the
boiler is controlled by the live steam output [89,90] and a too strong de-
crease of boiler capacity by Annex integration will affect the reheater outlet
temperature. A study by Witschas [167] examined such situation (bypass
of steam generation and superheating while keeping the reheating un-
changed) at a power plant very similar to the EPP configuration. Based on
a validated boiler model, it states that the hot reheat temperature starts to
drop once 100 kg/s of live steam are replaced. At this point, the typical
oversizing of the reheater sections in a boiler can no longer compensate
the unbalance [167]. The amount was halved and classified as critical rep-
resenting 10 % of the nominal live steam output. For this work, the assump-
tion is adopted.
boiler capacity 100 95 90 85  70 65  50 45 40
82
MP 50/264 A5 A5 A4 A4
MP 47/261 A5 A5 A4 A4
MP 42/263 A5 A5 A4 A4
FPP-D
MP 40/251 A5 A5 A4 A4
MP 30/234 A5 A5 A5 A5
LP 8/180 A6 A6
MP 50...40 A4 A4 A4 A4
MP 30/234 A5 A5 A4 A4
FPP-M
LP 8/180 A6 A6
Figure 32: Annex steam stream integration across the load

MP 50...40 A4 A4 A4 A4
MP 30/234 A3 A3 A4 A4
EPP
LP 8/180 A3 A3 A3 A3
5. Coupling of Power Block and Annex Plant
5.2.2 Residue and Gases

A proper consideration of interface A1 requires an extension of the plant
models around the furnace/boiler components: the impact at the after-
burning section is represented by separate combustion blocks per carbo-
naceous residue and gases transmitting each the released heat to the feed
water passing the furnace hopper right before evaporation [89].
The combustion calculation itself is configured as follows. Due to legal

specifications for landfilling ash – maximum total organic carbon of 3 wt.%
after treatment [168] – the combustion efficiency for carbonaceous residue
is set to 94 % in accordance with its incoming ash content. Oxygen con-
sumption is considered stoichiometric and is available via the excess air
(also for cooling) of the after-burning grate. Exiting flue gas reaches
1,000 °C [85] respectively 850 °C [89,91] closer to the junction with the
above boiler structure as assumed for the combustion block of the gases
(99 % efficiency). With degradations by radiation losses and the respective
boiler efficiency for EPP and FPP (↦ Section 3.3.1, Table 10), the released
heat is logically transferred to the water-steam circuit in the model. The
calculated flue gases are sent to the furnace section of the boiler like they
would flow in reality.
By composition, carbonaceous residue has a carbon content of 33.9 wt.%

(and remaining 66.1 wt.% of ash). Table 16 shows the components of the
arriving sour and residual gases. The former are distinguished for down-
stream chemical synthesis where FT synthesis demands a higher purity
and hence causes higher shares of H2S and COS.
Table 16: Composition (at STP,wet) of the sour and residual gases from Annex plant
Compo- EFG FBG

sition
(vol.%) SG * RG-M1 RG-M2 RG-MTG SG * RG-M1 RG-M2 RG-MTG
CO 0.00 6.77 5.29 0.97 0.00 9.24 6.11 0.97

H2 0.00 75.29 48.71 1.86 0.00 65.42 35.48 1.86
CH4 0.00 0.44 0.56 48.16 0.00 13.79 15.35 48.17
38.71 42.48
H2S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.63 43.52
1.81 1.01
COS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.37 1.31
N2 0.00 11.80 7.05 0.00 0.00 6.30 3.16 0.00
Ar 0.00 3.25 4.06 0.00 0.00 1.73 1.82 0.00
O2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
58.25 55.29
CO2 1.91 11.74 3.43 2.93 16.21 3.43
56.77 53.95
H2O 1.23 0.02 0.40 0.01 1.22 0.02 0.37 0.01
C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20
C3H8 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.35
C4H10 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.59
C5H12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42
CH3OH 0.00 0.52 22.19 0.00 0.00 0.57 21.50 0.00
*) first value applies to MTG, second one to FT
The combustion of the gases forms CO2, H2O and SO2 which need to be
observed along the flue gas path in terms of high-temperature as well as
dew point corrosion. At reference condition, the SO2 content in the furnace
section is approximately 2,077 mg/m³ (STP,dry). German lignite consists
of 0.5–4.4 wt.% (daf) sulfur [89]; the reference coal has only 0.87 (↦ Sec-
tion 3.1.1, Table 2) and is located at the lower limit. Therefore, SO2 con-
centrations two times as high are considered technically acceptable in the
boiler area. However, at an existing FGD unit, such a rise would necessi-
tate a retrofit.
5.3 Modeling Results 85
5.3 Modeling Results
In the following, efficiency comparisons between the reference power plant

and the concepts with Annex integration are based on the energy balanc-
ing depicted in Figure 33. The net efficiency of the stand-alone reference
power plant (PP) is shown in Equation 14. This term is extended by the
inputs (S, G, R) from the Annex plant (A) minus the export of feed water
(W) as effort – see Equation 15. If there were a steam export from the
power plant to the Annex plant, the heat flow would be considered a benefit
and converted into the equivalent electric energy otherwise generated at
the steam turbine. An evaluation of the overall concept is conducted by
Equation 16 covering the power feed to the electric grid and the product
(P) output against the total lignite (L) input.
To compare the reference power plant and the respective Annex integra-
tion scenarios, the simulations were run to reach the same gross electric
output. All modeling results are provided in Appendix B.3 with relation to
the flowcharts of Appendix B.2.
𝑃𝑒𝑙, 𝑢𝑥
𝑄̇ 𝑃𝑒𝑙, 𝑟𝑜 𝑃𝑒𝑙
coal power plant electricity
𝑄̇ 𝑄̇𝑆 𝑄̇𝐺 𝑄̇
𝑄̇ ,𝐴 𝑃𝑒𝑙,𝐴
Annex plant
𝑄̇𝑃
product(s)
Figure 33: Energy balancing of Annex integration (𝑸̇: thermal energy – based on LHV
if applicable)
𝑃𝑒𝑙, 𝑟𝑜 − 𝑃𝑒𝑙, 𝑢𝑥
𝜂𝑃𝑃,𝑒𝑙,𝑛𝑒𝑡 = ∙ 100 % (14)
𝑄̇
𝑃𝑒𝑙, 𝑟𝑜 − 𝑃𝑒𝑙, 𝑢𝑥
𝜂𝑃𝑃+𝐴,𝑒𝑙,𝑛𝑒𝑡 = ∙ 100 % (15)
𝑄 + 𝑄̇ + 𝑄̇𝐺 + 𝑄̇𝑆 − 𝑄̇
̇
𝑃𝑒𝑙 + 𝑄̇𝑃
𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑙 = ∙ 100 % (16)
𝑄̇ + 𝑄̇ ,𝐴
5.3.1 Technical Considerations

Referring to the technical considerations of steam streams as well as res-
idue and gases in the previous two sections (↦ Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2),
the modeling results provide clear information. The boiler capacity ranges
relate to the compared PP references of the same gross electric output.
Incoming steam from the Annex plant reduces the amount of live steam to
be generated at the power plant. Table 17 lists the relative live steam sav-
ings per PP model and Annex integration scenario (against the respective
reference live steam generation). Highest values of up to 5 % are achieved
with EFT-MTG at minimum boiler capacity. More critical could be the situ-
ation with the FPP at mono block operation, because the whole steam input
affects one single boiler by up to 8 % of savings, which is close to the de-
fined technical limit. Calculating the Annex integration at minimum PP load
would mean falling below the minimum boiler capacity. Thus, the simula-
tion is determined by the minimum reference coal feed instead of the gross
electric output. As a result, more electricity is generated than at the com-
pared reference load condition.
Table 17: Relative live steam savings with Annex integration (minimum/maximum
across the load)
Annex integration scenario EPP FPP-D FPP-M

Related boiler capacity (%) 50 … 100 40 … 100 45 … 100
EFG-MTG (%) 5.2 … 3.1 4.8 … 1.7 8.1 … 4.9
EFG-FT (%) 4.9 … 2.4 4.0 … 1.7 7.5 … 4.1
FBG-MTG (%) 4.1 … 2.4 3.6 … 1.3 6.4 … 3.8
FBG-FT (%) 4.5 … 1.8 3.2 … 1.5 6.6 … 3.4
Most of the steam streams are directly injected at interface A4 (cold reheat
piping). Table 18 shows the mass based injection ratio and the occurring
temperature drop caused by the cooler Annex steam.
Table 18: Injection ratio and temperature drop at interface A4 (minimum/maximum

across the load)

Related boiler capacity (%) 50 … 100 40 … 65 * 45 … 100
EFG-MTG  injection ratio (wt.%): 8.5 … 4.6 7.5 … 4.8 13.4 … 6.6
 temperature drop (K): 8.9 … 3.0 10.9 … 5.6 11.9 … 2.6
EFG-FT  injection ratio (wt.%): 6.9 … 2.3 3.8 … 2.4 11.0 … 3.3
FBG-MTG  injection ratio (wt.%): 6.4 … 3.4 5.6 … 3.6 10.2 … 4.9
FBG-FT  injection ratio (wt.%): 5.6 … 1.5 2.5 … 1.5 9.0 … 2.1
*) no injection above 65 %
The temperature differences – depending on the distribution/collection of

steam streams (↦ Section 5.2.1, Figure 32) and the PP model (↦ Sec-
tion 5.2, Table 15) – range from 40 K to 110 K resulting as expected in a
greater temperature drop the bigger the injection ratio is. This turns out
most influencing in combination with EFG-MTG where the highest amount
of MP steam arrives (↦ Section 5.1, Figure 31). The injection ratios across
the load are considered technically viable. At the FPP-D, interface A5 (feed
line to the BFW power turbine and one HP feed water heater) is used until
a related boiler capacity of 70 %. The amount of steam required for the
downstream components is increasingly supplied across the load by the
Annex steam beginning from 26 wt.% to 62 wt.%. From a technical point
of view, the respective steam tapping has to be lowered providing more
steam for expansion in the turbine. For the Annex integration scenarios
with FT synthesis, some MP steam is still injected at interface A5 below
70 % of boiler capacity reaching an approximate mixing ratio of 24 wt.%
until up to 43 wt.% at minimum PP load.
Special focus also lies on the outlet conditions of both the BFWPT and
LPST because of two reasons: the Annex steam is of lower quality (mostly
saturated steam only) hence having an impact on components down-
stream as well as upstream the interface. A too high moisture content in
the last stages of a steam turbine causes efficiency losses and blade ero-
sion [80,101]. The technical limit is 15 % [99,101] or a minimum exit steam
quality of 85 %. Table 19 provides an overview of the load-dependent val-
ues compared between reference case and Annex integration scenario.
Table 19: Exit steam quality of LPST and BFWPT (minimum/maximum across the
load)

Related boiler capacity (%) 50 … 100 40 … 65 | 70 … 100 45 … 100
Reference  LPST (%): 95.2 … 92.3 92.7 … ––– | ––– … 88.9 96.0 … 92.2
 BFWPT (%): n/a 100 … 96.1 | 95.3 … 90.9 100 … 94.8
EFG-MTG  LPST (%): 94.7 … 92.2 92.3 … ––– | ––– … 88.9 95.4 … 92.0
 BFWPT (%): n/a 100 … 96.5 | 87.0 … 86.3 100 … 94.7
EFG-FT  LPST (%): 94.8 … 92.3 92.5 … ––– | ––– … 88.9 95.5 … 92.2
 BFWPT (%): n/a 95.0 … 93.2 | 88.6 … 87.2 100 … 91.2
FBG-MTG  LPST (%): 94.8 … 92.3 92.4 … ––– | ––– … 88.9 95.6 … 92.1
 BFWPT (%): n/a 100 … 96.4 | 89.1 … 87.5 100 … 94.7
FBG-FT  LPST (%): 94.9 … 92.4 92.6 … ––– | ––– … 88.9 95.6 … 92.2
 BFWPT (%): n/a 94.6 … 93.0 | 89.9 … 87.9 100 … 91.0
In general, an increase of the steam quality can be observed towards min-

imum PP load. This involves less specific work being performed during part
load operation. As for the LPST, it can be explained by the shifted contri-
bution to the total shaft power of the whole steam turbine (↦ Section 3.3.1,
Table 10). Concerning the BFWPT, the specific work demand of the BFWP
provided by the PT decreases more and more upon less pressure drop
across lower load (↦ Section 3.3.2, Figure 23).
Those aspects affect the outlet conditions with Annex integration in a pos-
itive way. At the LPST, only a small drop in exit steam quality occurs until
minimum boiler capacity, while at the BFWPT, the relatively big drop at
nominal PP load is compensated in part load to some extent. However, the
impact of interface A5 is strong especially for FPP-D with EFG-MTG and
the resulting outlet moisture content is close to the maximum.
Interface A3 (EPP only) and A6 (FPP only) do not show any noticeable
influences from technical viewpoint. Moreover, the minimum load of all feed
water heaters is fulfilled.
Besides the steam cycle, the flue gas path is affected by the combustion
of residue and gases. The additional flue gases from the after-burning sec-
tion account for a very small share in the furnace. Maximum ratios in vol.%
(STP,dry) are achieved with FBG-FT reaching merely 2.3 (EPP), 2.4 (FPP-
D) or 3.8 (FPP-M) at minimum boiler capacity. More important is the SO2
concentration – shown in Table 20 – entering the FGD unit with Annex in-
tegration. At nominal EPP load, up to 7.6 % higher amounts of SO2 have
to be deposited. This demand should be manageable by means of the
scrubber’s capacity reserve. Towards minimum boiler capacity, the con-
centration increase almost doubles, which should be handled by not turn-
ing off the fourth spraying level in the absorber as is the case at reference.
Consequently, the specific auxiliary demand of the FDG unit with Annex
integration rises during part load operation. The impact of SO2 is not that
strong at the FPP-D, but as soon as all residue and gases are sent to one
boiler (FPP-M), concentrations grow by up to 23 % compared to the refer-
ence case. Thus, the tougher conditions while mono block operation have
to be taken into account designing the absorber units. The absolute
amounts of SO2 in the upstream flue gas path are low in contrast to similar
power plants operated with sulfur-rich lignite [86,89]. Therefore, they are
considered no technical problem also in relation to dew point corrosion for
example at the combustion air preheater. Flue gas compositions at loca-
tions of interest are provided in Appendix B.3 per plant model and Annex
integration scenario.
Table 20: SO2 concentration at the FGD unit with Annex integration
(minimum/maximum across the load)

Reference (mg/m³ STP,dry) 2,080 2,074 2,074
EFG-MTG (mg/m³ STP,dry) 2,357 … 2,231 2,337 … 2,185 2,535 … 2,291
→ compared to reference (%) 13.4 … 7.2 12.7 … 5.3 22.2 … 10.4
EFG-FT (mg/m³ STP,dry) 2,372 … 2,238 2,352 … 2,191 2,557 … 2,301
FBG-MTG (mg/m³ STP,dry) 2,318 … 2,208 2,299 … 2,169 2,467 … 2,258
FBG-FT (mg/m³ STP,dry) 2,347 … 2,224 2,329 … 2,180 2,514 … 2,281
5.3.2 Efficiency Evaluation

Using Equation 15 the net plant efficiency changes per PP model are cal-
culated across the load and displayed in Figure 34. For comparison, the
respective reference curves and an indication of the deviation range
among the Annex integration scenarios are included.
The net plant efficiencies across the boiler capacity referring to EPP and
FPP-D show a slight to moderate drop for all Annex scenarios. FPP-M is
apparently worse since the temperature drop at interface A4 is more sig-
nificant (↦ Section 5.3.1, Table 18) losing about 4 % of specific enthalpy
against the corresponding FPP-D integration. In addition, higher relative
live steam savings during mono block operation shift the boiler capacity
towards degraded heat exchanger characteristics (↦ Section 3.2.5). By

deviation, the efficiency loss for EPP is smaller than for FPP. Moreover, it
decreases slightly less as the minimum boiler capacity is approached.
Fluctuations around 85 % for FT scenarios can be explained by the inte-
gration of stream ‘MP 30/234’ (↦ Section 5.2.1, Figure 32). Though calcu-
lations were carried out as off-design, the given steam parameters from
the Annex plant fit better with the EPP’s operating conditions. Since they
do not fit those of the FPP as well, the loss of efficiency increases and the
difference even rises – from both reference and among the Annex scenar-
ios – especially for FPP-M.
The best results are achieved with the MTG synthesis scenarios and the
lowest efficiencies for those featuring FT synthesis. An explanation for this
can be provided by the quality of the Annex inputs as described in Sec-
tion 5.1, Figure 31: the MTG synthesis routes are characterized by a high
MP steam supply while the FT synthesis routes are dominated by LP
steam. Minor differences between the corresponding EFG/FBG scenarios
are caused by process-related characteristics, which contribute to the
power plant process with varying degrees of efficiency.
Calculating exergies upon Equation 15, a different picture emerges. Fig-

ure 35 indicates the modeling results analogous to Figure 34, but on ex-
ergy basis. Instead of a loss, there is a gain in exergetic efficiency with
Annex integration.
0,5
0.5
0,0
0.0
-0,5
-0.5
-1.0
-1,0
-1.5
-1,5
-2.0
-2,0
-2.5
-2,5
-3.0
-3,0 EPP reference
EFG-MTG
-3.5
-3,5 EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
-4.0
-4,0 FBG-FT
-4.5
-4,5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
0,5
0.5
0,0
0.0
-0,5
-0.5
-1.0
-1,0
-1.5
-1,5
-2.0
-2,0
-2.5
-2,5
-3.0
-3,0 FPP-D reference
EFG-MTG
-3.5
-3,5 EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
-4.0
-4,0 FBG-FT
-4.5
-4,5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 34: Net plant efficiency change with Annex integration for EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M
and its deviation range from the reference case
0,5
0.5
0,0
0.0
-0,5
-0.5
-1.0
-1,0
-1.5
-1,5
-2.0
-2,0
-2.5
-2,5
-3.0
-3,0 FPP-M reference
EFG-MTG
-3.5
-3,5 EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
-4.0
-4,0 FBG-FT
-4.5
-4,5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
2.0
2,0
1.8
1,8 EPP
FPP-D
deviation range of net plant efficiency loss (pp)
1.6
1,6 FPP-M
1.4
1,4
1.2
1,2
1.0
1,0
0.8
0,8
0.6
0,6
0.4
0,4
0.2
0,2
0.0
0,0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 34: Net plant efficiency change with Annex integration for EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M
and its deviation range from the reference case (continued)
1,5
1.5
1,0
1.0
0,5
0.5
net plant exergy efficiency change (pp)
0.0
0,0
-0.5
-0,5
-1.0
-1,0
-1.5
-1,5
-2.0
-2,0 EPP reference
EFG-MTG
-2.5
-2,5 EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
-3.0
-3,0 FBG-FT
-3.5
-3,5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
1,5
1.5
1,0
1.0
0,5
0.5
0.0
0,0
-0.5
-0,5
-1.0
-1,0
-1.5
-1,5
-2.0
-2,0 FPP-D reference
EFG-MTG
-2.5
-2,5 FBG-FT
FBG-MTG
-3.0
-3,0 FBG-FT
-3.5
-3,5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 35: Net plant exergy efficiency change with Annex integration for EPP/
FPP-D/FPP-M and its deviation range from the reference case
1,5
1.5
1,0
1.0
0,5
0.5
0.0
0,0
-0.5
-0,5
-1.0
-1,0
-1.5
-1,5
-2.0
-2,0 FPP-M reference
EFG-MTG
-2.5
-2,5 EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
-3.0
-3,0 FBG-FT
-3.5
-3,5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
2.0
2,0
1.8
1,8 EPP
deviation range of net plant exergy efficiency gain (pp)
FPP-D
1.6
1,6 FPP-M
1.4
1,4
1.2
1,2
1.0
1,0
0.8
0,8
0.6
0,6
0.4
0,4
0.2
0,2
0.0
0,0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 35: Net plant exergy efficiency change with Annex integration for EPP/
FPP-D/FPP-M and its deviation range from the reference case (continued)
This effect intensifies towards minimum boiler capacity and ranges in sim-
ilar dimension among all PP models. The explanation is that live steam
savings mean less coal input at the boiler enabling a reduction in exergy
losses, which are highest in the power plant process at the furnace respec-
tively steam generator. An evaluation of coal savings follows in the subse-
quent section. The relation of results between the Annex scenarios slightly
change according to the exergetic ranking of Annex inputs (↦ Section 5.1,
Figure 31). Best results are achieved with EFG-MTG due to the strong con-
tribution of MP steam.
The rated thermal input of raw lignite being saved by the heat input of An-
nex streams can be interpreted as an Annex integration (AI) efficiency.
Equation 17 expresses the lignite savings against the individual Annex
heat input:
𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃 − 𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃+𝐴,𝑖
𝜂𝐴𝐼,𝑖 = ∙ 100 % (17)
𝑄̇𝑖
Figure 36 illustrates the resulting efficiencies by Annex stream category,

which are averaged over PP load and the different Annex scenarios (see
limits of variation). Residue and gases are better integrated at the FPP
because of the higher boiler efficiency. As for the steam streams, MP
steam is integrated best at the EPP since it fits closer to the interface’s
operation conditions. However, LP steam contributes less for specific rea-
son: bypassing the LP feed water heating track (ratio amongst scenarios:
10–15 wt.%) means more steam performing work at the turbine but also
more losses via condensation instead of being used for regenerative pre-
heating. At the FPP, the LP steam is integrated more efficiently by design
and at a suitable interface. The little improvement from duo to mono block
operation can be explained by a more beneficial contribution of the steam
inputs during worse part load performance.
Residue & Gases MP steam LP steam
51.5
EPP 67.5
48.6
power plant models
53.9
FPP-D 58.1
51.9
53.9
FPP-M 62.3
55.2
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
individual Annex integration efficiency (%)
Figure 36: Annex integration efficiency per input type and plant model (averaged
over load and scenarios)
Summing up all Annex heat inputs set in relation to the overall lignite sav-
ings via Annex integration provides the total Annex integration efficiency
(AIE):
𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃 − 𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃+𝐴
𝜂𝐴𝐼,𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑙 = ∙ 100 % (18)
∑ 𝑄̇𝑖
On exergy basis, Equation 18 can be adopted to calculate the amount of

exergy from lignite being replaced by the Annex exergy input despite
reaching the same gross electric output – see Equation 19 defining an ex-
ergy replacement factor (ERF).
𝐸̇ ,𝑃𝑃 − 𝐸̇ ,𝑃𝑃+𝐴
𝐸𝑅𝐹 = (19)
∑ 𝐸̇𝑖
Figure 37 provides the results for total AIE and total ERF per PP model
with Annex integration. The energetic efficiencies confirm the previous dis-
cussions. Based on the distribution of the Annex streams (S, R, G) and the
tendencies shown in Figure 36, a ranking from MTG to FT and FBG to EFG
is determined. Though FBG-MTG has the highest AIE, it does not achieve
the best net plant efficiency. This is because of the deviation in MP steam
and residue. Furthermore, the ERF highlights the difference in residue (and
gases) apart from the steam streams. EFG scenarios have a much higher
ERF since the residue comes with FBG scenarios and contains a lot of
exergy. Ultimately, a better ERF compensates the worse AIE and explains
the very close net plant efficiency of EFG-MTG and FBG-MTG. The situa-
tion can be transferred to EFG-FT slightly above FBG-FT.
Besides the evaluation of plant efficiency, a consideration of the overall

Annex concept is important. According to Equation 16, the overall energy
efficiencies across the PP load are listed in Table 21. Amongst the Annex
integration scenarios, differences per PP model derive from the respective
Annex plant product efficiencies (↦ Section 5.1, Table 13).
Table 21: Overall energy efficiency of Annex concepts (minimum/maximum across

the load)

Reference net plant efficiency (%) 32.1 … 35.4 42.3 … 45.3 40.6 … 42.9
Annex EFG-MTG (%) 35.8 … 37.1 44.1 … 45.8 43.6 … 44.4
Annex EFG-FT (%) 34.5 … 36.2 42.7 … 45.2 41.6 … 43.3
Annex FBG-MTG (%) 35.3 … 36.9 43.7 … 45.7 43.1 … 44.1
Annex FBG-FT (%) 34.7 … 36.3 43.0 … 45.4 42.0 … 43.5
Stand-alone PP & EFG-MTG (%) * 33.9 … 37.0 42.2 … 45.7 41.0 … 44.1
Stand-alone PP & EFG-FT (%) * 33.0 … 36.3 41.3 … 45.2 39.6 … 43.2
Stand-alone PP & FBG-MTG (%) * 33.2 … 36.5 41.5 … 45.3 40.0 … 43.5
Stand-alone PP & FBG-FT (%) * 33.0 … 36.3 41.3 …45.2 39.6 … 43.1
𝑄̇ +𝑃𝑒𝑙 ,𝑛𝑒𝑡
*) 𝜂 = 𝑄̇ 𝑃 ∙ 100 % ↦ Section 5.3, Figure 33
𝐿,𝐴 +𝑄̇𝐿,𝑃𝑃
EPP FPP-D FPP-M
72.3
FBG 68.0
68.9
MTG
68.0
EFG 63.7
64.1
57.6
FBG 58.8
57.5
FT
53.1
EFG 54.8
53.0
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76
total Annex integration efficiency (%)
EPP FPP-D FPP-M
1.22
FBG 1.15
1.16
MTG
1.56
EFG 1.46
1.47
1.28
FBG 1.31
1.28
FT
1.60
EFG 1.65
1.60
0.6
0,6 0.8
0,8 1.0
1,0 1.2
1,2 1.4
1,4 1.6
1,6 1.8
2.4
1,8
total Annex exergy replacement factor (‒)
Figure 37: Total Annex integration efficiency and total Annex exergy replacement
factor (averaged over load)
Analyzing the three PP models, the overall efficiency represents an im-

provement against a consideration of stand-alone solutions using the ref-
erence net plant efficiency and Annex plant product efficiency for calcula-
tion via Equation 16. This comparison would assume the Annex streams
being completely used for a separate electricity generation to cover exactly
the Annex auxiliaries. Regardless such aspects, the overall efficiency is
elevated compared to the respective reference net plant efficiency – as
expected the most at the EPP with lowest reference efficiency. During part
load operation of the PP, the overall efficiency does not drop that much
since the Annex plant is run continuously and has a better efficiency itself.
5.3.3 Coal Savings

Despite the loss in net plant efficiency, the heat input when the Annex plant
is integrated results in less coal demand. On the one hand, less live steam
has to be generated (↦ Section 5.3.1, Table 17), on the other hand some
of the integral heat release in the boiler is provided by residue and gases
(↦ Section 5.2.2). Figure 38 indicates the load-dependent curves of rela-
tive coal savings compared to the respective reference case (↦ Sec-
tion 3.3.1, Table 9). The absolute values of saved coal input are listed per
PP model and Annex integration scenario for the related maximum and
minimum load status. Best results are achieved with FBG-MTG due to the
gasifier’s bed ash impact against EFG-MTG.
The curve progressions of coal savings are expected to increase across

part load. For further consideration, the average values over load are pro-
cessed. Referring to the total AIE (↦ Section 5.3.2, Figure 37), it is of in-
terest to evaluate how good coal is saved via Annex integration. This leads
to the already calculated average steam-coal ratios per reference PP
model (↦ Section 3.3.2, Table 11), which are considered as benchmark.
Putting both performance parameters on energy basis into relation indi-
cates a coal savings potential (CSP) – see Equation 20.
𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃 − 𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃+𝐴 𝑄̇ ,𝑃𝑃

𝐶𝑆𝑃 = ( ⁄ ) ∙ 100 % (20)
∑ 𝑄̇𝑖 𝑄̇ 𝑆 − 𝑄̇𝐵𝐹
Adopting this approach to exergy basis results in a ratio between total ERF
and inverse steam-coal ratio defined as exergy replacement potential
(ERP):
𝐸̇ ,𝑃𝑃 − 𝐸̇ ,𝑃𝑃+𝐴 𝐸̇ 𝑆 − 𝐸̇𝐵𝐹

𝐸𝑅𝑃 = ( ⁄ ) ∙ 100 % (21)
∑ 𝐸̇𝑖 𝐸̇ ,𝑃𝑃
Figure 39 displays the calculated numbers (averaged over load) for CSP
and ERP per PP model and Annex integration scenario.
By ranking, the trend from AIE and ERF logically repeats. However, the
deviations between EPP and FPP reveal that FPP-D exploits best the the-
oretical CSP even for MTG scenarios where the total AIE is the lowest.
FPP-M exceeds/undercuts the values of EPP once the Annex inputs con-
tain high shares of LP/MP steam as is the case for FT/MTG scenarios. The
ERP highlights how good the corresponding CSP itself is. For example, the
EFG-FT scenarios have poor CSP values but the best ERP results (espe-
cially FPP-D). Thus, the possibilities for improvements of this Annex inte-
gration – characterized by much LP steam (low exergy) and no residue –
are limited to some extent. In contrast, the FBG-MTG scenarios would
quickly enhance with more efficient contribution of residue and gases or a
higher amount of valuable steam such as the MP steam.
Generally spoken, the steam generation at the Annex plant requires (more)
superheating in order to achieve better Annex integration results from the
power plant’s point of view. CSP and ERP allow a sound comparison for
future/other developments at the Annex plant instead of efficiency evalua-
tions only.
10
EFG-MTG
9
EFG-FT
coal savings compared to EPP reference (wt.%)
FBG-MTG
8
FBG-FT
1
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
10
EFG-MTG
9
EFG-FT
coal savings compared to FPP-D reference (wt.%)
FBG-MTG
8
FBG-FT
1
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 38: Coal savings compared to EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M reference case

10
EFG-MTG
9
EFG-FT
coal savings compared to FPP-M reference (wt.%)
FBG-MTG
8
FBG-FT
1
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Coal savings EPP FPP-D FPP-M
EFG-MTG 5.6 5.1 5.5

(kg/s) 5.1 4.9 4.6
EFG-FT 3.8 4.3 4.3

(kg/s) 4.3 3.9 3.6
FBG-MTG 6.6 6.2 6.5

(kg/s) 6.2 5.8 5.7
FBG-FT 4.5 5.1 5.1

(kg/s) 5.1 4.7 4.4
Figure 38: Coal savings compared to EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M reference case (continued)

EPP FPP-D FPP-M
52.9
FBG 53.6
52.3
MTG
49.7
EFG 50.2
48.6
42.1
FBG 46.3
43.6
FT
38.8
EFG 43.2
40.2
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
coal savings potential (%)
EPP FPP-D FPP-M
43.3
FBG 46.9
45.4
MTG
55.4
EFG 59.8
57.4
45.4
FBG 53.5
49.9
FT
56.8
EFG 67.5
62.3
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68
exergy replacement potential (%)
Figure 39: Coal savings potential and exergy replacement potential (averaged over
load)
5.3.4 CO2 Emissions

Since less coal has to be burnt at the power plant with Annex integration,
all scenarios show a small reduction in the specific CO2 emissions in com-
parison with the reference cases. Figure 40 illustrates the findings among
the Annex scenarios including a list of specific CO2 emissions regarding
the maximum/minimum PP load status.
Less CO2 emissions mean the residue and gases are contributing more
efficiently than the coal because of their better heating value. Moreover,
the abatement via coal savings exceeds the CO2 load in the gases and the
additional formation of CO2 through combustion. The highest reduction in
specific CO2 emissions can be achieved with EFG-MTG, which corre-
sponds to the net plant efficiency results. From FPP-D to FPP-M, savings
double at nominal load but this effect diminishes towards part load due to
worse PP performance.
Bearing in mind that CO2 is also released at the Annex plant after syngas
scrubbing and during some steps of chemical synthesis, an overall view is
important – see Table 22. In the particular case of coupling power genera-
tion with EFG-MTG, the CO2 emissions at the power plant (either EPP or
FPP) are lowered by around 5 kg/s. However, this is only a reduction in the
total CO2 emissions via the Annex concept in contrast to the respective
emissions for stand-alone solutions, because 11.5 kg/s of CO2 are emitted
at the Annex plant despite integration.
Table 22: CO2 emissions at power plant (mean boiler capacity) for reference case
and Annex integration in relation to total CO2 emissions by Annex concept
or respective stand-alone solutions
CO2 emissions Reference EFG FBG

(kg/s) power plant MTG FT MTG FT
Annex plant 11.5 12.8 10.1 11.4
EPP only 147.3 142.2 142.8 142.9 143.5

EPP & Annex 153.7 155.6 153.0 154.9
Stand-alone solutions 158.8 160.1 157.4 158.7
→ Annex concept CO2 benefit 5.1 4.5 4.4 3.8
FPP-D only 185.7 181.1 181.6 181.9 182.2

FPP-D & Annex 192.6 194.4 192.0 193.6
FPP-M only 100.1 95.2 95.8 96.0 96.5

FPP-M & Annex 106.7 108.6 106.1 107.9
Appendix B.3 comprises flue gas compositions at locations of interest.

10
EFG-MTG
9
CO2 emissions savings compared to EPP reference (%)
EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
8
FBG-FT
1
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
10
EFG-MTG
CO2 emissions savings compared to FPP-D reference (%)
9
EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
8
FBG-FT
1
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
Figure 40: CO2 emissions savings compared to EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M reference case

10
EFG-MTG
CO2 emissions savings compared to FPP-M reference (%)
9
EFG-FT
FBG-MTG
8
FBG-FT
1
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
boiler capacity (%)
CO2 savings EPP FPP-D FPP-M
EFG-MTG 35 16 37
(g/kWh) 76 44 70
EFG-FT 25 14 31
(g/kWh) 68 37 60
FBG-MTG 29 14 32
(g/kWh) 64 37 59
FBG-FT 20 12 26
(g/kWh) 59 31 50
Figure 40: CO2 emissions savings compared to EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M reference case

(continued)
5.4 Preferential Technology Combination 109
5.4 Preferential Technology Combination
The discussion of results – gathered in Table 23 – identifies one most pref-

erential Annex integration scenario from PP viewpoint: EFG-MTG, which
is also determined as the best Annex plant (↦ Section 5.1, Table 13) [18].
Hence, the next section focuses on it.
Table 23: Overview of the results discussion via ranking of criteria per PP model
with Annex integration
Ranking (criteria) EPP FPP-D FPP-M

⍟ best/first
FBG-MTG
FBG-MTG
FBG-MTG
EFG-MTG
EFG-MTG
EFG-MTG
+ second
FBG-FT
FBG-FT
FBG-FT
EFG-FT
EFG-FT
EFG-FT
• third
▬ worst/fourth
NPE ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ • + ▬ + • ⍟ ▬
NPEE ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ + • ▬
AIE / CSP + ▬ ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ •
ERF / ERP + ⍟ ▬ • + ⍟ ▬ • + ⍟ ▬ •
LS savings ⍟ + ▬ • ⍟ + ▬ • ⍟ + ▬ •
Coal savings + ▬ ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ •
CO2 savings ⍟ • + ▬ ⍟ + • ▬ ⍟ + • ▬
NP(E)E: net plant (exergy) efficiency

6. Evaluation of Preferential Technology Combination
Further evaluation of the Annex integration via EFG-MTG is performed for

all three power plant models to answer the following four questions (see
subsequent sections):
(1) How is the impact of water electrolysis on the stream outputs of the
Annex plant and finally the power plant process?
(2) What is the minimum achievable power feed to the grid via Annex
concept without and including water electrolysis?
(3) Is it possible to install a second Annex plant line identical in construc-
tion thus doubling both the production capacity and the stream inputs
for integration?
(4) How does an improvement of the Annex steam parameters affect the
PP process?
6.1 Electrolysis Integration
Further CO2 emissions can be prevented by incorporating external hydro-

gen from water electrolysis at the Annex plant, allowing a higher carbon
retention in the chemical product. As described in Section 2.3, the addi-
tional electricity demand can be well satisfied during periods of high pene-
tration of renewable energy sources. This improves the power plant’s load
elasticity seen from the grid (↦ Section 2.3, Figure 4). The input streams
to the power plant undergo changes as follows: as a result of the higher
bypass around the CO-shift section, less steam is generated at that pro-
cess step. In return, an increased product yield raises the amount of both
steam and gases from the chemical synthesis. Altogether, the heat input
from the Annex plant increases.

112 6. Evaluation of Preferential Technology Combination
Referring data was again extracted from a separate/related study

[141,169] and handled as fixed boundary condition. In this study, different
operation scenarios were conducted for the integration of alkaline water
electrolysis at EFG-MTG. When evaluating the power plant process, two
cases are of interest as theoretical approaches regardless of any economic
consideration. They comprise the average conditions and the maximum
possible impact of the Annex plant, each expressed via yearly averaged
values.
▪ H2AVG: The electrolyzer is operated at minimum load throughout the

year with the electricity demand covered by the power plant. In the case
of a cheap renewable energy supply, the electrolyzer load is adjusted
to these conditions.
▪ H2MAX: The electrolyzer is run at full load throughout the year, com-
pletely supplied by the power plant as long as renewable energy (grid
supply) is too expensive.
Table 24 summarizes the numbers of electrolysis integration in compari-

son to the regular process chain of syngas-based chemical synthesis being
evaluated in Section 5.3. Although there is quite a difference in the load
case of the electrolyzer between H2AVG and H2MAX, the overall impact
on the power plant is not significant. A minor decline in MP steam but a
multiplication of LP steam plus an increase in the heat input by gases (no
residue with EFG-MTG) results in a total rise by up to 7 %.
6.1 Electrolysis Integration 113
Table 24: Energy balance and performance characteristics of EFG-MTG cases (data
mostly from [141,169])
Parameter Unit EFG-MTG +H2AVG +H2MAX
MW(th) * 200.0 200.0 200.0

Dry coal input
kg/s 9.76 9.76 9.76
MW(th) * 104.9 121.5 134.8
Product output
kg/s 2.45 2.80 3.11
Stream output MW(th) 72.8 (+4.1 %) 75.8 (+7.0 %) 77.9
– MP steam MW(th) 62.0 61.9 61.9
– LP steam MW(th) 0.2 2.6 4.0
– Gas release MW(th) * 10.6 11.3 12.0
Stream exergy MW 32.9 (+4.6 %) 34.4 (+8.2 %) 35.6
a b a
kg/MWh 599.9 644.6/562.3 766.2/485.2 b
Direct & indirect
CO2 emissions 1 kg/s (direct) 11.5 10.1 9.4
a
kg/s (indirect) 6.0 11.7/8.9 b a
19.2/8.7 b
Auxiliary demand MW(el) 19.6 18.1 16.6
– Coal preparation MW(el) 3.4 3.4 3.4
– Air separation MW(el) 9.4 7.7 6.1
– Gasification MW(el) 1.1 1.1 1.1
– Gas treatment MW(el) 2.2 2.1 1.9
– MeOH synthesis MW(el) 2.3 2.6 2.9
– MTG synthesis MW(el) 1.2 1.2 1.2
Electrolysis demand MW(el) 0.0 29.6 55.9
Grid supply MW(el) 0.0 19.2 19.2
Total demand 2 MW(el) 19.6 28.5 53.3
Product efficiency 3 % 52.5 55.3 56.8
Thermal efficiency 4 % 88.9 89.8 89.6
Annex efficiency 5 % 80.9 75.5 70.5
Product yield % ** 25.15 28.68 31.83
Carbon retention % 38.71 44.14 48.98
*) based on LHV | **) mass basis | 1) direct: Annex plant; indirect: grid supply; specific: per product output
2) to be covered by the power plant | 3) product output only | 4) product output and stream outputs
5) thermal efficiency including auxiliaries | water electrolysis (η = 67 %) considered as effort of Annex plant
a) current grid supply: 560 g/kWh | b) future grid supply: 40 g/kWh
The total electricity demand of the Annex plant includes its auxiliaries and
the electric input to the electrolysis not being supplied by the grid. The pre-
dicted CO2 emissions also comprise the indirect portion, which derive from
the German grid electricity (mixed generation via conventional and renew-
able energy sources). Within the sour and residual gases, the fraction of
CO2 marginally decreases since less CO has to be shifted. Slightly more
H2S and COS arrive at the PP for treatment. There are no fundamental
changes in composition for H2AVG and H2MAX as can be seen in Ta-
ble 25 compared to the data of the regular case (↦ Section 5.2.2, Ta-
ble 16).
Table 25: Composition (at STP,wet) of the sour and residual gases from EFG-MTG
cases
Compo- EFG-MTG-H2AVG EFG-MTG-H2MAX

sition
(vol.%) SG RG-M1 RG-M2 RG-MTG SG RG-M1 RG-M2 RG-MTG
CO 0.00 6.37 5.10 0.97 0.00 6.05 4.92 0.97

H2 0.00 76.49 50.58 1.86 0.00 77.44 51.85 1.86
CH4 0.00 0.42 0.53 48.17 0.00 0.40 0.52 48.17
H2S 39.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
COS 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
N2 0.00 11.56 7.06 0.00 0.00 11.25 6.95 0.00
Ar 0.00 3.11 4.00 0.00 0.00 3.01 3.94 0.00
O2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2 57.06 1.52 9.62 3.43 55.99 1.32 8.41 3.43
H2O 1.23 0.02 0.37 0.01 1.23 0.02 0.35 0.01
C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20
C3H8 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.35
C4H10 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.59
C5H12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42
CH3OH 0.00 0.53 22.74 0.00 0.00 0.53 23.06 0.00
6.2 Minimum Power Feed to the Grid 115
Table 26 shows the modeling results upon load range per PP model.
Table 26: Comparison of modeling results for EFG-MTG with/without water

electrolysis
Parameter (unit) PP model EFG-MTG +H2AVG +H2MAX
EPP 32.0 … 35.1 32.0 … 35.1 32.0 … 35.1

Net plant
FPP-D 41.5 … 44.8 41.4 … 44.8 41.4 … 44.8
efficiency (%)
FPP-M 39.0 … 42.3 38.9 … 42.2 38.9 … 42.2
Coal savings EPP 5.2 … 3.0 5.3 … 3.1 5.5 … 3.1

compared to FPP-D 4.7 … 2.0 4.8 … 2.1 4.9 … 2.1
reference (%) FPP-M 7.6 … 4.2 7.7 … 4.3 7.9 … 4.4
CO2 emissions per EPP 1,174 … 1,102 1,173 … 1,101 1,171 … 1,100
gross electric FPP-D 911 … 874 909 … 873 908 … 872
output (g/kWh) FPP-M 923 … 903 921 … 902 919 … 901
CO2 emissions per EPP 1,253 … 1,138 1,290 … 1,155 1,411 … 1,206
power feed to the FPP-D 955 … 890 974 … 898 1,039 … 920
grid (g/kWh) FPP-M 1,005 … 938 1,046 … 955 1,183 … 1,005
EPP: 50–100 % | FPP-D: 40–100 % | FPP-M: 45–100 %
The EPP performance by efficiency is affected so little that there is not any
notable change. In contrast, the absolute coal savings are best across the
load. The FPP shows a better part load coal saving but the net efficiency
slightly degrades compared with the regular Annex scenario because of
the low contribution of LP steam. As for the CO2 emissions reduction, the
abatement at the power plant is almost negligible and takes place at the
Annex plant instead (↦ Table 24). If the benefit of Annex integration in
terms of a reduction of minimum power feed to the grid was taken into
account, the specific CO2 emissions would rise by calculation as expected.
6.2 Minimum Power Feed to the Grid
The far greater effect of electrolyzer integration at the Annex plant is in-
duced by the auxiliary power demand. Seen from the electric grid, the
power plant’s minimum load can be reduced considerably – as illustrated
in detail in Figure 41.
100 PP reference case
100
100
98
97
95
90
92
relative power feed to the grid (%)
80 Annex integration
70
Annex integration
60 including water
electrolysis
50
49
48
48
48
40
44
Annex integration
43
39
38
is averaged among
35
30
all scenarios
20
22
21
EFG-MTG and
18
10 H2MAX for water
0 electrolysis
EPP FPP-D FPP-M
Figure 41: Relative power feed to the grid in relation to PP reference case – bars
indicate range between nominal (top) and minimum (bottom) plant load
Compared to the reference case, the PP’s net electric output can be low-
ered via Annex integration by at least 1–3 pp. At minimum plant load, the
benefit almost diminishes because the minimum boiler capacity is fixed and
the steam from the Annex plant generates additional electricity instead of
saving live steam at the PP (↦ Section 5.3.1). On average among the con-
sidered scenarios, there is an electricity demand of 18 MW(el). This de-
mand could grow to 53 MW(el), which refers to the maximum possible con-
sumption at the Annex plant (EFG-MTG) with the electrolyzer at full load
(H2MAX). Then the lowest power feed to the grid lies 4–5 pp or 10–18 %
below that of the corresponding stand-alone power plant. Evaluating the
grid interconnection point associated with the location of the Annex con-
cept, the balance would include the grid supply (↦ Section 6.1, Table 24).
Hence, the minimum power feed is reduced by another 19 MW(el) resulting
in a relative minimum of 40/34/16 % (EPP/FPP-D/FPP-M) and a decrease
by 5–8 pp or 13–27 %.
6.3 Expansion of the Annex Plant Capacity 117
6.3 Expansion of the Annex Plant Capacity
The Annex concepts evaluated in this work have a gasifier of 200 MW(th)
input capacity. Investment costs for the Annex plant can be reduced by up
to 17 % [18]. Wolfersdorf et al. [17] assessed Annex concepts with a 2.5
times higher rated thermal input. There, the cost benefit reaches up to
21 %. An economy of scale can be observed.
Instead of increasing the size of the gasifier and the downstream syngas-
based chemical synthesis, a doubling of the Annex plant by installation of
a second line identical in construction is a reasonable alternative. This
leads also to a doubling of the Annex inputs. The following investigation
will show whether the doubled amount of stream flows can be managed at
the PP or not. Among all Annex scenarios, the highest stream input possi-
ble comes from EFG-MTG-H2MAX. Consequently, it is used for simulation
checking the technical limits. At first, Table 27 provides the referring mod-
eling results of interest. Then Table 28 gives insight into the technical con-
siderations.
Table 27: Comparison of modeling results for regular and doubled EFG-MTG-H2MAX
Parameter (unit) PP model EFG-MTG-H2MAX 2x EFG-MTG-H2MAX
EPP 32.2 … 35.1 32.5 … 34.7

Net plant
FPP-D 41.4 … 44.8 40.6 … 44.3
efficiency (%)
FPP-M 39.2 … 42.2 37.6 … 41.5
Net plant EPP 32.4 … 34.6 34.3 … 35.1

exergy FPP-D 41.6 … 43.9 42.5 … 44.2
efficiency (%) FPP-M 40.4 … 42.0 41.5 … 42.9
Coal savings EPP 5.6 … 3.2 12.0 … 6.2

compared to FPP-D 4.7 … 2.1 9.9 … 4.3
reference (%) FPP-M 7.6 … 4.4 15.3 … 8.8
CO2 emissions EPP 4.7 … 3.0 9.6 … 6.2

savings compared FPP-D 4.8 … 1.9 9.4 … 3.8
to reference (%) FPP-M 6.8 … 4.0 13.6 … 8.2
EPP: 55–100 % | FPP-D: 40–100 % | FPP-M: 50–100 %
Table 28: Technical considerations for 2x EFG-MTG-H2MAX inputs

(minimum/maximum across the load)
Parameter (unit) EPP FPP-D FPP-M

EFG-MTG-H2MAX LS savings (%) 5.6 … 3.1 5.4 … 1.7 8.3 … 5.1
Live steam savings (%) 9.1 … 6.1 9.8 … 3.5 16.6 … 9.9
Exit steam quality LPST (%) 94.2 … 92.3 91.9 … 88.9 94.8 … 91.9
Exit steam quality BFWPT (%) n/a 100 … 81.8 100 … 94.9
SO2 concentration (mg/m³) * 2,607 … 2,378 2,585 … 2,291 2,962 … 2,508
*) at STP,dry | EPP: 55–100 % | FPP-D: 40–100 % | FPP-M: 50–100 %
Compared to the regular Annex scenario, the trends from stand-alone PP

to Annex integration continue for doubling the Annex plant. The net plant
efficiency further declines while the exergy efficiency increases. Coal and
CO2 emissions savings more than double especially when the plant load is
at a minimum. This means an improvement of the total AIE as the amount
of Annex inputs (unchanged parameters/composition) grows: on average
load by 2.4 % (EPP), 1.1 % (FPP-D) and 0.3 % (FPP-M). Major reason is
that the stream inputs shift the PP process respectively the steam cycle
clearly towards part load, which is subject to increasingly stronger degra-
dation compared to the related reference load status. Then the benefit via
Annex input has greater influence.
Live steam savings approximately double at maximum gross electric out-

put. In the simulation, some restrictions or modifications arise across the
load. The EPP with Annex integration reaches 50 % of boiler capacity al-
ready at 55 % of gross electric output and the FPP-M is at minimum steam
cycle load with 50 % of gross electricity generation. Stream ‘MP 50/264’
has to be switched from interface A5 to interface A4 already below 80 %
of boiler capacity since the total injection into the BFWPT feed line (inter-
face A5) would exceed the original steam flow. From technical viewpoint,
the LS savings at the EPP and FPP-D approach the technical limit of 10 %
towards minimum plant load. However, at the FPP-M, this limit is exceeded
from the beginning. As a consequence, the FPP design has to take such
6.4 Improvement of the Annex Steam Parameters 119
situation during mono block operation into account. For the EPP, the oper-
ation conditions are still considered technically viable.
Concerning the exit steam quality of the steam turbines, there is only a
critical state at the BFWPT (< 85 %) during FPP-D operation with Annex
integration. Maintaining an appropriate specific inlet steam enthalpy (PP
reference: 3,157 kJ/kg) to comply with the maximum outlet moisture con-
tent would require less degrading steam injection at interface A5, i.e. a
distribution of some MP steam (e.g. ‘MP 40/251’) to interface A6. The sit-
uation is solved below 70 % of boiler capacity when interface A4 is used.
Another impact of interest is the SO2 concentration at the inlet of the FGD
unit due to the doubled amount of sour and residual gases. Compared to
the reference cases, the numbers rise from 10 % to almost 25 % of addi-
tional SO2 for separation across the load. For the FPP operated with one
boiler, this input intensifies: 21–42 %. For this reason, installing the Annex
plant via retrofit requires further adjustments in the FGD absorber such as
particular tray installations or modified spraying [170]. By design (FPP-
D/M), extreme operation conditions can be initially considered.
Answering question #3 (↦ Section 6), the integration of Annex streams

from two plants with 400 MW(th) overall coal input can be managed at both
the EPP and FPP whilst the above-described changes are implemented.
Relatively spoken, this Annex plant capacity corresponds to 23 % (EPP) or
17/34 % (FPP-D/M) of the power plant’s rated thermal input. Applying the
doubled Annex auxiliary demand to the net electric output, the minimum
relative power feed to the grid drops to 38 % (EPP) or 32/14 % (FPP-D/M)
in relation to the PP reference.
6.4 Improvement of the Annex Steam Parameters
Referring to the outcome of Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, an improvement of the

steam parameters is expected to rise the Annex integration efficiency. In
terms of the integration concept (↦ Section 5.2.1, Figure 32), superheating
plays a more important role than higher pressure levels because the steam
is throttled at the interfaces anyway. However, there are technical limita-

tions for steam temperatures as explained in Section 5.2.
A preliminary investigation considering 25 K of superheating – which might

be technically feasible via certain effort – for all MP steam streams of sce-
nario EFG-MTG-H2MAX was made. The mass flows of these inputs were
reduced to meet the same heat input as the regular parameterization. No
changes (numerical variations of few thousandths only) in performance
could be observed.
Therefore, regardless the technical feasibility at the Annex plant, all the MP
steam streams are assumed being uniformly superheated by 100 K (ex-
ergy then increases by 3.1 %). Calculations are carried out per PP model
and the average results are compared to the initial situation. Table 29 con-
tains the performance characteristics, which were presented in Section 5.3
for evaluation.
According to the minor change in exergy of the Annex inputs, the net plant
energy and exergy efficiency improve only in the area of hundredths thus
indicating the same numbers per PP model – except for FPP-M where en-
ergy efficiency is elevated by 0.1 pp across the load. Since all MP steam
temperatures are now above 350 °C, there is no temperature drop at inter-
face A4 (↦ Section 5.1, Table 15) anymore. Coal savings and relating
thereto CO2 emissions savings increase by 0.1 pp due to slightly higher
live steam savings. This effect intensifies at the FPP-M when the plant load
is at a minimum and the operation conditions are worse.
As for the performance characteristics, a comparison with scenario EFG-

MTG is also made. Though more exergy (and energy) arrives via the An-
nex inputs including water electrolysis, the numbers consistently decline.
The explanation is that the specific exergy (and enthalpy) stays the same.
Only when the steam parameters are improved, the total AIE, CSP, ERF
and ERP increase and partly even exceed the performance of EFG-MTG.
Changes between regular and improved integration are distinctly better at
the FPP, especially during mono block operation. At interface A4, the spe-
6.4 Improvement of the Annex Steam Parameters 121
cific enthalpy of injected Annex steam lies 2.7–5.8 % (minimum to maxi-

mum load status) higher than the one of available FPP-M steam. Com-
pared to the FPP-D’s operation conditions, this raise is merely 0–2.2 %
explaining the many times greater effect at the FPP-M.
Table 29: Comparison of performance characteristics between regular and

improved EFG-MTG-H2MAX
regular improved
Parameter (unit) PP model
EFG-MTG-H2MAX EFG-MTG-H2MAX
EPP 31.9 … 35.1 31.9 … 35.1

Net plant
FPP-D 41.4 … 44.8 41.4 … 44.8
efficiency (%)
FPP-M 38.9 … 42.2 39.0 … 42.3
Net plant EPP 25.0 … 26.9 25.0 … 26.9

exergy FPP-D 32.4 … 34.1 32.4 … 34.1
efficiency (%) FPP-M 31.5 … 32.7 31.5 … 32.7
Coal savings EPP 6.4 … 3.2 6.5 … 3.3

compared to FPP-D 5.0 … 2.1 5.1 … 2.2
reference (%) FPP-M 8.1 … 4.4 8.6 … 4.5
CO2 emissions EPP 6.4 … 3.2 6.5 … 3.3

savings compared FPP-D 4.8 … 1.9 5.0 … 2.0
to reference (%) FPP-M 7.4 … 4.0 7.9 … 4.3
Average total EPP [68.0] * 67.5 (+4.5 %) 70.5

Annex integration FPP-D [63.7] * 61.1 (+6.5 %) 65.0
efficiency (%) FPP-M [64.1] * 61.8 (+25.1 %) 77.3
Average EPP [49.7] * 49.3 (+4.5 %) 51.5

coal savings FPP-D [50.2] * 48.2 (+6.6 %) 51.4
potential (%) FPP-M [48.6] * 46.8 (+24.5 %) 58.3
Average exergy EPP [1.56] * 1.53 (+3.2 %) 1.58

replacement FPP-D [1.46] * 1.38 (+5.1 %) 1.46
factor (–) FPP-M [1.47] * 1.40 (+23.5 %) 1.73
Average exergy EPP [55.4] * 54.0 (+3.2 %) 55.8

replacement FPP-D [59.8] * 56.3 (+5.2 %) 59.2
potential (%) FPP-M [57.4] * 54.6 (+23.3 %) 67.3
*) data of EFG-MTG scenario | EPP: 50–100 % | FPP-D: 40–100 % | FPP-M: 45–100 %
7. Summary and Conclusion
Within the scope of this work, the coupling of power generation with syn-
gas-based chemical synthesis was investigated according to the so-called
‘Polygeneration-Annex’ concept. The overall intention was to assess in de-
tail the integration of incoming streams by the Annex plant from power plant
point of view across its full load range. Analyses are done by flowsheet
simulation. As a feedstock, mixed Rhenish lignite has been used.
The pulverized coal combustion power plant process is covered by two

generic technical states: an existing 650 MW(el) power plant and a near
future 1,100 MW(el) power plant with duo block design and dry lignite co-
firing. This leads to three power plant cases – the existing one (EPP) and
the future one either during duo or mono block operation (FPP-D or FPP-
M). Modeling comprises both the flue gas path and the water-steam circuit.
The parameterization of the design conditions as well as the part load be-
havior are mainly based on data from the literature. Any adjustment or
modification is presented in this work. Parts of the models can be consid-
ered as verified referring to other scientific work or findings. In total, the
power plants have been validated upon part load performance via net plant
efficiency against published plant models of comparable operation condi-
tion. Thereby, a proper representation of auxiliary power has great impact.
Hence, this work permits insight into the load-dependent distribution of
electricity demands. The stand-alone power plants were considered as ref-
erence cases for the comparisons with Annex integration. For this purpose,
the reference basis per load status is defined by the gross electric output,
which is uniformly set for every Annex scenario.
Data about the Annex plant was taken from an external study. Four sce-
narios of entrained-flow or fluidized-bed gasification (EFG or FBG) each
combined with methanol-based gasoline (MTG) or low-temperature
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis have been analyzed. The available input
streams (to the power plant) of carbonaceous residue, sour and residual
gases, and medium or low pressure steam were analyzed for integration.
Up to six appropriate interfaces have been identified and determined at the
124 7. Summary and Conclusion
existing and future power plant depending on the load status. The simula-
tion of the four Annex integration scenarios was carried out per plant case
(EPP handled as off-design retrofit, FPP as new design), which underwent
an evaluation considering technical viability, energy and exergy efficiency,
coal savings and CO2 emissions savings. Concerning the stream integra-
tions and modeling results, several conclusions can be made:
▪ Residue and gases are suggested to be thermally treated in the after-

burning section of the boiler. Preferred interfaces for MP steam are the
cold reheat pipeline (EPP, FPP) and the feed line of the power turbine
for the boiler feed water pump (FPP). LP steam is either sent to the
fluidized-bed drying unit (FPP) or fed into an additional feed water
heater bypassing the existing LP feed water heating track (EPP). Slid-
ing pressure operation at the power plant enables a switch of interfaces
for MP steam across the load. Incoming steam streams above 40 bar
are collected and throttled to the respective interface pressure level.
▪ As a consequence of the heat input from the Annex (corresponding to

3.9 % or 2.7/5.1 % of the nominal heat transmission to the steam cycle
in the EPP or FPP-D/M boilers), less live steam has to be generated
and less coal has to be combusted in the boiler. The latter is also justi-
fied by the heat release of residue and gases. Best live steam savings
are achieved with EFG-MTG, highest coal savings are reached with
FBG-MTG. This can be explained by the big amount of MP steam via
EFG and MTG and the bed ash impact via FBG. Technical considera-
tions reveal that there are no limitations for integration.
▪ Concerning emissions, the combustion of residue and gases forms ad-

ditional CO2 and especially SO2. Arriving at the flue gas desulfurization
unit, the SO2 concentration rises towards minimum plant load. Com-
pared to the reference case, up to 14 % (EPP) or 13/23 % (FPP-D/M)
more SO2 has to be separated. At the EPP, the increase should be
manageable by means of the scrubber’s capacity reserve. However, it
must be taken into account already by design that operating the FPP
with mono block means the full impact of Annex inputs to one boiler and
its downstream flue gas treatment. Since less coal has to be burnt, the
7. Summary and Conclusion 125
CO2 emissions are reduced. This decline even compensates the CO 2

load in the Annex gases and the further release via combustion. In con-
trast to stand-alone solutions, the Annex concept has an advantage of
up to 3.2 % CO2 reduction despite the CO2 emissions occurring at the
Annex plant.
▪ On energy basis, the Annex integration degrades the net plant effi-
ciency by a few tenths of percentage points, because the Annex steam
is merely saturated and does not completely fit to the respective inter-
face conditions. The EPP performs better than the FPP in general and
during part load in particular. Expressing the coal savings over the An-
nex heat input as an integration efficiency, 53–72 % of the rated thermal
input can be substituted on average. Set in relation to the ratio between
coal consumption and respective live steam generation (considered as
benchmark), 39–54 % of the potential is exploited on average. Among
the power plant models, minor differences per Annex scenario result
from the individual integration efficiencies of MP and LP steam as well
as residue and gases, which are also presented in this work.
▪ On exergy basis, the net plant exergy efficiency is improved via Annex
integration due to the related coal savings. High exergy losses at the
boiler (furnace and steam generation) can be avoided. Thus, the Annex
inputs replace 1.5–2.1 times as much exergy originally deriving from
the coal. Adopting the steam-coal ratio relationship, this range equals
43–68 % of the maximum possible replacement.
These findings revealed scenario EFG-MTG as the preferential technology

combination from power plant viewpoint. This also confirmed the outcome
of the already existing technological assessment of the different Annex
plants. Based again on external data about the Annex plant, the evaluation
was continued for Annex integration with alkaline water electrolysis. Be-
sides a quantification of lowering the minimal power feed to the grid via
Annex concept, simulations with changed Annex inputs apart from fixed
boundary conditions have been carried out. The following conclusions can
be drawn:
▪ An improved Annex product yield by incorporation of hydrogen rises the

amount of the heat input to the power plant. Compared to the regular
EFG-MTG scenario, this increase is up to 7 % by case ‘H2MAX’. How-
ever, except of a slight improvement of coal savings, no other notable
influences are observed. Considered as the highest heat impact from
the Annex plant to the power plant process, the viability of Annex inte-
gration including water electrolysis is proven.
▪ Seen from the electric grid, the power plant’s minimum power feed can
be considerably reduced. Just the Annex plant with its auxiliary demand
permits a lowering by 1–3 pp compared to the reference case. The far
greater effect is induced by the electrolyzer’s electricity consumption
enhancing the reduction up to 5 pp. Including the electricity supplied by
the grid (base load of the electrolyzer) in the balance at the locally af-
fected grid interconnection point, the Annex concept could significantly
relieve a situation with high penetration of renewable energy sources.
At the EPP’s location, the minimum power impact decreases by up to
17 %. The FPP with its duo block design has a larger range of 27 %
(against regularly 13 %) once mono block operation takes place.
▪ Assuming a considerably bigger Annex plant capacity – e.g. by instal-

lation of a second identical plant line – the integration of Annex streams
was checked for doubled mass flows of same composition/condition.
From a technical point of view, the EPP can still manage this impact,
but the live steam savings approach a technical limit of 10 % and further
adjustments or restrictions have to be accepted. A reduction of the
boiler capacity means a respective reduction of the firing. According to
a separate study, bypassing the power plant’s steam generation – here
via injection of Annex steam – affects the reheater’s performance (pri-
marily a drop of outlet temperature) beginning from the above-men-
tioned share. Increasing SO2 concentrations require a retrofit of the flue
gas desulfurization unit. In addition, the minimum net electric output is
limited to 55 % since the minimum boiler capacity is meanwhile
reached. At the FPP, selected steam integrations have to be changed
across the load because of a too strong impact at the related interface,
7. Summary and Conclusion 127
such as an excess of the maximum outlet moisture content of 15 % at

the power turbine for the boiler feed water pump. Moreover, mono block
operation causes additional restrictions. Concerning the live steam sav-
ings, the technical limit is exceeded hence requiring a respective con-
sideration in the boiler by design. The minimum boiler capacity of 45 %
occurs already at 50 % net electric output. The flue gas desulfurization
process has to be designed for a much higher SO2 load to be able to
handle the impact as soon as one block is shut down. In view of these
facts, an Annex plant capacity of 400 MW(th) coal input can be consid-
ered as the upper limit for integration with both the EPP and the FPP.
▪ Referring to the energy/exergy discussion of Annex integration, im-

proved MP steam parameters were assessed for scenario EFG-MTG-
H2MAX. Keeping the energy input the same, a uniform superheating by
100 K increases the exergy by 3 %. This leads to a rise of the relative
coal savings at nominal load by 2–5 %. The best influence (quantified
by the performance indicators as presented in this work) can be ob-
served with the FPP at mono block operation during part load.
All investigations excluded economic considerations for the Annex integra-

tion (plus the Annex plant). It is obvious that financial aspects predomi-
nantly determine a decision for the Annex concept. As for the two types of
power plants, the EPP will be the more favorable solution since a retrofit is
less expensive and the benefits from Annex integration such as coal sav-
ings are at a similar level as the FPP. Although there is a far greater load
elasticity at the FPP, mono block operation requires a lot of additional de-
sign considerations. Apart from that, further operational aspects should be
taken into account for any power plant with Annex integration as follows:
▪ A safety system is needed for the Annex stream integrations. Concern-

ing the gases, a flare is the method of choice. Carbonaceous residue
could be put into interim storage. The arriving steam would be sent to
direct condensation bypassing all injections.
▪ The Annex plant is intended to be run at highest-possible capacity utili-

zation. Due to the flexible load operation of the power plant, the situa-
tion has to be considered where the power plant has to be shut down
even though the Annex concept reduces this incidence. The reason
could be a particular situation in the electric grid (stabilization request,
unattractive energy market), a technical incident or a planned revision.
Then the above-described safety system applies or the Annex plant
also has to be shut down.
▪ As an alternative to direct condensation of the Annex steam whilst the

power plant is offline, two more potential uses are conceivable. If locally
available, the steam could be fed into a steam collecting track. Further-
more, the Annex steam could be used for heating specific plant compo-
nents (water-steam circuit) in order to permit higher temperature gradi-
ents during a restart event. Thus, time and cost savings are possible.
In conclusion, the role of coal-based power generation and especially that

of lignite-fired power plants in Germany will continue to change in the near
future. Moving towards more flexible power plant operation and using
coal/lignite as materials at the same time presents a reasonable approach.
References
[1] International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics. Paris;

09/2016
[2] Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien. Der Strommix in Deutschland
im Jahr 2015. Berlin; 08/2016
[3] Umweltbundesamt. Bruttostromerzeugung ab 1990 nach Energie-
trägern. Dessau-Roßlau; 2017
[4] Henderson C. Increasing the flexibility of coal-fired power plants.
IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC/242, ISBN 978-92-9029-564-8;
September 2014
[5] Sloss LL. Levelling the intermittency of renewables with coal. IEA
Clean Coal Centre, CCC/268, ISBN 978-92-9029-591-4; July 2016
[6] Eser P, Singh A, Chokani N, Abhari RS. Effect of increased
renewables generation on operation of thermal power plants.
Applied Energy 2016;164:723-732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.017
[7] Ziems C, Weber H. Integration of large-scale renewable energy
sources: Challenges to thermal generation in Germany. IFAC
Proceeding Volumes 2011;44(1):12845-12851
http://dx.doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.02730
[8] Buttler A, Spliethoff H. Future demand and capacity utilization of
conventional power plants in Germany: A meta-study. VGB
PowerTech 2016;3:41-47
[9] Karalis C, Mühl M. Interaction of renewable & conventional
energies – large-scale battery systems as a connecting link. VGB
PowerTech 2017;1/2:46-49
[10] Salzinger M, Remppis S, Scheffknecht G. Untersuchung
zukünftiger Flexibilisierungsanforderungen und -maßnahmen des
fossil befeuerten Kraftwerksparks. In: Beckmann M, Hurtado A.
Kraftwerkstechnik 2016 – Strategien, Anlagentechnik und Betrieb.
SAXONIA Standortentwicklungs- und -verwaltungsgesellschaft
mbH, Freiberg, ISBN 978-3-934-40969-9; 2016:558-579

Synthesis, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22609-1
130 References
[11] Hentschel J, Babic U, Spliethoff H. A parametric approach for the

valuation of power plant flexibility options. Energy Reports
2016;2:40-47
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.03.002
[12] Brouwer AS, van den Broek M, Seebregts A, Faaij A. Operational
flexibility and economics of power plants in future low-carbon
power systems. Applied Energy 2015;156:107-128
[13] Spliethoff H, Wauschkuhn A, Schuhbauer C. Anforderungen an
zukünftige Kraftwerke. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 2011;83(11):
1792-1804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cite.201100109
[14] Ziems C, Weber H. Effects of wind turbine generated power
fluctuations to thermal power generation – Part I. IFAC Proceeding
Volumes 2009;42(9):1-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.3182/20090705-4-SF-2005.00003
[15] Gottelt F, Meinke S, Hassel E, Nocke J. Effects of wind turbine
generated power fluctuations to thermal power generation – Part
II. IFAC Proceeding Volumes 2009;42(9):422-427
http://dx.doi.org/10.3182/20090705-4-SF-2005.00074
[16] Reid I. Retrofitting lignite plants to improve efficiency and
performance. IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC/264, ISBN 978-92-
9029-587-7; April 2016
[17] Wolfersdorf C, Boblenz K, Pardemann R, Meyer B. Syngas-based
annex concepts for chemical energy storage and improving
flexibility of pulverized coal combustion power plants. Applied
Energy 2015;156:618-627
[18] Gootz M, Forman C, Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. Polygeneration-
Annex: Combining lignite-based power generation and syngas-
based chemicals production. Fuel 2017;203:989-996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.03.053
[19] Nalbandian H. Non-fuel uses of coal. IEA Clean Coal Centre,
CCC/236, ISBN 978-92-9029-556-3; May 2014
References 131
[20] Speight JG. The chemistry and technology of coal. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, 3rd edition, ISBN 978-1-439-83646-0; 2013
[21] Samuel P, Maity S, Khan S, Roy SC. New opportunities for
research in coal derived chemicals. Journal of Scientific &
Industrial Research 2008;67:1051-1058
[22] Minchener A. Coal-to-oil, gas and chemicals in China. IEA Clean
Coal Centre, CCC/181, ISBN 978-92-9029-501-3; February 2011
[23] Wanzl W. Verflüssigungstechnologien. In: Schmalfeld J. Die
Veredlung und Umwandlung von Kohle – Technologien und
Projekte von 1970 bis 2000. DGMK Deutsche Wissenschaftliche
Gesellschaft für Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle, Hamburg, ISBN 978-3-
936-41888-0; 2008:635-691
[24] Gräbner M. Industrial coal gasification technologies covering
baseline and high-ash coal. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, ISBN 978-3-
527-33690-6; 2015
[25] Bertau M, Offermanns H, Plass L, Schmidt F, Wernicke HJ.
Methanol: The basic chemical and energy feedstock of the future:
Asinger’s vision today. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-39708-0;
2014
[26] Adams II TA, Barton PI. Combining coal gasification and natural
gas reforming for efficient polygeneration. Fuel Processing
Technology 2011;92:639-655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.11.023
[27] Pardemann R. Stoff-Kraft-Kopplung in kohlebasierten Polygene-
rationkonzepten. Dissertation, TU Bergakademie Freiberg; 2013
[28] Carpenter AM. Polygeneration from coal. IEA Clean Coal Centre,
CCC/139, ISBN 978-92-9029-458-0; October 2008
[29] Pardemann R, Meyer B. Stand und Perspektiven der Kohle-
nutzung in Kraftwerken mit Vergasung. Chemie Ingenieur Technik
2011;83:1805-1819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cite.201100074
132 References
[30] Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. The current and future prospects for IGCC
systems. In: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Technologies; 2017:847-889
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100167-7.00024-X
[31] Gao L, Jin H, Liu Z, Zheng D. Exergy analysis of coal-based
polygeneration system for power and chemical production. Energy
2004;29:2359-2371
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.046
[32] Yu GW, Xu YY, Hao X, Li YW, Liu GQ. Process analysis for
polygeneration of Fischer-Tropsch liquids and power with CO2
capture based on coal gasification. Fuel 2010;89:1070-1076
[33] Li Y, Zhang G, Yang Y, Zhai D, Zhang K, Xu G. Thermodynamic
analysis of a coal-based polygeneration system with partial
gasification. Energy 2014;72:201-214
[34] Zheng L, Weidou N, Hongtao Z, Linwei M. Polygeneration energy
system based on coal gasification. Energy for Sustainable
Development 2003;7;57-62
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60379-8
[35] Williams RH, Larson ED, Liu G, Kreutz TG. Fischer-Tropsch fuels
from coal and biomass: Strategic advantages of once-through
(‘polygeneration’) configurations. Energy Procedia 2009;1:4379-4386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.252
[36] Lin H, Jin H, Gao L, Han W, Zhang N. Thermodynamic & economic
analysis of the coal-based polygeneration system with CO2
capture. Energy Procedia 2009;1:4193-4199
[37] Lin H, Jin H, Gao L, Han W. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-
based polygeneration systems of synthetic fuel and power with
CO2 recovery. Energy Conversion and Management 2011;52:274-283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.068
[38] Liu G, Larson ED. Gasoline from coal via DME with electricity co-
production and CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 2014;63:7367-7378
References 133
[39] Bassano C, Deiana P, Girardi G. Modeling and economic

evaluation of the integration of carbon capture and storage
technologies into coal to liquids plants. Fuel 2014;116;850-860
[40] Lin H, Jin H, Gao L, Han W. Economic analysis of coal-based
polygeneration system for methanol and power production. Energy
2010;35:858-863
[41] Chen Y, Adams II TA, Barton PI. Optimal design and operation of
static energy polygeneration systems. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 2011;50:5099-5113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101568v
[42] Chen Y, Adams II TA, Barton PI. Optimal design and operation of
flexible energy polygeneration systems. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 2011;50:4553-4566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie1021267
[43] Pellegrini LA, Soave G, Gamba S, Langè S. Economic analysis of
a combined energy-methanol production plant. Applied Energy
2011;88:4891-4897
[44] Narvaez A, Chadwick D, Kershenbaum L. Small-medium scale
polygeneration systems: Methanol and power production. Applied
Energy 2014;113:1109-1117
[45] Li S, Jin H, Gao L. Cogeneration of substitute natural gas and
power from coal by moderate recycle of the chemical unconverted
gas. Energy 2013;55:658-667
[46] Lin H, Jin H, Gao L, Zhang N. A polygeneration system for
methanol and power production based on coke oven gas and coal
gas with CO2 recovery. Energy 2014;74:174-180
134 References
[47] Li H, Hong H, Jin H, Cai R. Analysis of a feasible polygeneration

system for power and methanol production taking natural gas and
biomass as materials. Applied Energy 2010;87:2846-2853
[48] Clausen LR, Houbak N, Elmegaard B. Technoeconomic analysis
of a methanol plant based on gasification of biomass and
electrolysis of water. Energy 2010;35:2338-2347
[49] Kieffer M, Brown T, Brown RC. Flex fuel polygeneration:
Integrating renewable natural gas into Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Applied Energy 2016;170:208-218
[50] Meerman JC, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC.
Performance of simulated flexible integrated gasification poly-
generation facilities. Part A: A technical-energetic assessment.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:2563-2587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.018
[51] Meerman JC, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC.
Performance of simulated flexible integrated gasification
polygeneration facilities. Part B: Economic evaluation. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;16:6083-6102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.030
[52] Buttler A, Kunze C, Spliethoff H. IGCC-EPI: Decentralized concept
of a highly load-flexible IGCC power plant for excess power
integration. Applied Energy 2013;104:869-879
[53] Herdem MS, Farhad S, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. Thermodynamic
modeling and assessment of a combined coal gasification and
alkaline water electrolysis system for hydrogen production.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:3061-3071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.12.068
[54] Hannula I. Co-production of synthetic fuels and district heat from
biomass residues, carbon dioxide and electricity: Performance and
cost analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 2015;74:26-46
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.006
References 135
[55] Cau G, Cocco D, Serra F. Energy and cost analysis of small-size

integrated coal gasification and syngas storage power plants.
Energy Conversion and Management 2012;56:121-129
[56] Cocco D, Serra F, Vittorio T. Assessment of energy and economic
benefits arising from syngas storage in IGCC power plants. Energy
2013;58:635-643
[57] Kim YS, Lee JJ, Kim TS, Sohn JL. Effects of syngas type on the
operation and performance of a gas turbine in integrated
gasification combined cycle. Energy Conversion and Management
2011;52:2262-2271
[58] Chacartegui R, Torres M, Sánchez D, Jiménez F, Muñoz A,
Sánchez T. Analysis of main gaseous emissions of heavy duty gas
turbines burning several syngas fuels. Fuel Processing
Technology 2011;92:213-220
[59] Chacartegui R, Sánchez D, Muñoz de Escalona JM, Monje B,
Sánchez T. On the effects of running existing combined cycle
power plants on syngas fuel. Fuel Processing Technology
2012;103:97-109
[60] Wolfersdorf C, Boblenz K, Pardemann R, Meyer B. Flexibilisierung
der Stromerzeugung aus Braunkohle mit synthesegasbasierten
Annex-Konzepten. In: Beckmann M, Hurtado A. Kraftwerkstechnik
– Sichere und nachhaltige Energieversorgung (Band 5). TK Verlag
Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky, Neuruppin, ISBN 978-3-944310-05-3;
2013:773-790
[61] Forman C, Gootz M, Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. Coupling of power
generation with syngas-based chemical synthesis. 8th
International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL Technologies,
Köln (Germany), 12.-16.06.2016
136 References
[62] Gootz M, Forman C, Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. Coal-to-Liquids: An

attractive opportunity for improved power plant capacity utilisation?
8th International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL
Technologies, Köln (Germany), 12.-16.06.2016
[63] Wolfersdorf C, Forman C, Meyer B. Syngas-based Annex
concepts and CO2-based Power-to-X concepts within pulverized
coal combustion power plants. International Pittsburgh Coal
Conference, Cape Town (South Africa), 08.-12.08.2016
[64] Forman C, Gootz M, Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. Improvement of
power plant flexibility by coupling of power generation with syngas-
based chemical synthesis. 11th European Conference on Coal
Research and Its Applications, Sheffield (UK), 05.-07.09.2016
[65] Gootz M, Forman C, Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. Coal-to-Liquids:
Neue Konzepte zur Flexibilisierung von Kraftwerken. ProcessNet-
Jahrestagung, Aachen (Germany), 12.-15.09.2016
[66] Wolfersdorf C, Forman C, Meyer B. CO2-to-X and Coal-to-X
concepts in pulverized coal combustion power plants. 13th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Lausanne (Switzerland), 14.-18.11.2016
[67] Forman C, Gootz M, Wolfersdorf C, Meyer B. Coupling power
generation with syngas-based chemical synthesis. Applied Energy
2017;198:180-191
[68] Steag GmbH. EBSILON® Professional – the planning tool for the
power plant process. Essen; 2014
[69] Heitmüller RJ, Kather A. Wärme- und feuerungstechnisches
Konzept des Dampferzeugers für den BoA-Block Niederaußem K.
VGB Kraftwerkstechnik 1999;5:75-82
[70] RWE Power AG. BoAplus – Hochtechnologie für die
Stromerzeugung von heute und morgen. Das modernste
Braunkohlenkraftwerk der Welt. Essen/Köln; 2011
[71] Ewers J, Klutz HJ, Renzenbrink W, Scheffknecht G. The
development of pre-drying and BoA-plus technology. VGB
PowerTech 2003;11:60-65
References 137
[72] RWE Power AG. BoAplus – Themenveranstaltung “Technik”.

Niederaußem; 03.02.2012
[73] Huebel M, Berndt A, Meinke S, Richter M, Mutschler P, Hassel E,
Weber H, Sander M, Funkquist J. Modelling a lignite power plant
in Modelica to evaluate the effects of dynamic operation and
offering grid services. Linköping Electronic Conference
Proceedings 2014;96:1037-1046
http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ECP140961037
[74] Lambertz J. Neue Entwicklungslinien der Braunkohlenkraftwerks-
technik. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 2003;53(1/2):90-94
[75] Elsen R, Körber T, Kulik L. Moderne Braunkohlenkraftwerke – ein
flexibler Baustein für die Energiewende. Energiewirtschaftliche
Tagesfragen 2013;63(1/2):68-72
[76] Klutz H-J, Moser C, Block D. Stand der Entwicklung der
Wirbelschicht-Trocknung mit interner Abwärmenutzung (WTA) für
Braunkohle bei der RWE Power AG. In: Beckmann M, Hurtado A.
Kraftwerkstechnik – Sichere und nachhaltige Energieversorgung
(Band 2). TK Verlag Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky, Neuruppin, ISBN
978-3-935317-57-3; 2010:427-441
[77] Dong N. Techno-economics of modern pre-drying technologies for
lignite-fired power plants. IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC/241, ISBN
978-92-9029-562-4; August 2014
[78] Karthikeyan M, Zhonghua W, Mujumdar AS. Low-rank coal drying
technologies – Current status and new developments. Drying
Technology: An International Journal 2009;27(3):403-415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373930802683005
[79] Nikolopoulos N, Violidakis I, Karampinis E, Agraniotis M, Bergins
C, Grammelis P, Kakaras E. Report on comparison among current
industrial scale lignite drying technologies (A critical review of
current technologies). Fuel 2015;155:86-114
[80] Strauß K. Kraftwerkstechnik – zur Nutzung fossiler, nuklearer und
regenerativer Energiequellen. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-
01430-7; 2009
138 References
[81] Brandt F. Dampferzeuger: Kesselsysteme, Energiebilanz,

Strömungstechnik. Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, ISBN 3-8027-3504-8;
1999
[82] Lehmann H. Handbuch der Dampferzeugerpraxis: Grundlagen
und Betrieb. Resch-Verlag, Herrsching, ISBN 978-3-935-19703-8;
2000
[83] VDI-Gesellschaft Energietechnik. Energietechnische Arbeits-
mappe. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 3-540-66704-0; 2000
[84] VDI-Gesellschaft Verfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen.
VDI-Wärmeatlas. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden, ISBN 978-3-642-
19980-6; 2013
[85] Rode H. Entwicklungslinien der Braunkohlekraftwerkstechnik.
Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen; 2004
[86] Brachthäuser K, Niehörster K, Schmidt K-H, Seibel G.
Braunkohlekraftwerk Schkopau: Musteranlagen der Energie-
wirtschaft. Energiewirtschaft und Technik Verlagsgesellschaft
mbH, Essen; 1998
[87] Spliethoff H. Power generation from solid fuels. Springer, Berlin,
ISBN 978-3-642-02856-4; 2010
[88] Kather A. Verfahrenstechnische und konstruktive Auslegung
moderner Braunkohle-Dampferzeuger. VGB Kraftwerkstechnik
1995;9:763-770
[89] Effenberger H. Dampferzeugung. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-
642-57166-4; 2000
[90] Epple B, Leithner R, Linzer W, Walter H. Simulation von
Kraftwerken und Feuerungen. Springer, Wien, ISBN 978-3-7091-
1181-9; 2012
[91] Habermann M, Tigges K-D, Scheffknecht G. Supercritical lignite-
fired boiler for RWE's new 1100 MW unit. Power-Gen Europe
2004. Barcelona; 25.-27.05.2004
References 139
[92] Scheffknecht G, Heitmüller R, Schütz M, Rüsenberg D. Kraftwerk

Niederaußem. Sonderheft, RWE Power; 2002
[93] Lorey H, Scheffknecht G. Zwangdurchlauf-Dampferzeuger mit
hohen Dampf-parametern – Entwicklungsstand und -tendenzen.
BWK 2000;52(1/2):42-48
[94] Meinke S. Modellierung thermischer Kraftwerke vor dem
Hintergrund steigender Dynamikanforderungen aufgrund
zunehmender Windenergie- und Photovoltaikeinspeisung.
Dissertation, Universität Rostock; 2013
[95] Zhu Q. Update on lignite firing. Report CCC/201, IEA Clean Coal
Centre, ISBN 978-92-9029-521-1; June 2012
[96] Hanak DP, Biliyok C, Manovic V. Efficiency improvements for the
coal-fired power plant retrofit with CO2 capture plant using chilled
ammonia process. Applied Energy 2015;151:258-272
[97] Nazarko Y. Energetische und wirtschaftliche Optimierung eines
membranbasierten Oxyfuel-Dampfkraftwerkes. Energie & Umwelt,
Band 269, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, ISBN 978-3-
95806-065-4; 2015
[98] Sailer B. Modellierung des Wasser-Dampf-Kreislaufs eines
Braunkohlekraftwerks unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von
Teillastzuständen. Diplomarbeit, Rheinisch-Westfälische
Technische Hochschule Aachen; 2010
[99] Menny K. Strömungsmaschinen. Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden,
ISBN 978-3-51946-317-7; 2006
[100] Elsner W, Kowalczyk L, Niegodajew P, Drobniak S. Thermo-
dynamic analysis of a thermal cycle of supercritical power plant.
Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering 2011;15(3):217-225
[101] Traupel W. Thermische Turbomaschinen: Thermodynamisch-
strömungstechnische Berechnung. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-
642-17469-84; 2001
140 References
[102] Linnenberg S, Kather A. Untersuchung des Einflusses der

Teillastfahrweise auf den integrierten Gesamtprozess eines
1.100 MW Steinkohlekraftwerksblocks mit nachgeschalteter CO2-
Abgaswäsche und CO2-Verdichtung. In: Beckmann M, Hurtado A.
Kraftwerkstechnik – Sichere und nachhaltige Energieversorgung
(Band 2). TK Verlag Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky, Neuruppin, ISBN
978-3-935317-42-9; 2009:403-417
[103] Konstantin P. Praxisbuch Energiewirtschaft – Energiewandlung,
-transport und -beschaffung im liberalisierten Markt. Springer
Vieweg, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-37264-3; 2013
[104] RWE Power AG. Die WTA-Technik – Ein modernes Verfahren zur
Aufbereitung und Trocknung von Braunkohle. Essen/Köln; 2009
[105] Boblenz K, Wolfersdorf C, Uebel K, Günther K, Reinmöller M, Guhl
S. Verbundvorhaben HotVeGas II: Grundlegende Unter-
suchungen zur Entwicklung zukünftiger Hochtemperatur-
vergasungs- und -gasaufbereitungsprozesse für dynamische
Stromerzeugungs- und -speichertechnologien. Abschlussbericht,
Förderkennzeichen 0327773G, Freiberg; 2016
[106] Schwendig F, Klutz HJ, Ewers J. The dry lignite-fired power plant.
VGB PowerTech 2006;12:51-57
[107] Heitmüller RJ, Fischer H, Sigg J. A brown-coal fired steam
generator of the 1000 MW class for the Niederaußem power
station. ALSTOM Energy Systems 1998;57:1-5
[108] Pollack M, Heitmüller RJ. Trockenbraunkohlegefeuerte Dampf-
erzeuger. VDI Berichte 1996;1280:133-148
[109] Rupprecht T. Technisch/wirtschaftliche Optimierung eines
Trockenbraunkohlekraftwerks. Dissertation, TU Hamburg-
Harburg; 2016
[110] Wessel B, Rüsenberg D, Schenkert JU, Thiele I, Karkoski G.
Operational experience gained with unit K at the Niederaußem
plant. VGB PowerTech 2006;11:47-51
[111] Heitmueller RJ, Kallmeyer D, Kückelhaus K, Wick W. Neue
Braunkohleblöcke mit hohem Wirkungsgrad bei RWE Energie AG.
VDI Berichte 1996;1280:77-90
References 141
[112] Adamczyk F, Kortz C. Weniger Wärmeverluste – mehr Power.

Besserer Wirkungsgrad durch Wärmerückgewinnung. Energie
Spektrum 2002;17(3):50-51
[113] Adamczyk F. Integration of a Powerise® flue gas heat recovery
system in the worldwide largest fluidized bed boiler Lagisza 460
MW efficiency increase and CO2 reduction. VGB PowerTech
2008;12:90-93
[114] RWE Power AG. The high-performance scrubber REAplus. The
Niederaußem coal innovation centre. Essen/Köln; 2008
[115] RWE Power AG. Der Hochleistungswäscher REAplus. Essen/
Köln; 2009
[116] Pflugbeil M. BoA-Niederaußem – der 950-MW-Braunkohle-
kraftwerksblock mit optimierter Anlagentechnik. VDI Berichte
1999;1456:133-142
[117] Lambertz J, Schiffer H-W, Serdarusic I, Voß H. Flexibilität von
Kohle- und Gaskraftwerken zum Ausgleich von Nachfrage- und
Einspeiseschwankungen. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen
2012;62(7):16-20
[118] Latk N, Syrbe M, Gampe U. First investigations of low load
operation of a large steam turbine. VGB PowerTech 2015;3:54-58
[119] Truckenmüller F. Untersuchungen zur aerodynamisch induzierten
Schwingungsanregung von Niederdruck-Laufschaufeln bei
extremer Teillast. Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart; 2003
[120] Gerschütz W. Experimentelle Untersuchung von rotierenden
Strömungsinstabilitäten im Betriebsbereich der Ventilation einer
Niederdruck-Dampfturbine. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 7,
Nr. 475; 2006
[121] Binner M. Experimentelle Untersuchung von Teil- und
Schwachlastzuständen in Hochdruckdampfturbinen (Dissertation,
Universität Hannover). Dr. Hut Verlag, München, ISBN 978-3-
86853-815-1; 2011
142 References
[122] Kwitschinski T, Henke M, Bartelt M, Seume JR. Ventilation im Teil-

und Schwachlastbetrieb von HD- und ND-Dampfturbinen. In:
Beckmann M, Hurtado A. Kraftwerkstechnik – Sichere und
nachhaltige Energieversorgung (Band 5). TK Verlag Karl Thomé-
Kozmiensky, Neuruppin, ISBN 978-3-944310-05-3; 2013:379-394
[123] Grote KH, Feldhusen J. Dubbel: Taschenbuch für den Maschinen-
bau. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-38890-3; 2014
[124] Preusche R. Thermodynamische Modellierung eines Braunkohle-
blockes unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Dampferzeugers.
Diplomarbeit, Hochschule Zittau/Görlitz; 2006
[125] Cooke DH. On prediction of off-design multistage turbine
pressures by Stodola’s ellipse. Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power 1985;107:596-606
[126] Havakechian S, Greim R. Aerodynamic design of 50 per cent
reaction steam turbines. Journal of Mechanical Engineering
1999;213:1-25
[127] Mayr F. Handbuch der Kesselbetriebstechnik: Kraft- und Wärme-
erzeugung in Praxis und Theorie. Verlag Dr. Ingo Resch,
Gräfeling, ISBN 978-3-930039-13-5; 2009
[128] Volk M. Pump characteristics and applications. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, ISBN 978-1-46656-308-7;2014
[129] Thulukkanam K. Heat exchanger design handbook. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, ISBN 978-1-4398-4212-6; 2013
[130] Rábek G. Die Ermittlung der Betriebsverhältnisse von Speise-
wasservorwärmern bei verschiedenen Belastungen. Energie und
Technik 1963;April:142-147
[131] Brüggemann H, Weisenburger M, Stamatelopoulos GN. Patnow
460 MW, erstes überkritisches Braunkohlenkraftwerk in Polen. In:
Beckmann M, Hurtado A. Kraftwerkstechnik – Sichere und
nachhaltige Energieversorgung (Band 5). TK Verlag Karl Thomé-
Kozmiensky, Neuruppin, ISBN 978-3-935317-42-9; 2009:163-173
[132] Buschsieweke F. Dampfwirbelschichttrocknung von Braunkohle.
Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart; 2006
References 143
[133] Trompelt M, Wolf J. Boiler modeling for evaluation of biomass co-

firing. Ebsilon User Convention 2011, Bensheim (Germany),
10./11.11.2011
[134] Oeding D, Oswald BR. Elektrische Kraftwerke und Netze.
Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-19245-6; 2011
[135] Forman C, Pardemann R, Meyer B. Differentiated evaluation of the
part load performance of an industrial CHP. Coal-Gen Conference
2015, Las Vegas (USA), 08.-10.12.2015
[136] Chalmers H, Gibbins J. Initial evaluation of the impact of post-
combustion capture of carbon dioxide on supercritical pulverized
coal power plant part load performance. Fuel 2007;86:2109-23
[137] Ziems C, Meinke S, Nocke J, Weber H, Hassel E. Kraftwerks-
betrieb bei Einspeisung von Windparks und Photovoltaikanlagen.
Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben, Universität Rostock,
2012
[138] Roeder V, Kather A. Part load behavior of power plants with a
retrofitted post-combustion CO2 capture process. Energy Procedia
2014;51:207-16
[139] Hanak DP, Biliyok C, Manovic V. Evaluation and modeling of part-
load performance of coal-fired power plant with post-combustion
CO2 capture. Energy & Fuels 2015;29(6):3833-3844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00591
[140] Atsonios K, Violidakis I, Sfetsioris K, Rakopoulos DC, Grammelis
P, Kakaras E. Pre-dried lignite technology implementation in
partial load/low demand cases for flexibility enhancement. Energy
2016;96:427-36
[141] Gootz M, Forman C, Meyer B. Konzeptuntersuchung zu Poly-
generation-Annex-Anlagen auf Basis Braunkohle. Abschluss-
bericht, Förderkennzeichen 03ET7042A, Freiberg; 2017
144 References
[142] Gräbner M, Meyer B. Performance and exergy analysis of the

current developments in coal gasification technology. Fuel
2014;116:910-920
[143] Uebel K, Guenther U, Hannemann F, Schiffers U, Yilmaz H, Meyer
B. Development and engineering of a synthetic gas cooler concept
integrated in a Siemens gasifier design. Fuel 2014;116:879-888
[144] Rauchfuß H. Untersuchung von Konzepten zur CO2-Abtrennung in
Kombikraftwerken mit integrierter Wirbelschichtvergasung.
Dissertation, TU Bergakademie Freiberg; 2012
[145] Rieger M. Advanced modeling and simulation of integrated
gasification combined cycle power plants with CO2-capture.
Dissertation, TU Bergakademie Freiberg; 2014
[146] Gatti M, Martelli E, Marechal F, Consonni S. Review, modeling,
heat integration, and improved schemes of Rectisol-based
processes for CO2 capture. Applied Thermal Engineering
2014;70(2):1123-1140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.05.001
[147] Gräbner M, Meyer B. Introduction of a ternary diagram for
comprehensive evaluation of gasification processes for ash-rich
coal. Fuel 2013;114:56-63
[148] Laugwitz A, Gräbner M, Meyer B. Availability analysis of integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants. In: Power Plant
Life Management and Performance Improvement; 2011:110-142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9780857093806.1.110
[149] Kaneko T, Derbyshire F, Makino E, Gray D, Tamura M, Li K. Coal
liquefaction. In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry.
Wiley, Chichester, ISBN 978-3-52730-673-2; 2014
[150] Supp E. How to produce methanol from coal. Springer, Berlin,
ISBN 978-3-662-00895-9; 1990
References 145
[151] Kvisle S, Fuglerud T, Kolboe S, Olsbye U, Lillerud KP, Vora BV.

Methanol-to-hydrocarbons. In: Ertl G. Handbook of heterogeneous
catalysis. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, ISBN 978-3-527-61004-4;
2008:2950-2965
[152] Strätling MK. New methanol technologies offer alternatives to dirty
fuels. World Energy 2002;5(2):66-71
[153] Wurzel T. Lurgi MegaMethanol technology – Delivering the
building blocks for future fuel and monomer demand. DGMK
Conference “Synthesis Gas Chemistry”, Dresden (Germany);
04.-06.10.2006
[154] Air Liquide Global E&C Solutions. Methanol and derivatives:
Proven technologies for optimal production. Frankfurt; 2016
[155] Abrol S, Hilton CM. Modeling, simulation and advanced control of
methanol production from variable synthesis gas feed. Computers
& Chemical Engineering 2012;40:117-131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.02.005
[156] Tabak S, McGihon RD, Hindman M, Zhao X, Heinritz-Adrian M,
Brandl A. An alternative route for coal to liquid fuel: Appyling the
ExxonMobil Methanol to Gasoline (MTG) process. Gasification
Technologies Conference 2008, Washington DC (USA);
05.-08.10.2008
[157] Zhao X, McGihon RD, Tabak S. Coal to clean gasoline.
Hydrocarbon Engineering 2008;09:1-7
[158] Hindman M. Methanol to Gasoline (MTG) technology: an
alternative for liquid fuel production. World CTL Conference 2010,
Bejing (China); 13.-16.04.2010
[159] ExxonMobil. Methanol to Gasoline (MTG): Proven process, proven
plants, proven performance. Texas (USA); 2014
[160] Schreiner M. Research guidance studies to assess gasoline from
coal by Methanol-to-Gasoline and Sasol-type Fischer-Tropsch
technologies: Final report. US Department of Energy; 1978
[161] de Klerk A. Fischer-Tropsch refining. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, ISBN
978-3-527-32605-1; 2011
146 References
[162] Maitlis PM, de Klerk A. Greener Fischer-Tropsch processes for

fuels and feedstocks. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, ISBN 978-3-527-
32945-8; 2013
[163] de Klerk A. Fischer-Tropsch process. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology. John Wiley & Sons; 2013:1-20
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471238961.fiscdekl.a01
[164] Steynberg A, Dry M. Fischer-Tropsch technology: Studies in
surface science and catalysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, ISBN 978-0-
08-047279-9; 2006
[165] Hargreaves N. Smaller scale GTL: The roll-out. 17th Annual Gas-
to-Liquids Conference, London (UK); 30.10.2014
[166] Quassowski M. Detaillierte Modellierung von Kohlekraftwerken für
Annex-Konzepte. Masterarbeit, TU Bergakademie Freiberg; 2016
[167] Witschas M. Untersuchung von Hochtemperatur-Wärmespeichern
zur Optimierung des Betriebs von Braunkohlekraftwerken und zur
Speicherung elektrischer Energie. Masterarbeit, Hochschule
Bremen; 2011
[168] Bundesregierung. Verordnung über Deponien und Langzeitlager
(Deponieverordnung DepV). Bundesministerium für Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit; 2009
[169] Gootz M, Forman C, Meyer B. Polygeneration-Annex: Integrating
hydrogen into syngas-based gasoline production. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:24067-24078
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.169
[170] Kaiser S, Binkowski S, Schadow U, Thielmann A. Tray installation
– increasing performance of a wet FGD without additional pressure
loss and with simultaneous reduction of operational costs. VGB
PowerTech 2017;1/2:69-73
[171] Baehr HD, Kabelac S. Thermodynamik – Grundlagen und tech-
nische Anwendungen. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-00555-8;
2012
[172] Institut für Energieverfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen.
Anwendung der Exergie. U Bergakademie Freiberg; 2010
Appendix
You can access the appendix through ‘www.springer.com’ and ‘Clemens

Forman’ at the OnlinePLUS program.
Appendix A: Parameterization of Power Plant Models

1. Existing Power Plant .......................................................1
2. Future Power Plant........................................................ 13
Appendix B: Modeling Results
1. Flowcharts .................................................................... 21
2. Reference Cases .......................................................... 25
3. Annex Integration .......................................................... 31
Appendix C: Modeling Evaluation
1. Modeling Evaluation ...................................................... 66
2. Exergy Calculations....................................................... 67

Synthesis, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22609-1

Coupling Power Generation With Syngas-Based Chemical Synthesis A Process Chain Evaluation From A Power Plant Viewpoint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coupling Power Generation With Syngas-Based Chemical Synthesis A Process Chain Evaluation From A Power Plant Viewpoint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clemens Forman

Dissertation TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany, 2017

OnlinePlus material to this book is available on

ISBN 978-3-658-22608-4 ISBN 978-3-658-22609-1 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946541

Printed on acid-free paper

The present thesis was developed as research associate at the Institute of

I would like to express my gratitude to

▪ my academic advisor Prof. Bernd Meyer for his support, confidence as

▪ my second evaluator Prof. Manfred Wirsum for his critical review,

▪ my colleagues at the institute for the good and supportive atmosphere

▪ my colleague Christian Wolfersdorf for our scientific discussions about

List of Figures ..................................................................................... XI

3.3 Evaluation of the Reference Models........................................... 51

6. Evaluation of Preferential Technology Combination .................. 111

(1) Flowsheet of important coal transformation routes

(1) Design characteristics of the power plant processes.................... 14

(21) Overall energy efficiency of Annex concepts

(40) Stream report of EPP-FBG-FT .................................................... 34

(67) Key performance parameters of

(88) Selected flue gas compositions at related boiler capacity

(104) Selected flue gas compositions at related boiler capacity

List of Abbreviations and Characters

EPP existing power plant

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

Coal recently undergoes a massive image change. Ever since, it played

In Germany, further aspects have to be taken into account. Coal-based

1. Introduction and Motivation

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

This work now emphasizes a load-dependent evaluation by simulation for

2.1 Current Coal-Based Conversion Routes

A direct liquefaction of coal commonly means a slurry-phase conversion

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

combustion IGCC electricity / heat …

oil / wax gasoline

coal gasification syngas Fischer-Tropsch diesel

direct liquefaction coal oil refining light ends

carbonization coal tar hydrorefining/-cracking refined oil BTX

Figure 1: Flowsheet of important coal transformation routes (own diagram based on

Compared with these two conversion technologies gasification has great-

As soon as syngas is generated for combustion, the process of the inte-

2.2 Polygeneration Concepts

Concepts of polygeneration take up versatile transformation routes – as

gasification & syngas

gasification & syngas unconverted

chemical product chemical

combustion & steam electricity

gasification & chemical chemical

Figure 2: Concepts of coal-based polygeneration (own diagram based on [17,27])

fresh syngas. Both polygeneration concepts (a, b) are characterized by a

Relating to polygeneration with syngas splitting, the following conclusions

for flexible operation in order to achieve a maximum degree of flexibility

Put into the context of a growing intermittency of renewable energy

A key challenge for coal-based polygeneration despite the explained ben-

2.3 Polygeneration-Annex Concepts

This is where the concept of ‘Polygeneration-Annex’ starts. It meets both

At the location of a given pulverized coal combustion power plant infra-

▪ Gasification: in the case of entrained-flow gasification slag is constituted

▪ Gas and product treatment: another possibility of interconnection is pro-

steam cycle electricity

carbonaceous steam sour residual water

Scheme of ‘Polygeneration-Annex’ concept

coal water water-gas acid gas chemical chemical