New Long-Run Record Set by 50-Year-Old TVA Unit

BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY
www.powermag.com Vol. 152 No. 2 February 2008
New long-run record set by 50-year-old TVA unit

Alstom builds demo plant for capturing CO2 Backup generators support the grid Designing future coal plants Alliant sweeps EUCG awards
ONE HITACHI... HITACHI...

AQCS
BOILERS NUCLEAR SCR TURBINES
... vertically integrated to meet your total power and environmental generation needs.
Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd. 645 Martinsville Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Tel: 908.605.2800
www.hitachi.us/hpsa
power.info@hal.hitachi.com
CIRCLE 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Established 1882 Vol. 152 No. 2
February 2008
www.powermag.com
COVER STORY: COAL PLANT OPERATIONS

22 TVAs Shawnee Fossil Plant Unit 6 sets new record for continuous operation
This plant is half a century old, but it boasts a string of records and has plenty to teach younger generating plants. We share Shawnees top 10 practices for recordsetting performance.
SPECIAL REPORT
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE On the cover
Tennessee Valley Authoritys 1,369-MW Shawnee Fossil Plants 10 coal-fired units may have been constructed in the early 1950s, but they are far from retirement. The plants string of long-run records, recently punctuated by Unit 6s 1,093-day run, puts the plant in the prime of its life. Photo courtesy TVA
30 Alliant Energy sweeps EUCG Best Performer awards

We look at how the EUCG determines what makes a best-performing coal plant and at the top-to-bottom elements that helped Alliants Lansing Generating Station and Edgewater Generating Station win top honors in the small and large plant categories, respectively.
FEATURES
CARBON CAPTURE
DEPARTMENTS
4 SPEAKING OF POWER 6 GLOBAL MONITOR 6 FutureGen picks Mattoon, Ill. 6 Duke applies for first greenfield COL 7 PPL to work with UniStar on another COL 7 Areva seeks NRC certification of its reactor 8 Mitsubishi also in line at the NRC 8 PV project shines in Nevada 8 SunEdison commissions Colorado PV plant 9 Big concentrating solar plant proposed 9 Super Boiler celebrates first anniversary 10 Small fuel cell uses JP-8 jet fuel 11 POWER digest 12 FOCUS ON O&M 12 Survey captures industrys carbon concerns 12 Sequestering coal plant emissions 16 Comparing mercury measurement methods 20 LEGAL & REGULATORY 56 NEW PRODUCTS 64 COMMENTARY
38 Alstoms chilled ammonia CO2-capture process advances toward commercialization

One advantage of Alstoms chilled ammonia design for capturing carbon dioxide is that it does not require extremely low levels of SO2 removal from flue gas; if a plant already has a scrubber operating at a 95% removal rate, and its steam system can be reconfigured to accommodate the process steam demand, a chilled ammonia system may be just the ticket.
PLANT DESIGN
42 Accelerating the deployment of cleaner coal plants

CoalFleet for Tomorrowan EPRI-sponsored collaborationis helping early adopters of new technologies avoid some of the pitfalls of pushing the leading edge.
BENCHMARKING
46 Whos doing coal plant maintenance?

How many people does it take to change a lightbulb or repair a boiler tube in a coal plant? Are those folks in-house maintenance staff or contractors? A new EUCG survey has the answers.
GAS PIPELINE SAFETY
51 The case for cathodic protection

Any plant that uses even a small amount of gasfor any purposefaces the potential for a gas explosion. This article presents an overview of the problem and an introduction to cathodic protection systems used to keep gas pipelines from corroding and exploding.
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
53 Aggregated backup generators help support San Diego grid

Managing demand response capacity is fast becoming an essential tool for avoiding brownouts and blackoutswithout incurring the costs and hassles of building new generation. Heres how one company, EnerNOC, aggregates distributed generation assets and remotely controls their dispatch for San Diego Gas & Electric.
February 2008 POWER
www.powermag.com
BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY
Now incorporating
and
Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rockville, MD 20850. Periodicals postage paid at Rockville, Maryland, and additional post offices. Canada Post Publication Mail Agreement No. 41279020. RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO DPGM Ltd., 2-7496 Bath Road, Mississauga, ON L4T 1L2. E-mail: powermag@halldata.com. Printed in the USA. ISSN 0032-5929 (print), ISSN 1936-7791 (online). POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to POWER, P Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Printed in the U.S. .O. Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified executives and engineering and supervisory personnel in electric utilities, independent generating companies, consulting engineering firms, process industries, and other manufacturing industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions: $59 for one year, $99 for two years. In Canada: US$64 for one year, US$104 for two years. Outside U.S. and Canada: US$159 for one year, US$269 for two years (includes air mail delivery). Payment in full or credit card information is required to process your order. Subscription request must include subscriber name, title, and company name. For new or renewal orders, call 847-763-9509. Single copy price: $25. The publisher reserves the right to accept or reject any order. Allow four to twelve weeks for shipment of the first issue on subscriptions. Missing issues must be claimed within three months for the U.S. or within six months outside U.S. For customer service and address changes, call 847-7639509 or fax 832-242-1971 or e-mail powermag@halldata .com or write to POWER, P Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076. .O. Please include account number, which appears above name on magazine mailing label or send entire label. Photocopy Permission: Where necessary, permission is granted by the copyright owner for those registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com, to photocopy any article herein, for commercial use for the flat fee of $2.50 per copy of each article, or for classroom use for the flat fee of $1.00 per copy of each article. Send payment to the CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without the express permission of TradeFair Group Publications is prohibited. Requests for special permission or bulk orders should be addressed to the publisher at 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston TX 77042. ISSN 0032-5929. Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston TX 77042. Copyright 2008 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION

Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE 480-820-7855, editor@powermag.com Managing Editor: Gail Reitenbach Executive Editor: John Javetski Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; David Daniels; Bill Ellison, PE; Steven F Greenwald; . Tim Hurst; Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize; Douglas Smith; Dick Storm Group Art Director: Mark Cavich Senior Designer: Leslie Claire Senior Production Manager: Tracey Lilly, tlilly@accessintel.com Marketing Manager: Jamie Reesby
ADVERTISING SALES
North American Offices Northeast/Mid-Atlantic/Eastern Canada: Matthew Grant, 832-242-1969, mattg@powermag.com; and Catherine Ryan, 516-978-3150, catheriner@powermag.com Midwest/West/Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com Southeast: Matthew Grant, 832-242-1969, mattg@powermag.com South Central/Mexico/Central & South America: Myla Dixon, 832-242-1969, mylad@powermag.com International Offices UK/France/Benelux/Scandinavia: Peter Gilmore, +44 (0) 20 7834 5559, pgilmores@aol.com Germany/Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Gerd Strasmann, +49 (0) 2191 931 497 info@strasmann-media.de , Italy: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it Spain/Portugal: Tatiana Gana, +34 91 456 08 47 tatiana.gana@publistar-es.com , Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 (0) 3 5691 3335 Thailand: Nartnittha Jirarayapong, +66 (0) 2 237-9471, +66 (0) 2 237 9478 India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, gulfk@unitel.co.kr Malaysia: Tony Tan, +60 3 706 4176, +60 3 706 4177 nmedia@tm.net.my , Classified Advertising Myla Dixon, 832-242-1969, mylad@powermag.com POWER Buyers Guide Sales Matthew Grant, Account Executive, 832-242-1969, mattg@powermag.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Terry Best Fulfillment Manager: George Severine
CUSTOMER SERVICE
For subscriber service: powermag@halldata.com, 800-542-2823 or 847-763-9509 Electronic and Paper Reprints: lyndsay.bahn@theYGSgroup.com, 717-666-3052 All Other Customer Service: 832-242-1969 extension 327
BUSINESS OFFICE
TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston TX 77042 Publisher: Brian K. Nessen, 832-242-1969, briann@tradefairgroup.com President: Sean Guerre
ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC

4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850 301-354-2000 www.accessintel.com Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto Divisional President, Business Information Group: Heather Farley Senior Vice President, Corporate Audience Development: Sylvia Sierra Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Robert Paciorek Vice President, Production & Manufacturing: Michael Kraus Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
SPEAKING OF POWER
U.S. a paper tiger in nuclear power
was talking with a utility executive the other day about his recent vacation in India. Its certainly not your usual holiday destination, but hes the adventurous type, eager to mingle with different cultures and sample their cuisine. The exec did a lot more than tour the Taj Mahal and get a glimpse of endangered tigers; he went where real people live and work. Some years ago, I also had the opportunity to visit India during construction of a power plant by my employer at the time. My experiences were somewhat different; they included a near-fatal collision with an overloaded gravel truck that is nearly as memorable as the six months it took me to recover from Mahatmas revenge. The executives visit and mine to the same country were unforgettable, but for different reasons.
Japan, with just one reactor under construction, still wants to increase nuclears share of its capacity mix from 30% to 40% over the next decade. Korea completed one reactor in 2006 and has three more under way. Europes schizophrenic approach to nuclear hasnt stopped the construction of six new reactors. Nuclear power is now banned in Austria, Italy, Denmark, and Ireland; Germany and Belgium say they intend to phase out their programs. The remainder of the new units include one in France, one in Pakistan, and the resumption of construction of Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee.
Behind the power curve Foreign-flavored renaissance

The international adoption of nuclear power can be likened to those widely different experiencesit has either left countries forever changed or has been an experience best forgotten. If Americans look beyond their insular society, theyll see that most of the adopters now rely heavily on fission to power their economies. But a few remain hostage to the past and refuse to recognize the advances in technology and safety that make the next generation of nuclear plants so attractive. Focusing only on the past is shortsightedwe must expand our views of the industry and of the world around us. As with visiting a foreign country, perspective comes from both experience and attitude. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency reportEnergy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2030reveals the degree to which the world beyond the U.S. is newly embracing nuclear power. The report projects firm growth of 77 GW between now and 2030 for plants that are under construction or firmly committed. Promising projects push the prediction up to 300 GW. The report notes that since 1986, worldwide nuclear generation capacity has remained essentially constant at around 371 GW, or about 15% of total global electricity production. For comparison purposes, the U.S. figure is about 20% of capacity, provided by 104 nuclear plants with a cumulative rating of 100 GW. The top five list is rounded out by Frances 59 plants (63 GW), Japans 55 (48 GW), Russias 31 (22 GW), and Koreas 20 (17 GW). Today, 30 different countries have nuclear power plants. Heres where the data get interesting. At the end of November 2007, there were 435 operating nuclear plants worldwide, with 27 units in the works (ignoring two Russian floating nuclear plants of 30-MW capacity). The locations of those plants are enlightening:

The trend should be abundantly clear: Most of the growth in the nuclear power industry is already under way in India, Asia, and Russia, and those countries have made firm commitments for more in the future. The G8 countries represent 65% of the worlds economy but are home to only six of the 27 units currently under construction, including Watts Bar 2. Theres no denying that the drumbeat for nuclear power in the U.S. is louder today than it has been in a quarter-century. In the past month alone, Duke Energy and PPL have announced their interest in building new plants, joining a half-dozen other utilities, while Areva and Mitsubishi submitted their reactor designs to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for certification. Those two new designs join the Westinghouse/Toshiba AP-1000 and GEs advanced boiling water reactor and economic simplified boiling water reactor designs, which are already approved and being marketed. The UK also wants to refresh its nuclear capability, given that most of the countrys 19 reactors are due for retirement within the next 15 years. Prime Minister John Hutton said in a January address to Parliament, I invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations. If the Brits complete their first plant by 2020, the UKs program will then be several years behind Americas.
Attitude matters
I recognize that little can be done today to accelerate U.S. nuclear plant expansion plans. However, what I suggest is that Americans, as a nation, recognize that development of a robust nuclear power infrastructure is vital to the countrys future economic well-being. Understanding that need will require a change in attitude. Russia, China, and India have made nuclear power a national priority and are pouring concrete and fabricating steel this very minute. Meanwhile, the U.S. is generating only mountains of paper. Unlike those Bengal tigers my executive buddy recently saw in India, we can offer only paper tigers.
Russia, with three plants under construction, plans to significantly increase its nuclear power output. India has seven plants under construction and hopes to increase its fleet capacity eight-fold by 2022. China is installing four reactors and has announced plans to quintuple its nuclear power production by 2020.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE Editor-in-Chief

POWER February 2008
www.powermag.com
23,800
Personnel
Solutions from Pre-feasibility to Plant Operations and Support

Our services to the Power industry cover the full asset spectrum both in size and lifecycle from the creation of new assets to services that sustain and improve operating assets. We offer extensive expertise across our comprehensive global network for renewable energy, clean coal, nuclear and natural gas generation, power distribution networks, and retrot projects. EcoNomics - Environmental and social imperatives now affect the bottom line for all major corporations and projects globally, which are particularly challenging in the resources and energy sectors. WorleyParsons is uniquely positioned to work both globally and locally with our customers to deliver on the value of EcoNomics. Our range of services and technologies embed environmental, social, and nancial sustainability into project delivery, across the asset lifecycle. www.worleyparsons.com
32 84
Countries Ofces
GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR GLOBAL MONITOR
GLOBAL MONITOR
FutureGen picks Mattoon, Ill.
In mid-December, members of the FutureGen for Illinois taskforce, elected officials, local residents, and Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) celebrated the FutureGen Industrial Alliances decision to build the first near-zero-emissions coal-fired power plant in their state. Mattoon, a town of 18,000 about 180 miles south of Chicago, in the heart of southern Illinois coal belt, was the unanimous choice of the Alliances board of directors. It edged out Tuscola, Ill., and the Texas towns of Jewett and Odessa to secure the coveted $1.5 billion project. Announcement of the final site followed more than four years of extensive planning and preparation in Illinois and came nearly five years after President Bush first announced the project (Figure 1). The FutureGen Alliance is a nonprofit organization of utilities and coal companies that is partnering with the Department of Energy to design and build the project. FutureGen will take the form of a nearzero-emissions, integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant that will capture 90% of its CO2 emissions and sequester them in geological formations more than one mile underground. The Mt. Simon Sandstone, as its known, is a saline reservoir underlying most of the Illinois Basin that has served as a natural gas reservoir, and scientists expect it will work well to store CO2 as well. The possibility of on-site injection at Mattoon was likely a key factor in its selection. Alliance officials said the on-site sequestration would both simplify operations and help with public education because visitors to FutureGen could just step out the back door of the plant to see where its CO2 is going. We are thrilled that Illinois will be home to FutureGen, said Gov. Blagojevich at the announcement in the nations capital. This decision represents the culmination of years of hard work and dedication, and we are honored that the FutureGen Alliance and the U.S. Department of Energy have entrusted us with this groundbreaking project. FutureGens near zero-emissions coal-gasification technology holds great promise to revolutionize our nations coal industry and ensure that coal continues to be an integral part of our energy future while reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. As the entire world watches, Illinois is ready to get to work to ensure that FutureGen is a success. The site selection occurred during a period of apparent tension between the Alliance and the DOE, which would like Alliance members to shoulder more of the projects growing development costs. The DOE included in its FY 2008 research budget request for the Office of Fossil Energy proposed legislative language that would change FutureGens current cost-sharing formula. The current formula calls for taxpayers and industry to pay 74% and 26% of the projects costs, respectively. In a December 2007 statement, James A. Slutz, the DOEs acting principal deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy, said, As [the DOE] has discussed with the FutureGen Alliance for the past several months, projected cost overruns require a reassessment of FutureGens design. This will require restructuring FutureGen to maximize the role of private-sector innovation, facilitate the most productive public-private partnership, and prevent further cost escalation. When President Bush unveiled the FutureGen proposal in 2003, the DOE estimated the plant would cost $950 million. The estimate has since risen to $1.5 billion, driven by sharp increases in the cost of steel and other essential construction components. Cost inflation also has wreaked havoc on private-sector proposals to build commercial IGCC plants. Michael Mudd, CEO of the FutureGen Alliance, noted that Sticker shock . . . has been a very difficult hurdle [for private IGCC projects]. Construction of the FutureGen plant is expected to begin in 2010, with full-scale operations commencing in 2013.
Duke applies for first greenfield COL

Duke Energy has submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an application for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for a new nuclear plant in Cherokee County, S.C. The proposed two-unit William States Lee III Nuclear Station would get its generating capacity of 2,234 MW from Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized water reactors. Dukes application would reference Tennessee Valley Authoritys October application to build and operate two units of the same design at its unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Plant site in Alabama (POWER, December 2007, p. 6), theoretically accelerating the approval process (Figure 2). The project is expected to be completed by 2017. Submitting this COL application to the NRC is an important step for our customers and company, said Brew Barron, Duke Energys chief nuclear officer. [It] allows us to move forward in keeping the new nuclear generation option available [to help meet] the growing energy needs of the Carolinas. Duke Energy Carolinas expects its capacity needs to increase by 10,700 MW by 2027. Duke Energy is the fourth company to submit an application to the NRC under the revised COL licensing process, but its filing is the first for a greenfield site.
2. Nuclear timeline. Duke Energy has submitted a COL application to the NRC for the William States Lee III Nuclear Station, which would be the first new greenfield project of its kind in the U.S. in decades. The project schedule calls for commercial operation to begin in 2017. Source: Duke Energy Decision to develop Decision to submit COL application COL application
1. FutureGen finds a home.
The FutureGen Alliance has selected Mattoon, Ill., as the site for the worlds first near-zeroemissions coal-fired power plant, shown here as an artists conception. Source: DOE
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Preparation of COL application
NRC review and hearing Full power operations
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Plant construction and start-up
www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
GLOBAL MONITOR
In addition to submitting the COL, Duke Energy is pursuing expanded demand-side management and energy-efficiency programs, an 800-MW coal unit at Cliffside Steam Station in North Carolina, and licensing and permitting of new combined-cycle peaking units at the Buck and Dan River steam stations in North Carolina. Its also evaluating options for building and acquiring renewable-fueled and other near- and long-term generating resources to meet its customers needs well into the future. na and jointly owned by it and Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc. A PPL spokesman said the company has already begun boring and testing at the site, and that it is the most likely location for a new reactor, although alternatives have been identified. Though PPL says it has not yet decided to move forward with construction, it plans to apply for a COL for the Berwick site in the fourth quarter of 2008, in time for the plant to qualify for production tax credits under the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005. The yet-unnamed reactor would use evolutionary pressurized water reactor (EPR) technology developed by the French firm Areva. The announcement adds momentum to UniStars plan to build a fleet of at least four EPRs, each rated at 1,600 MW, in the U.S. by 2015. In November, the companya joint venture of Constellation Energy and Electricit de France, Frances state-owned electric utilityannounced it had chosen Alstom to supply the reactors turbine generators. As it develops the COL application for Berwick with UniStar, PPL is actively seeking partners to build the plant. [We] would not undertake nuclear construction alone, said William Spence, PPL Corp.s chief operating officer. Because of the large capital commitment required, we would [do so] only as part of some type of joint venture arrangement. Spence added that PPL is now in talks with Areva about the possibility of such an arrangement.
PPL to work with UniStar on another COL

PPL Corp.s Nuclear Development LLC subsidiary will partner with UniStar Nuclear Energy to develop a COL application for a new nuclear reactor on a site adjacent to the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant (Figure 3) near Berwick, Pa. Susquehanna is a two-unit, 2,360-MW plant that is operated by PPL Susquehan-
Areva seeks NRC certification of its reactor

In mid-December, Areva applied for NRC certification of its evolutionary pressurized water reactor (EPR) design. The application is ahead of schedule, making it more likely that the company will be able to meet its goal of deploying at least four reactors of that type in the U.S by 2015. By building on our considerable licensing experience in the U.S. as well as that gained through the detailed licensing processes in Finland and France, we have prepared what we believe is the most thorough design certification application the NRC has received to date, said Tom Christopher, president and CEO of Areva NP Inc. We were able to achieve a high level of detail and confidence in the design application because of the completeness of the global EPR design now under construction, and by working directly with a large and highly respected energy company, Constellation Energy. We look forward to a timely NRC review and continued success for the EPR in the U.S. The EPR is the only reactor technology in the industrys Generation III+ design category currently under construction anywhere in the world (Figure 4). Safetygrade construction of the first Areva EPR began in Finland in 2005, and another reactor broke ground in 2007 in France. The
3. Expanded nuclear family? By the end of this year, PPL Corp. and UniStar Nuclear
expect to develop and submit to the NRC an application to build and operate a reactor based on Areva technology on a site adjacent to the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania. Courtesy: PPL Corp.
4. Coming to America?
Areva has applied for NRC certification of its evolutionary pressurized water reactor (EPR) design. Shown is an EPR-based plant under construction at TVOs Olkiluoto site in Finland that has an estimated start-up date of 2011. Courtesy: Areva NP
February 2008 POWER
GLOBAL MONITOR
EPR has begun the prelicensing phase in the UK, so the NRCs certification of the design would authorize its use in a fourth country. The fifth licensing process will occur in China, where a contract for two EPRs was signed in November as part of the biggest deal ever in the history of nuclear power. Arevas application for NRC certification of the EPR design comprises 12,000 pages of documentation prepared by a project team of 325 engineers and 55 support staff. To ensure an efficient and timely review of the application, Areva began official discussions with the NRC in January 2005. Dozens of technical exchanges and planning meetings with the agency followed the initial meeting; during them, Areva provided topical reports and supporting materials in the hope of obtaining early approval of some parts of the design.
5. Air Force goes solar. These photovoltaic panels at Nellis Air

Force Base use tracking devices to keep them pointed toward the sun throughout the day. Tilted toward the south, each set of panels rotates around a central bar. Courtesy: Nellis Air Force Base
Mitsubishi also in line at the NRC

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has applied to the NRC for certification of its U.S.-advanced pressurized water reactor (USAPWR), a 1,700-MW design that the Japanese company hopes to deploy in the U.S. Last year, TXU Energy (now Luminant), the Dallas-based electric utility, signed a deal with MHI to use the US-APWR design for two new reactors it is considering building at its Comanche Peak plant in Glen Rose, Texas.
PV project shines in Nevada

On December 17, 2007, the U.S. Air Force celebrated the completion of North Americas largest photovoltaic (PV) system at Nellis Air Force Base in northeast Las Vegas. A joint venture of MMA
Renewable Ventures LLC, SunPower Corp., and Nevada Power Co., the 14-MW project (Figure 5) supplies about 25% of the power used by the base and its population of 12,000. Covering 140 acres of land at the western edge of the base, the system comprises 72,000 solar panels that use SunPowers proprietary single-axis Tracker T20 technology to follow the sun throughout the day. According to the company, the technology delivers up to 30% more energy than traditional fixed-tilt ground systems. MMA Renewable Ventures financed and operates the plant and will sell its output to the base under a guaranteed fixed-rate contract for the next 20 years. Nevada Power supports the project by purchasing the renewable energy credits it generates. This solar project at Nellis is a first step of many toward making renewable electricity integral to [our] operations, said William Anderson, assistant secretary of U.S. Air Force Installations, Environment, and Logistics. As the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, the Air Force is well-positioned to promote both solar technology and new approaches to its implementation. This pioneering initiative is a good example of how a creative approach to public-private partnership can make our energy supply more sustainable, more secure, and more affordable. The best way to secure a healthy and prosperous economy is to develop our affordable, reliable local resources, added Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. With these 14 megawatts, Nellis Air Force Base is leading the country in solar energy deployment, a move that is good for the environment and our nations energy security alike.
SunEdison commissions Colorado PV plant

In late December, SunEdison announced the start-up of another PV plant, its 8.22-MW facility in Alamosa, Colo., ahead of schedule. The facilitythe largest solar PV plant in the U.S. supporting substation loads for a major public utilityis expected to generate about 17,000 MWh annually. The solar plant was financed and built and will be maintained by SunEdison pursuant to an agreement with Xcel Energy under which the utility will buy both the plants output and the renewable energy credits it generates for the next 20 years. The plant, on an 80-acre site near an Xcel substation, is notable for its use of three distinct types of solar technologies: a
CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD 8
POWER February 2008
GLOBAL MONITOR
single-axis tracking array, a fixed-mount array, and a dual-axis tracking array with PV concentrator technology. According to Karen Hyde, VP of resource planning and acquisition at Xcel Energy, This is a unique facilitythree types of solar technologies have been deployed in parallel. Performance monitoring will allow us to study the systems performance and evaluate the relative benefits of each technology over the systems expected 20year lifespan. The RFP specifies that the plant must employ concentrating solar power technology like that used by Acciona Solar Powers 64-MW Solar One project, which recently came on-line in southern Nevada (POWER, December 2007, p. 40). It also states that projects including thermal energy storage will be given preference. More information is available at www .aps.com.
6. Happy birthday.
The DOE-sponsored Super Boiler, developed by the Gas Technology Institute and Cleaver-Brooks Inc., recently completed its first year of service, racking up more than 6,000 hours of operation at a thermal efficiency approaching 94%. Courtesy: DOE
Super Boiler celebrates first anniversary

An industrial boiler that operates at 94% thermal efficiency and produces fewer emissions than conventional boilers has operated successfully for a full year, producing high-pressure steam for a manufacturer of rubber parts. DOE officials attended the first birthday party for the Super Boiler (Figure 6) on November 30 at Specification Rubber Products Inc. in Alabaster, Ala. Since 2000, the DOEs Industrial Technologies Program has subsidized the basic research that led to the Super Boiler to the tune of $4.2 million. The unit itself was developed by the Gas Technology Institute and its partner, Cleaver-Brooks Inc.
Big concentrating solar plant proposed

A consortium of southwestern electric utilities has issued a request for proposals (RFP) by developers to build a large (100MW to 250-MW) solar thermal power plant in Nevada or Arizona by 2012. Members of the Southwest Energy Service Providers Consortium for Solar Development would buy all of the plants output. Bids are due March 19 of this year. The consortium consists of Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Arizona Public Service Co. (the groups coordinator), Southern California Public Power Authority, Salt River Project, Tucson Electric Power, and Xcel Energy.
The boiler geometry incorporates a twostage firetube design that is both compact and very efficient. Key innovations (Figure 7) include a transport membrane condenser (TMC), a humidifying air heater (HAH)
YOUR BEST PIPING SYSTEM SOURCE FOR HIGH ABRASION PIPING APPLICATIONS AND MORE
Where ordinary piping systems fail, Ultra Tech piping solutions succeed. Ultra Tech piping systems are available in a full line of pipe and components
Every Ultra Tech piping system is backed by experienced application engineers, the latest manufacturing processes, and worldwide product support. It's all part of the value package you'll find when you specify Ultra Tech.
Straight pipe lengths to 50' Diameters from 2.5" to 40" Bends customized 20" to 180" CLR With or without couplings Plus Hevi-Duty couplings, sweeps, laterals, wyes, tees and reducers
ID hardness 55-65 HRC (600 BHN) OD hardness 20-30 HRC (250 BHN) Service tempatures to 450o F (232o C)
Go online or call 800-626-8243

for application assistance or to learn more about our full product line of piping system components.
www.ultratechpipe.com
2008 Construction Forms, Inc.
A division of Construction Forms, Inc.
ULTRA TECH
LEADING THE WAY IN ABRASION RESISTANT PIPE SYSTEMS
CIRCLE 6 ON READER SERVICE CARD February 2008 POWER
GLOBAL MONITOR
that extracts sensible and latent heat from the boilers flue gas, compact convective zones with intensive heat transfer, and a staged/intercooled combustion system that minimizes emissions. The boiler at Specification Rubber Products is a single-stage, 300-hp, gas-fired TMC/HAH boiler that has been running 24 hours a day, five days a week with promising results. After more than 6,000 hours of operation, its efficiency converting fuel to steam has consistently been in the 93% to 94% range, producing annual gas savings of nearly 13%. The Super Boilers unique design, which incorporates high-intensity heat transfer using extended-surface firetubes, has exhibited heat transfer coefficients about 18 times greater than those of boilers using plain firetubes. In laboratory tests, the technology reduced NOx emissions to as low as 3 ppm while maintaining CO levels below 10 ppm across the firing range. Maintaining excess-air levels at 3% or lower has delivered better efficiency than low-NOx burners that employ flue gas recirculation or high amounts of excess air. With one year of successful operation under the Super Boilers belt, the next step in its evolution is further testing. New hosts will be the fruit-juice maker Clement Pappas & Co. (Ontario, Calif.) and Third Dimension Inc. (West Jordan, Utah), a manufacturer of boxes and packaging. Steam generation typically accounts for about one-third of the energy used by manufacturers.
7. Saving Btus.
Source: DOE
The Super Boilers unique flow path improves its combustion efficiency. Steam
Fuel
Primary furnace
Interstage cooling pass
Secondary furnace
Convective pass
Water HP economizer LP economizer Transport membrane condenser
Flue gas
Deaerator Humidifying air heater Preheated humidied air
Air
Small fuel cell uses JP-8 jet fuel

Two core technologies developed at the DOEs Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)a fuel desulfurization system and a fuel reforming systemwere instrumental in the demonstration of a 5-kW fuel cell running on JP-8, a popular military fuel. Portable fuel cell power units are quieter, cleaner, more reliable, easy to maintain, and up to three times more efficient than internal combustion engines such as diesels. But they are challenged by JP-8 fuels high sulfur content. The fuel desulfurization and reforming systems devel-
Feasibility Studies/Siting/Permitting Power Plant Engineering & Design Plant Upgrades/Retrots Construction Management Start up and Commissioning Owners Engineer Power Delivery
8. Stand up and salute. Converting JP-8 fuel to hydrogen for use by an onboard fuel cell has many potential applications, especially in the military. Source: PNNL
JP-8
Desulfurization unit
Clean fuel
H2 Fuel processor O2 from normal air
Fuel cell stack
800.878.6806 www.stanleyconsultants.com Excellent Career Opportunities Available

Balance of plant
H2O Water
POWER February 2008
GLOBAL MONITOR
9. Clean and compact.
This 5-kW electric power system incorporates a PNNLdeveloped fuel processor. Source: PNNL
oped at PNNL reduce the sulfur content of JP-8 and generate a hydrogen stream compatible with an integrated fuel cell (Figure 8). Although they are being developed for military use, the desulfurization and reforming technologies can be used with different liquid fuels to provide portable power almost anywhere that small size and high performance are important. For example, researchers at PNNL are looking to make the desulfurization technology compatible with diesel fuel. The fuel cellcentric auxiliary power unit (Figure 9) is modular and can be reconfigured for a wide range of uses. Researchers envision using the technology to supply auxiliary power and heat for long-haul commercial trucks, which would eliminate the need for and cost of running less-efficient engines while the vehicles are stopped. Battelle, which operates PNNL for the DOE, operated a prototype system demonstrating these technologies during the three-day 2007 Fuel Cell Seminar last fall. During the demonstration, an integrated 5-kW electric power system successfully powered area lights and a commercial refrigerator. The unique catalytic hydrodesulfurization process developed by PNNL removes sulfur from JP-8 fuel using syngas as the co-reactant in place of hydrogen. Gasphase operation of the process allows for a significant increase in throughput as well as a decrease in operating pressure compared with conventional technology. The process doesnt require consumables or periodic regeneration.
POWER digest
News items of interest to power industry professionals. Oxy-combustion tests show promise. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation
February 2008 POWER
Group (B&W PGG) has reached a major milestone on the road to commercializing a new technology that could greatly reduce CO2 emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants. B&W PGG became the first in the world to burn coal in full oxygen-combustion mode at a 30-MWt scale during recent testing at its Clean Environment Development Facility (CEDF) in Alliance, Ohio. The CEDF operated in full oxygen-coal combustion mode for over 250 hours as it burned more than 500 tons of bituminous coal. As the name implies, B&W PGGs oxygen-coal combustion process uses oxygen, rather than air, to fire coal. Doing so keeps nitrogen out of the process, and as a result its exhaust gas is mostly relatively pure CO2, rather than a mix of nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. Furthermore, the exhaust gas has less volume, is easier to capture, and with further purification is ready for sequestration or injection into wells to enhance oil recovery. Working closely with B&W PGG on this project was American Air Liquide, which provided the oxygen, engineering, and chemistry expertise related to combustion as well as the equipment and sensors needed for safe and efficient handling of the liquefied oxygen used during testing. An Oxy-Coal Combustion Advisory Group representing utility and merchant power generators also actively participated in the testing process. B&W PGG will continue its oxy-coal combustion research at the CEDF through the second quarter of this year. Next up on the development schedule are tests of the process on subbituminous and Powder River Basin coals and lignite. B&W PGG is currently seeking interested parties to conduct further oxy-coal combustion testing at a demonstration plant large enough to capture more than a million tons of CO2 annually. The Oxy-Coal Combustion Advisory Group will help B&W PGG evaluate applicants and select a site for this large-scale demonstration. FERC licenses first wave energy pilot. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued the first U.S. license for a wave energy plant. It will operate as a pilot project for five years to demonstrate the potentialand work out the technical and environmental kinksof the technology, which converts the kinetic energy of waves into electricity. FERC said the 1-MW Makah Bay Offshore Wave Pilot Project off the shore of northwest Washington will be torn down after five years, as proposed by the developer, Finavera Renewables Inc.
Finavera Renewables planned offshore power projects consist of patented wave energy converters based on proven, marine buoy technology. Clusters of these modular devices, called AquaBuOYs, will be moored several miles offshore, where waves are taller than they are close to shore. The project will consist of four steel buoys, each capable of producing 250 kW by harnessing the up-and-down motion of waves to drive power-generating equipment. The power will be sent to shore through a 3.7-mile underwater transmission cable that will be hooked into the distribution system operated by the Clallam County Public Utility District. A cluster of AquaBuOYs would have a low silhouette in the water. Located several miles offshore, the wave power project arrays would be visible enough to allow for safe navigation but would be no more noticeable than a small fleet of fishing boats. FERC has touted the potential benefits of bringing hydrokinetic projects on-line, saying that they could double the nations share of hydro capacity from its current 10% to 20%. GE shortens turbine start-up time. GE Energy recently introduced a 10-minute start capability for its Frame 7FA gas turbines as an expansion of the companys OpFlex gas turbine technology program. When equipped with the feature, a 7FA gas turbine would achieve stable combustion and be ready for dispatching 10 minutes after receiving a start signal. During the start-up period, NOx and CO emissions would both be less than 9 ppm. When incorporated into GEs next-generation Rapid Response combined-cycle power plant design, the feature would reduce the start-up emissions of a 207FA system (two gas turbines and one steam turbine) by as much as 20% and increase starting efficiency by up to 30%. Targeted for 60-Hz markets, the fast start-up feature will be available for simple-cycle applications in 2009 and for combined-cycle operation in late 2010. A power company using GEs Rapid Response combined-cycle power plant design with 10-minute start capability can provide high-efficiency power when it is needed most, said John Reinker, general manager of GE Energys heavy-duty and combined-cycle gas turbine product line. It is designed for customers who want to extend operation under an emissions cap, are contemplating cyclic duty, or have an opportunity to tap into additional revenue from the ancillary market.
11
FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M
FOCUS ON O&M
MANAGEMENT Survey captures industrys carbon concerns
Black & Veatch recently published 2007 Strategic Directions in the Electric Utility Industry Survey: The Changing Climate in the Electric Utility Industry, which reports the expectations, activities, and plans of energy companies in the North American power industry, based on the responses of nearly 400 executives to the companys survey. A little over one-third of the execs work at investor-owned utilities, and 17% are with munis. Some 45% of respondents classified their firm as other, a survey category that includes independent power producers (IPPs), consultants, and regulators. Three out of four respondents said they hold an executive or management/supervisory position at their company. As expected, service reliability was the executives top overall concern, with the aging workforce problem in second place. Environmental issues took the third spot, followed by aging infrastructure. Other reported concerns included security, regulation, and long-term and technology investment. Some 82% of survey respondents said they believe that global warming is indeed occurring, and 44% answered that it is caused by human activity. Overall, about 36% of the executives believe global warming is real and caused by human activities. Nearly 35% of respondents said they were highly confident about the accuracy of climate change science. But a greater share (42%) said they doubted its usefulness. Those were surprising results, said Richard Rudden, a senior VP and managing director of Black & Veatch, a leading engineering/procurement/construction firm. They suggest less support for the underlying science than we had expected. The results also underscore the substantial differences in views of global warming between U.S. executives and executives of nations that have endorsed the Kyoto Protocol. Most expect CO2 controls soon Seventy-two percent of respondents believe that some form of federal CO2 legislation will be enacted by 2011. Given the executives expressions of great
12
uncertainty about the timing and level of carbon caps, and heightened public awareness of the effects of climate change, one would have expected that percentage to be higher in our 2007 survey than in years past, said Rudden. One explanation for the low number is that respondents may have expected some action by Congress on this issue in 2007, which did not occur. Asked which type of carbon controls they would prefer, 29% of survey respondents said a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions, 14% preferred a straight carbon tax, 8% voted for statutory restrictions on physical emissions, and 49% wanted a combination of the three approaches. Although the reality and cause of climate change continue to be debated, the issues higher public profile has led to significant changes in corporate strategies and behavior. For example, nearly 20% of respondents said they have deferred or canceled a planned coal-fired power project due to uncertainty about carbon regulations. Independent analysis by Black & Veatch indicates that plans for 13 coal plants, representing 11 GW of baseload capacity, have been scrapped or delayed over the past year, despite an urgent and growing need for new capacity identified by the DOE and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. Another interesting survey result: Despite the wariness of 42% of executives about climate change science, almost 50% of respondents said their organizations now publicly acknowledge that global warming is a manmade problem. In addition, 86% expressed confidence that their organizations are doing enough to position themselves as environmentally aware. The executives said they expect the business costs of cutting carbon caps or paying a carbon tax to be highalthough not as high as independent estimates by Black & Veatch. Some 22% of survey respondents believe that the all-in (operating, fuel, and capital) costs of coal-fired generation will increase between 10% and 20% under a carboncontrol regime. Many more (62%) expect costs to rise between 21% and 50%. Only 15% of respondents think that complying with carbon regulations will increase their costs by more than 50%.
www.powermag.com
Where to invest to cut costs By comparison, independent analyses by Black & Veatch suggest that all-in coal plant costs under carbon controls will rise between 40% and 80%. The specific increase for a particular utility or IPP will reflect its carbon-capture technology choices, the size of its plants, and their proximity to suitable sequestration sites. The top five supply-side technologies that respondents believe should be emphasized in the future are, in order of preference: nuclear, coal gasification, wind power, carbon capture and sequestration, and solar power. The ranking correlates with the top five environmental concerns reported by respondents: carbon emissions, water supply, mercury control, and emissions of NOx and SOx. Nuclear fuel disposal ranked sixth on the list of environmental concerns, suggesting that the industry is reasonably comfortable with this downside of nuclear power. This summary of the report barely scratches its surface. To fully appreciate its depth and breadth, download the pdf from www.bv.com/markets/management_ consulting/Strategic_Directions_Survey .aspx.
EMISSIONS CONTROL Sequestering coal plant emissions

Sequester is an interesting word. Our industry has been using it to describe any way to permanently store the carbon dioxide produced by fossil-fueled power plants so it no longer contributes to climate change. Various references provide synonyms such as isolate and impound. However, the first definition of sequester that pops up in the thesaurus of my version of Word is the one that lawyers use: to confiscate, or take custody of property belonging to a defendant who may be in contempt of a court until he or she complies with its orders. In the court of public opinion regarding climate change, the coal industry is the defendant and the property is the right to build a new coal-fired unit. Make no mistake: It is coal-fired electricity production that is already being sequestered. Without a credible plan for managing carbon, new projects are being squelched across the U.S., even in what normally would be considered coal-friendly states. What became painfully obvious at
POWER February 2008
FOCUS ON O&M
Carbon Capture: Status and Outlooka conference organized and presented by Infocast last December in Washington, D.C.is this: A defensible, commercial, and financeable solution for capturing and sequestering large volumes of carbon dioxide is at least a decadeand probably more like 15 yearsaway. The necessary process technology has not been demonstrated at scale; long-term storage, monitoring, testing, and verification of sequestration sites has not been accomplished for the various geologic structures being considered (Figure 1); and, most critically, were not even close to a legal framework for permitting and siting such facilities. Without these pieces in place, its not worthwhile dwelling on the exorbitant costs of stripping CO2 from flue gas, storing it underground, and monitoring a site forever, or at least for a very long time. To give you an idea of the volumes were talking about, a large coal-fired plant discharges 6 million tons of CO2 annually. According to one estimate given at the meeting, the total from 800 coal plants would be twice the volume of oil transported in the U.S. For this reason, one speakerBill Martin of Atlantic Energy Ventures LLCsaid we need a CO2 superhighway to service many plants. Imagining the necessary infrastructure boggles the mind. The technical issues Speakers who addressed process technology, engineering, and construction issues drove home some important points:
1. Drilling to store gas. Properly sited, engineered, and managed geological reservoirs can be expected to retain stored CO2 for hundreds to thousands of years. However, there are many legal issues remaining for developers of sequestration facilities. Source: EPRI
discharge (lower temperature), and plant water balance. Scale-up, he said, is a big risk issue. Hope Chase, also of Shaw Group, addressed similar issues for in-situ CCS employing oxygen-fired combustion. For this option, total system design
and operation have not been demonstrated. She also noted that operating and feedstock (fuel) flexibilities are non-trivial issues. Calvin Hartman of Worley Parsons probably summed up the predicament for coal
Mark Langford of Kiewit Industrial Co. asked, Is 50% [carbon dioxide] capture without enhanced oil recovery economical? He answered his own question no, but then elaborated by saying that integrated gasification combinedcycle (IGCC) technology alone cant be made economical on a straight electricity-output basis. Later, Tom Lynch of ConocoPhillips said that the costs of IGCCwithout carbon capturecalculate out to around $3,200/kW for projects today across the board. Christopher Wedig of Shaw Group observed that a total post-combustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) system has not been demonstrated at commercial scale, and that the capture process impacts most other parts of the power plant design, including the electrical system (large parasitic load), main steam turbine flow (steam is consumed in CO2 absorption), stack
February 2008 POWER
13
FOCUS ON O&M
Beam, Hoist,
To Below The To
From
best. One year ago, capture-ready was the requirement for a coal-fired project to move forward. Not too long after that, 50% capture became a popular target. Today, even that doesnt sell. Even higher carbon capture levels are being discussed. This is an important trend, said Hartman, because 80% capture is an inflection point. Going from 80% to 90% triples the amount of equipment, he said. The financial and legal issues Coals road forward appeared even more difficult as the meeting waded into financial and institutional issues. David Reisinger of AIG Global Marine & Energy asked a question that was surely dreaded by the audience: Could a CO2 sequestration site be labeled hazardous or even a Superfund site? Swaminathan Venkataram of Standard & Poors stated that power companies are not the logical entities to be liable for sequestration sites; however, he did not identify who that logical candidate might be. Venkataram also noted that CCS-equipped plants would have to plan for more down time, build in contingent O&M reserves, plan for longer ramp-up times, and expect lower capacity factors. All this impacts credit quality, he said. Another speaker, Martin Smith of Xcel Energy, reviewed his companys experience trying to develop a 600-MW IGCC project over the past several years in Colorado. The project committed to CCS from the beginning. First, it was 50% capture, a level that would make the IGCC plants discharge equivalent to that from a gas-fired combined-cycle plant. Then the target moved to 80% capture. However, the issues moved way beyond the technical. Despite well surveys, seismic analysis, and 3-D geospatial modeling, there is much uncertainly about sequestrationfor example, who owns the pore space below the surface? Dozens of land owners are involved. Eminent domain issues crop up. Post-closure requirements are not specified. EPAs designation of Class V wells is not adequate for commercial sequestration. Smith concluded that although Xcel has done the work, it has barely scratched the surface of the problem. Julio Friedmann of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory advised that, since you cannot ensure the integrity of the storage site, you must select a low-risk site, conduct a thorough site characterization, and provide a technical basis for decision-making. There are three major hazards to consider: atmospheric release, groundwater degradation, and deformation of the boundary material holding the CO2 volumes in place. Operational protocols for sequestration sites are only now being formulated. He also proclaimed that the window of opportunity for pairing CCS with enhanced oil recovery (EOR) would close in a few short years. Not technically ready for prime time The good news, if there was any, from the meeting is that CCS is a robust solution to the problem of climate change. Estimates are that it can deal with 15% to 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The bad news: The U.S. lags in developing and implementing the technology. There are no operational large-scale sequestration facilities, and proposed projects are proceeding with great uncertainty. (The Great Plains Gasification Plant in North Dakota does transport large volumes of CO2 several hundred miles to Canada for use in EOR. Recovering power plant CO2 for EOR represents an opportunity for actually selling the material, but it is currently considered a limited opportunity in the U.S. EOR also requires use of very pure CO2.) A generally accepted definition of a commercial technology for electric utility application (especially one that provides no competitive advantage) is one for which three variations
POWER February 2008
Hook.
Thats What Complete Lifting Systems Are All About.

Whether lifting steel beams or positioning delicate electronics equipment, all of the necessary products are available from a single source - CM Complete Lifting Systems. Jib cranes, enclosed track systems, crane components, trolleys, and beam clamps offer numerous options overhead, while hoists are available in electric, air, and manual configurations. Below-the-hook attachments like spreader beams, shackles, chain slings, hooks, and clamps round out the most versatile line in the industry. One authority that has it all.
800 - 888 - 0985

www.cmindustrial.com
cleaner, safer, more productive
CALL TODAY
...to learn how Martin Engineering
can make
your
coal-red power generation Cleaner, Safer, and More Productive.
MARTIN ENGINEERING 800.544.2947 or 309.594.2384 info@martin-eng.com www.martin-eng.com

FOCUS ON O&M
(or vendor offerings) have been operating for several years at appropriate scale. If thats the goal, and you consider both that no facilities are operating today and that institutional and legal frameworks are ambiguous at best, it doesnt take a genius to see that were at least a decade away from new coal plants being technically viable in our apparently carbon-constrained future. Most utility executives now believe legislation to address global warming is inevitable, and several are actively lobbying for such legislation sooner rather than later, simply to provide the certainty needed to go forward with the business of building new generating capacity. Still failing the economic test Placing a firm value on a ton of carbon (either via a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax) could provide the monetary incentive necessary to accelerate CCS development. Venkataram reported numbers showing that IGCC with CSS, assuming storage in EOR wells and revenues from CO2 sales, becomes competitive at a $40/ ton price for carbon. However, forecasts based on proposed legislative frameworks now before Congress dont show the carbon markets reaching such a level until 2020. This suggests that CCS wont be economically competitive for at least another decade, and probably longer. At that point, of course, the question is whether coal would remain a lower-cost option for electricity generation than nuclear or renewables. Another speaker estimated that CCS would increase capital costs by 30% to 40%, operating costs by 30% to 50%, and bus-bar electricity costs by 30%. To sum up, Americas most plentiful source of electricity is being not just sequestered, but bound, tied, and gagged, while other options have the freedom to progress forward. In that respect, sequester is not just an interesting word; its a dangerous word. Contributed by Jason Makansi, president of Pearl Street Inc. (www .pearlstreetinc.com).
2. Get wet. The Hydra AA mercury analyzer is capable of analyzing four wet-digested coal samples with differing mercury content. Courtesy: Teledyne Leeman Labs
3. Atomic power.
Labs
A simplified schematic of the Hydra AA. Source: Teledyne Leeman Hg lamp
Atomic absorption cell
Naon dryer Reference Argon gas
Gas control Liq/gas separator
Mix coil
Pump
Sample
Reductant
MERCURY CONTROL Comparing mercury measurement methods

The U.S. EPA has designated mercury a persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic pollutant and says that a significant portion of anthropomorphic (manmade) levels of the element in the environment
16
comes from burning coal. The Great Lakes Initiative (www.epa.gov/osti/gli), a cooperative effort of the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, was established to eliminate anthropogenic sources of mercury. Measuring the mercury content of the coal entering a plant, as well as the mercury content of coal combustion residue, can be helpful in the development of a plants mercury control strategy. The two
Table 1. Key operational parameters of the Hydra AA mercury analyzer. Source: Teledyne Leeman Labs
Parameter Argon ow rate Peristaltic pump speed Rinse time Uptake time Integration time Value 0.05 liters/min 7 milliliters/min 60 seconds 50 seconds 20 seconds
POWER February 2008
FOCUS ON O&M
commonly used analytical methods for doing so are ASTM D6414-99 (wet digestion) and ASTM 6722-01 (thermal decomposition). To compare these approaches, five portions of four coal samples were analyzed by both techniques. Wet digestion A Hydra AA mercury analyzer (Figure 2) from Teledyne Leeman Labs is well-suited to this method. Figure 3 is a schematic of the instrument; Table 1 lists its key operational parameters. The unit can analyze coal samples with differing mercury content. Samples are prepared by placing about 1 gram of each into separate 50-ml polypropylene tubes and then adding 2 ml of 15N HNO3 and 6 ml of 12N HCl. All of the tubes are then held at about 180F for one hour. Next, 36.5 ml of deionized water is added to each tube, followed by 5 ml of 5% KMnO4. After allowing 10 minutes for oxidation, each tube is examined to ensure that there is an excess of oxidant, indicated by a purple color. Adding 0.5 ml of 12% NaCl:12% NH2OH removes the excess oxidant and completes the digestion. Standard or sample solutions are then added to the analyzers autosampler. As Figure 3 shows, the unit pumps a 10% solution of stannous chloride solution and either the standard or sample into a gas/ liquid separator to produce free mercury. The Hydra AA bubbles argon through the liquid mixture; the gas extracts the mercury and carries it to the atomic absorption cell (the upper right of Figure 3) for quantification. Thermal decomposition A Hydra-C direct mercury analyzer, also from Teledyne Leeman Labs, is suitable for running the thermal decomposition analysis and comparing its results to those of the wet digestion method. The instrument and its schematic are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively; Table 2 lists its key operational parameters. A feature of the Hydra-C that is important to users at coal-fired plants is its ability to measure the level of mercury in sorbent traps, as specified by CFR 40, part 75, Appendix K. Analysis of coal samples begins with the deposition of about 0.5 gm of each sample into the Hydra-Cs combustion furnace. Using four replicates allows measurement of the precision of the thermal decomposition method. As Figure 5 shows, the principle of the Hydra-C is quite simple. A weighed sample is deposited into a sample boat
February 2008 POWER
4. Some like it hot.
The Hydra-C analyzer is well-suited for thermal decomposition mercury measurement. Courtesy: Teledyne Leeman Labs
5. Simple, yet powerful.

Teledyne Leeman Labs
The basic process executed by the Hydra-C. Source:
Sample boat
Gold amalgamation trap
Absorption cells High sensitivity Low sensitivity
50900C O2 supply Decomposition furnace
600C Catalyst furnace Drying tube Amalgam furnace Delay tube
and then into the instrument. Oxygen begins to flow over the sample. The decomposition furnace temperature is then increased in two stages: the first increase dries the sample; the second decomposes it. The evolved gases are carried through a heated catalyst to produce free mercury while removing halogens, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. The remaining combustion products, including elemental mercury (Hg0), are swept through a gold amalgamation trap that captures and concentrates the Hg0. After the amalgamation step, the trap is heated to release the mercury into a carrier gas that transports it into an atomic absorption spectrometer.
Table 2. Key operational parameters of the Hydra-C direct mercury analyzer. Source: Teledyne Leeman
Labs Parameter Oxygen ow rate Dry temperature Dry time Decomposition temperature Decomposition time Catalyst temperature Catalyst delay time Amalgamator temperature Amalgamator time Integration time Value 350 milliliters/min 570F 30 seconds 1,500F 250 seconds 1,100F 60 seconds 1,112F 20 seconds 100 seconds
17
FOCUS ON O&M
Comparing the results Table 3 lists the results of the two measurement methods for comparison purposes. Both methods show similar precision, and their average values are well within confidence limits of the coal reference materials. Figure 6 compares the average values of the techniques graphically. Despite the fundamental differences between the wet digestion and the thermal decomposition approaches to mercury analysis, the two techniques show excellent correlation. The comparative results presented here showed no analytical bias and were well within the techniques confidence limits. Practical application notes Its interesting to note that thermal decomposition can determine the mercury level in coal at lower concentrations than wet digestion. For coal samples, the wet digestion process results in about a 50fold dilution of the sample, whereas no dilution occurs with thermal decomposition. Whats more, with thermal decomposition, all of the mercury contained in each sample is collected (that is, preconcentrated) on the amalgam tube before analysis. That helps give the technique its lower detection limits. The thermal decomposition technique has two additional benefits that some laboratories may appreciate. First, with thermal decomposition, no concentrated mineral acids or strong redox reagents are used. Such chemicals must be handled with care by qualified personnel and with appropriate attention to safety. Second, because the aqueous digestion step is eliminated, no aqueous hazardous waste is produced. Specifically, there are no acidic wastes high in metal content (tin, manganese, sodium, and potassium) requiring disposal (Table 4). For most samples, either technique will suffice, so the choice can depend on practical rather than analytical considerations. For many power plant chemistry labs, existing instrumentation or legislative requirements may dictate use of a specific technique. In some applications, such as process control, minimizing the total time required from sampling to report generation may be the deciding factor. Others may prefer to keep things simple for operators who lack a strong background in chemistry, or to avoid the complexity involved in the reduction technique, with its reactive reagents and hazardous waste. Also, if your lab has an interest in 40 CFR, part 75, Appendix K, the thermal decomposition approach may be bettersuited to your overall needs. Contributed by Bruce MacAllister and David Pfeil of Teledyne Leeman Labs (www.teledyneleeman.com).
POWER February 2008
Table 3. Summarizing the results of the two measurement methods.

Source: Teledyne Leeman Labs Hydra AA wet digestion analysis of four samples 20025B Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average Std. deviation 81.5 85.0 75.2 79.0 81.3 80.4 3.6 20025B Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average Std. deviation 80.4 77.5 84.1 77.1 75.0 78.8 3.5 20100B 64.5 78.9 73.8 65.2 64.0 69.3 6.7 20100B 76.4 84.9 69.1 70.1 71.0 74.3 6.6 30075B 58.5 56.2 56.5 48.6 51.1 54.2 4.2 30075B 65.6 54.7 46.4 60.0 53.3 56.0 7.2 ND NA 40150B 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.6 0.3 40150B ND ND ND ND
Hydra-C thermal decomposition analysis of sample replicates
Notes: NA = not applicable, ND = less than the methods detection limit.
6. Close correlation.
A comparison of the average readings produced by the wet digestion and thermal decomposition methods. Source: Teledyne Leeman Labs Wet digestion 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Thermal decomposition
Concentration (ppb)
20025B
20100B Sample
30075B
40150B
Table 4. Pros and cons to consider when deciding which mercury measurement technique to use. Source: Teledyne Leeman Labs
Thermal decomposition No need for sample preparation No hazardous chemicals or waste Analysis takes about 5 minutes/sample Same calibration needed for various matrices Compliant with 40 CFR, part 75, Appendix K
18
Wet digestion Better detection limit for water measurements Standalone or Hydra AA attachment Rapid analysis after digestion Dilutions of high samples possible
Panasonic recommends Windows Vista Business.
LEGALLY, WE CANNOT SAY

TRUCK ROLLS.
While we arent suggesting this is a major competition, taking a laptop computer on the road will surely enhance productivity and provide impressive results. We built the fully-rugged Toughbook 30 to let eld workers access information, organize workow and dramatically increase productivity. It has a magnesium alloy case to protect the shock-mounted hard drive, spill-resistant keyboard, an easy-to-read LCD and optional GPS to help you get where youre going faster. The Toughbook 30. One for the record books, it outperforms more than we can legally say. panasonic.com/toughbook/utilities 1.800.662.3537
YOULL SET THE WORLD RECORD FOR
THE RUGGED ORIGINAL.

Intel, Intel logo, Intel Centrino, Intel Centrino logo, Intel Inside, Intel Inside logo and Pentium are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. Toughbook notebook PCs are covered by a 3-year limited warranty, parts and labor. To view the full text of the warranty, log on to panasonic.com/business/toughbook/support.asp. Please consult your Panasonic representative prior to purchase. 2008 Panasonic Corporation of North America. All rights reserved. TruckRolls_Utilities_FY07-3
LEGAL & REGULATORY
California constrains competition again

Steven F Greenwald . Jeffrey P Gray .
By Steven F. Greenwald and Jeffrey P. Gray

scrutiny simply denies electric consumers the benefits of competition. The unique circumstances include mitigating market power, developing preferred/renewable resources, expanding existing utility facilities, acquiring unique opportunities, and meeting reliability needs. The reasons for allowing utility generation under these circumstances, however, are unconvincing and seem aimed at solving problems that do not exist. For instance, the CPUC suggests that markets may be inadequate to ensure that utilities procure sufficient preferred/renewable resources. Currently, the primary impediments to the successful development of preferred/renewable resources include such nonmarket factors as permitting challenges and the lack of adequate transmissioneach of which affects utility and IPP projects equally. Given the utilities near-monopsony power and their discretion to specify the resources they procure, the development of additional utility generation should be expectedwithout the opportunity for IPPs to compete in any meaningful manner. A self-fulfilling prophecy The perception of an unlevel playing field in the procurement process is sufficient, by itself, to dampen participation from IPPs and their investors. IPPs will become increasingly reluctant to invest in the development of new generation in California and will migrate to other markets, where the regulatory environment better ensures that projects can compete fairly and be judged on their merits. To the extent that fewer IPPs participate in Californias hybrid market, the states ability to meet reliability requirements and environmental mandates through utility resource solicitations will suffer, creating (in the CPUCs view) unique circumstances that the utilities can use to justify bypassing any competitive process and increasing their own generation. Thus, California utilities will be perversely rewarded for failing to conduct successful resource solicitations, and competitive procurement will be further inhibited. Two steps backward A truly competitive wholesale market encourages private investment in new generation, promotes innovation, lowers prices, and best ensures the timely availability of resources needed to meet reliability requirements and achieve environmental goals. The CPUC has missed an opportunity to advance meaningful competition and instead chose to perpetuate an inherently flawed hybrid model. That model further erodes competition by, in effect, encouraging the acquisition of utility ratebase generation outside of even the minimally competitve process offered by the existing hybrid model. The actions of the CPUC undermine effective competition in the near term and threaten to set back efforts to develop a competitive wholesale energy market over the long term. Steven F. Greenwald (stevegreenwald@dwt.com) leads Davis Wright Tremaines Energy Practice Group. Jeffrey P. Gray (jeffgray @dwt.com) is a partner in the firms Energy Practice Group.
POWER February 2008
iven a chance to make a positive change in Californias wholesale generation market, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in December opted instead to maintain the states existing hybrid market model. That decision will further restrict meaningful opportunities for independent power producers (IPPs) and increase the likelihood that future generation will consist of utility ratebase projects. The CPUC presented its decision as an interim measure that supports development of a competitive market that will stimulate private investment in new generation without the need for long-term power-purchase agreements. However, promoting new utility ratebase generation is the antithesis of a merchant model and, notwithstanding the CPUCs reasoning, will likely inhibit the emergence of a competitive market.
Still ignoring the problems As previously discussed in this column, institutional advantages favor utility generation over IPP resources and make the benefits that hybrid markets supposedly offer, at best, illusory (POWER, March 2006). An administrative law judges proposed decision recognized this inherent flaw in the California hybrid model and, if adopted, would have prohibited utility-owned projects from participating in utility resource solicitations. But the CPUC commissioners dismissed this recommendation in favor of protective measures. In particular, a (currently undefined) code of conduct prevents the sharing of information between utility personnel responsible for developing utility bids and utility personnel responsible for selecting winning bids. Restrictions on the sharing of information presuppose that utilities actually develop and construct utility generation and do not address fundamental problems of a hybrid market. Recent utility-owned generation projects in California have consisted of facilities added to the utilitys ratebase that were developed and bid into resource solicitations by third partiescircumstances the code of conduct would not affect. However, the financial incentive for a utility to select a turnkey project over a competing IPP power-purchase agreement in a resource solicitation is the same as for projects developed by the utility: an incremental addition to the utilitys ratebase and the attendant ability for shareholders to earn a cost-plus return for 30 years or more. The absence of a rational and transparent methodology for comparing utility-owned generation and IPP power-purchase agreements on an apples-to-apples basis means that the hybrid model provides a utility with ample opportunity to favor projects promising ratebase recovery, irrespective of the cost consequences to customers. If that werent enough . . . The CPUC identified five unique circumstances in which it will authorize development of utility-owned generation outside of any competitive process. Inviting utilities to acquire new ratebase generation assets that are not subject to competitive
20
www.powermag.com
COAL PLANT OPERATIONS
TVAs Shawnee Fossil Plant Unit 6 sets new record for continuous operation
Shawnees new 1,093-day long-run record is a testament to the plants highly qualified and trained staff, excellent operations and maintenance processes, and the quality leadership required to keep all the moving parts pointed in the right direction. If running a power plant is a team sport, then the staff of Shawnee are in a league of their own.
By Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
ennessee Valley Authoritys (TVA) Shawnee Fossil Plant sits on 2,696 acres on the south bank of the Ohio River about 10 miles northwest of Paducah, Kentucky. The plant is a local landmark, easily recognizable by its 10 original stacks flanked by two tall stacks stretching 800 feet into the sky (Figure 1). Its stacks may stand out in the landscape, but its the plants operations reputation thats truly outstanding.
days, 11 hours, and 24 minutes. Courtesy: TVA
Shawnee, one of 11 TVA coal plants, has a long history of operations excellence, beginning with its timely completion more than 50 years ago (see sidebar, p. 24). In 2006 alone, Shawnee generated 9.4 million MWhits highest since 1977while ranking in the top 25% of plants nationwide for lowest cost of production. The latest honor accorded Shawnee is the national continuous operating title won by
Unit 6: 1,093 days, 11 hours, and 24 minutes when it went off-line on February 15, 2007. The previous national record of 1,017 days, 2 hours, and 59 minutes was set by First Energys W.H. Sammis Unit 2 in Ohio on November 14, 2005. This phenomenal national achievement is a tribute to the knowledge, positive attitudes, and commitment by every employee at Shawnee, and it bolsters TVAs mission
1. Operations excellence. Shawnee Fossil Plant Unit 6 set a new long-run operations record for a coal-fired power plant of 1,093
22
www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
Spending cents ...
Making sense.
Enhance your companys bottom line with the latest in coal transfer technology.
Coal-red plants currently spend over $25 million per year repairing and/or replacing skirts, seals and supports on coal transfer systems. Your plant can take the lead in technological advancement and scal responsibility with one sensible choice. InteliFlothe next generation in bulk material handling provides zero O&M replacement costsguaranteed. With no skirts or seals to replace, no hoods and tail boxes needed and a vast reduction in initial dust formation, this innovative proven system from Benetech maximizes savings while reducing risks. Switch to the transfer solution that delivers the right combination of innovation and efciency and guarantees enhanced returns.
To receive a FREE InteliFlo CD to learn how your plant can gain a competitive edge, call us at 1-800-843-2625 or email smitha@benetechusa.com
2007 Benetech, Inc. InteliFlo U.S. Patent No. 7,228,956
BENETECH DELIVERS PROVEN SOLUTIONS that reduce O&M costs, lower risk profiles and increase efciencies. We have saved our customers over $100 million through asset optimization, fuel exibility and P2 plant assessments.
With close to 100 PRB conversions and plant assessments completed, and over 900 million tons of coal transferred, Benetech has the expertise to solve todays industry challenges.
www.BENETECHUSA.com
Enterprise is where you find it

The March 1, 1954, issue of TIME magazine reported on a University of Chicago lecture presented by TVA Chairman Gordon R. Clapp the previous week in an article titled The Wrong Horse. When queried about the cost difference between public works projects constructed by private enterprise and the government, Clapp pointed to the race between TVA and Electric Energy Inc. to supply power for Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) installations in Paducah, Ky. Electric Energy Inc., a partnership of five privately owned utility firms, contracted with the AEC in 1950 to build a power plant at Joppa, Ill., just across the Ohio River from Shawnee (now the 1,086-MW merchant plant Joppa Power Station, 80% owned by Ameren and 20% by Kentucky Utilities). TVA was also contracted to build a plant of similar size the same year, and the race was on. Joppa was scheduled to begin service three months ahead of Shawnee, and handicappers made Joppa the overwhelming favorite to capture the longterm contract to supply baseload power to the AEC. Clapp noted in his lecture that Both TVA and E.E., Inc. suffered from delayed deliveries from equipment manufacturers. Both encountered labor difficulties. Both projects missed the completion dates originally scheduled. Trade journals and some of the daily press heralded this race. . . . After a while, however, the cries of the professional spectators died down. It began to be apparent that the wrong horse was coming in ahead. Two years and three months from the time construction was started, the first unit at TVAs Shawnee plant was placed in commercial operation, while the smokestacks of Joppa . . . were still clean and cold. TIME noted that Clapp ended his lecture with a comparison of the costs to construct each facility. Electric Energy, Inc. had to raise its estimates from $126/kW to $184/kW, while TVA kept well within the original estimate of $147.50/kW. Clapp added, If this story has a moral, perhaps this is it: enterprise is where you find it.
to provide affordable, reliable power to the people of the Valley, said TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore. What makes Shawnee first among equals is a plant staff of 330 dedicated employees, each contributing in his or her own way to the plants history of operations excellence. We achieved this outstanding milestone as a result of the knowledge, pride, and passion of every individual working at the plant, said Jeff Parsley, Shawnee plant manager. This record reflects the joint efforts of our plant employees and the support organizations
that continuously work together on improving plant operations (Figure 2). Parsley, not content to rest on the plants recent achievements, went on to note, I am proud to work for TVA and of Shawnees successful operations record. Our goal is to continuously improve on these records in the future. Thats my vision for Shawnee. Shawnee is no one-trick pony. The plant routinely ranks in the top 10% nationally for availability and reliability, and long runs extend beyond Unit 6. Unit 2 recently had a record run of 569 days, Unit 4 ran for 407
2. Culture club.
It takes people, processes, and passion to be successful, said Jeff Parsley, Shawnee plant manager. Thats the kind of culture we have here. Courtesy: TVA
3. Ten in a row. Jeff Parsley confers with Tom Kilgore, TVA president and CEO, on the turbine room floor. Courtesy: TVA
24
POWER February 2008

days, and Unit 5 ran for 522 days. Shawnee also set a 10-unit continuous-run record in 2006, when it ran all 10 units for 45 consecutive days and topped a mark set in 1961. This is no small feat for a plant completed in 1957, the last year the Dodgers played at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn.
Perfect 10
Shawnees 10 coal-fired generating units produce about 1,369 net MW by consuming some 9,600 tons of coal each day. Units 1 through 9 are identical Babcock & Wilcox wall-fired, pulverized fuel boilers that burn a blend of low-sulfur coal with low-NOx burners to limit NOx emissions. Unit 10, the nations first utility-scale atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion boiler, built to test the technology for sulfur removal, began operation in 1988. All 10 prime movers are identical Westinghouse units (Figure 3). Shawnee is the lowest total production cost plant in the TVA fossil system and posts the second-highest net margin in TVAs fossil fleet. Between 2003 and 2006, Shawnee experienced the best availability and reliability record in the history of the plant (Units 1 to 9), with an EFOR average of 0.82% and an EAF of 94.6%.
Shawnee control room staff enjoy a visit from Tom Kilgore, TVA president and CEO. From left to right are Scott Record, unit operator; Sidney Lovelace, shift operations supervisor; Tom Kilgore; and Bobby Gainey, unit operator. Courtesy: TVA
Unit Operator Jeff Cunningham keeps a sharp eye on unit performance. Courtesy: TVA
The three Ps
Parsley attributes Shawnees success to the three Pspeople, processes, and passion and the plant works hard on all three. Parsley has spent his entire 28-year career with TVA at Shawnee, working his way up from the operator ranks to running Shawnee for the past five years, so his management style is informed by real-world experience and long-term working relationships with many at the plant. He confessed that his long experience with Shawnee has been a key influence on his management style: With experience comes credibility, with credibility comes trust, and with trust comes success. Hiring, training, and keeping good people are perhaps Parsleys greatest challenges as plant manager. Shawnee, like many power stations in the U.S., has been working through the aging workforce brain drain problem for the past several years. The lead time for new operators to become productive is about two years, beginning with a yearlong operator training program followed by another year of on-the-job training and continuous mentoring and feedback before operators complete their qualifications. The key to a smooth workforce transition is making a commitment to training a new workforce regardless of actual losses. TVA has elected to err on the side of having a few too many operators rather than too few when long-time employees retire unexpectedly
February 2008 POWER
and leave the plant shorthanded for several years. Shawnee begins its classes approximately once a year and staffs them based on projected retirements and other losses three years down the road rather than on actual losses that have occurred. Today, 50% of Shawnees workforce has less than 10 years experience. On the ops side, entry-level requirements are typically a two-year degree from a community college or vocational or technical school or five years of equivalent experience. History has shown that employees recruited within a 60-mile radius tend to stay longer and are quicker to make the transition into the Shawnee lifestyle and culture. Shawnee has been able to keep an experienced workforce on the maintenance side. It brings on board journeymen craft workers as well as trainees and has been able to maintain a first-rate mix of talent. Attracting the best operations and maintenance supervision talent into the management ranks also remains a crucial challenge for plant management. First-line supervisors usually are promoted from within the operations or maintenance ranks. However, a topnotch first-line supervisor may pause before taking the jump into plant management; developing and encouraging that raw talent is the never-ending responsibility of the plant management team. Parsley was clear that one of the secrets to the plants recent success has been a management team that has served Shawnee a long time; in fact, there are a fair number of second- and third-generation TVA employees at the plant, testifying to the attractiveness of Shawnees working environment.
Shawnee staff, and the staff have invested heavily of themselves for many years to achieve spectacular results. When asked for the secret of their success, the conversation inevitably returns to the three Ps and a focus on executing the details in the plants day-today operation. Parsley refers to consistently executing the basics of blocking and tackling rather than going for the more dramatic end zone toss with seconds left in the game. So lets look at those basics. Have you ever tried to make a list of what you do every day in your job? So many of the tasks are automatic and completed without a second thought. Good plant operating practices should be so institutionalized that they are not burdensome, make good intuitive sense to the staff, have a specific goal in mind, and can be repeatable with predictable results. These 10 essentials, though not meant to constitute a comprehensive list, provide insight into the culture of success at Shawnee. Perhaps they will spark an idea or two for your plant.
1. Use a systems engineering approach. At Shawnee, each major system
Top 10 practices
High-performing plants somehow find a way to stretch a dollar a little further or challenge employees to do just a bit more. TVA has invested much in the development of the
has an engineer assigned to it who is responsible for its health and welfare. The system engineer is responsible for preparing a daily status report with key performance metrics as well as recommending planned and routine maintenance, determining equipment overhaul frequency, and providing economic justifications of upgrades and repairs. That individual is also the go-to person when there are any questions or if troubleshooting is required. Shawnee management believes this proactive system of monitoring and continuous system health reporting is critical to the plants success. 2. Plan for outages. A 10-unit plant like Shawnee will usually have at least one unit involved in an overhaul or maintenance outage at all times. Shawnee uses a 42-month outage cycle, which means two or three units are
25
System Engineers Brian Palmer and Randy Dehart keep an eye on the health and welfare of a steam turbine by running a turbine efficiency test. Courtesy: TVA
Tech Services Analyst Sheryl Wildharber prepares chemical standards used in boiler water analysis. Courtesy: TVA
Maintenance Mechanic Tech III Susan Walden and Maintenance Mechanic Tech III Eric Shipley work on a sootblower repair. Courtesy: TVA
overhauled every year. Detailed outage planning, completed well in advance, ensures that all plant staff are prepared to meet the outage planning milestones. Shawnee has developed this process into an art form: the team meets over 95% of the schedules outage milestones. Plant staff fully expect an overhauled unit to run until the next outage, but typically it will have 400- to 500-day runs. 3. Document your procedures. During the early years at Shawnee, staff thought it a sign of weakness if an operator had to break out the procedure book. Today the culture has changed, and using procedures is the natural order of things. Every critical job
maintenance work package is accompanied by a set of instructionspeer checks, checklists, and step-by-step procedures. Staff members are also expected to continuously review the procedure and suggest updates or changes. The operations manager receives all completed checklists and constantly updates them as new methods or processes are identified. Procedures and checklists are all available on the plant intranet, and emergency operations books are present in every control room. 4. Focus on good labor relations. Shawnee has seven separate bargaining units at the plant, yet they have found common ground:
they all agree on excellence in plant maintenance and operations. Plant management believes that its responsibility is to ensure that each member of the plant staff is treated as a team member who, when necessary, will do the right thing. This atmosphere of trust must work, as labor problems tend to be minimal at Shawnee. Everyone who works at Shawnee, regardless of affiliation, is considered part of the Shawnee teamincluding contractors, vendors, and other temporary TVA employeesand is treated as such.
5. Improve your water chemistry and predictive maintenance (PdM) programs. Believe it or not, all 10 boilers are
4. Safety always comes first. Shawnee completed two million man-hours without a lost-time accident in 2006. Leading that effort is
the Shawnee Health and Safety Committee. Front row (L to R): Rick Hubbard, Jennifer McCallon, Rick Stimson, Mary Lynn Spear, and Tim Pace. Back row: Kent Saxon, David Grief, Ronnie Coleman, Joey McCallon, Tony Mangina, Lane Van Winkle, and Ronnie Puckett. Courtesy: TVA
26
POWER February 2008
The Diff erence is
Training
Each year, UBC spends more than $100 million to hone the skills and craftsmanship of our members. So, when you hire a trained UBC craftsman for your
millwrights
work, youll know the job will get done right. We have the skills to satisfy your most demanding customers, and a commitment to productivity that helps you meet your deadlines. Todays UBC can guarantee a highly trained work force so, let 180
training
centers
and 100,000 trained craftsman make the difference for you.
United Brotherhood Of Carpenter s

We Get it Done and We Get it Done Right.
WRITER/EDITOR
TO JOIN THE POWER TEAM
Were looking for a multitalented team member to research and write technically detailed stories typically related to the design and construction of power plants, plant operations and maintenance, and advanced technology. This new editor may be asked to work on material for the magazines, electronic newsletter, web site, and events.
WANTED:
Assistant Unit Operator Todd Douglas records filter plant readings. Courtesy: TVA
Tech Services Analyst Darren French performs a lube oil analysis as part of the plants extensive predictive maintenance program. Courtesy: TVA
REQUIREMENTS:
BS in engineering, preferably with a PE license and 3 to 5 years experience in the power industry, or journalist with proven expertise in writing about the industry. Coal plant and/or combined-cycle O&M experience a plus. Outstanding oral and written communication skills. Obsessive about quality and accuracy. Ability to manage multiple projects under tight deadlines. Proficient with Microsoft Office programs and willingness to become familiar with other software. Ability to work with minimal daily supervision in a virtual team-oriented environment. Some travel to inspect power plants, attend events, and generally make POWERs presence known in the industry.
Send cover letter and resume to robertp@powermag.com. No calls, please.

28
still outfitted with the original waterwall tubes that Babcock & Wilcox erected more than 50 years ago. Now thats a testament to the quality of the plants water chemistry program. The laboratory reports to the principal engineer, as do all the system engineers. The lab includes a strong PdM program relying on thermography, oil analysis, vibration, acoustics for detecting pinhole leaks during any boiler outage, and more to give early warning of potential equipment problems. Shawnee has avoided many catastrophic failures due to the success of its PdM program. 6. Develop a multitasking staff. A good portion of the maintenance staff is composed of technicians who have multiple qualifications, but a cadre of experts will always remain. During a typical day shift, four shops are open at the plant: machine, boiler, electrical, and instrument. The first three shops have multiskilled techs who cover the range of crafts expected in a plant. Shawnee also has a small maintenance staff that rotates with the operations staff so that techs with various expertise are also available during the night shift and weekends. This approach has significantly reduced night callouts and unit derates that would normally occur. Maintenance staffs also do their own work on boiler tubes and pulverizerschores that are typically outsourced at other power plants. Finding the best mix of multiskilled technicians and experts (certified welders, for example) is a work in progress. 7. Develop a safety culture. Shawnee had the best safety record in FY07 of all 11 TVA fossil plants, and the plant staff strongly believe there is a link between a best-performing plant and a safe plant. OSHA recordables were 1.0only two recordable injuries for a staff of 330 people over the course of the entire year. The plant staff has a continuous focus on safety, and every employee has a high expectation of safety. Shawnee has a five-year safety plan that moves up a level in
expectations each year. Safety is now part of the plants culture and not just a management expectation (Figure 4). 8. Manage your time. Shawnee practices careful advance planning of the upcoming workweek to ensure that the highest-priority projects are completed. A workweek management meeting, attended by the various foremen and first-line supervisors from maintenance, operations, and engineering, is scheduled each Friday at 12:15 p.m. At that meeting they plan and prioritize the details of the following week, crew by crew. The detailed planning loads about 85% of the available work hours based on work planning estimates, leaving the remaining hours for emerging work and unexpected absences. Shawnee, and TVA as a whole, uses the EPRI Maintenance Optimization Program (MOP) for work order planning. 9. Spend your dollars wisely. Capital investments over the past few years have significantly improved the overall material condition of the plant. Those investments have reinforced the employees belief that TVA is serious about organizational excellence at all levels. Where those dollars were spent to improve plant reliability and availability was guided by input from throughout the workforce, including engineers and bargaining unit members. Regardless of the amount of capital spending approved, its important that those dollars are properly invested. 10. Expect success. High expectations are set for every plant staff member, and teamwork is put at the top of the list. Managers and employees are put in positions to succeed. Employees are involved in decision-making at all levels, including decisions that concern capital spending priorities. Employees also are deeply involved in safety initiatives, the Combined Federal Campaign, and community involvement projects. The plant is a community mainstay, and so are its employees.
POWER February 2008
Movers and Shakers Since 1903
Roberts & Schaefer leads the world in creating innovative bulk material, coal preparation, and fuel handling/blending systems. We provide total solutions for a wide range of fuels, including PRB, bituminous, lignite and anthracite coal; woodchips and petroleum coke; as well as limestone and gypsum handling, and limestone grinding and transport systems. For complete system development, upgrades or modifications, call the original movers and shakers.
Roberts & Schaefer Company 222 South Riverside Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60606 312/236-7292 www.r-s.com
Offices also in Australia, Indonesia, Poland and Salt Lake City.
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Alliant Energy sweeps EUCG Best Performer awards

The Fossil Productivity Committee of the EUCG conducts an annual analysis of its member plants operating results and selects the Best Performer in the categories of small and large coal plants. For 2007, Alliant Energys Lansing and Edgewater Generating Stations took the top spotsthe first time in recent history that a single utility claimed both awards.
he EUCG (formerly Electric Utility Cost Group) annual Best Performer awards were presented at the groups fall 2007 meeting in Denver, where Alliant Energy swept the top awards. The three-unit, 328-MW Lansing Generating Station (Figure 1) was named Best Performer Small Coal (<250 MW average unit size), and the threeunit, 803-MW Edgewater Generating Station (Figure 2) was selected as Best Performer Large Coal (>250 MW average unit size). Alliant Energys M.L. Kapp Generating Station took second place in the Small Coal division. Approximately 80 coal-fired generating stations from across the U.S. were benchmarked for the EUCGs annual awards program. To be fair, Lower Colorado River Authoritys Fayette Power Plant finished in a tie with Edgewater, but because Fayettes NOx reduction program was profiled in the May/ June 2007 issue of our sister publication, COAL POWER (www.coalpowermag-digital.com), were focusing on Alliant Energys corporate- and plant-level approach to managing its aging coal plant assets to achieve such outstanding results. POWER has been privileged to publish findings from a number of EUCG-conducted benchmarking studies over the past several years; the latest findings (p. TK) are from the groups most recent plant maintenance staffing study. But this is the first time POWER has taken the opportunity to examine the EUCGs Best Performer selection criteria (see sidebar, p. TK) and then discuss with each winning plants staff the key indicators they believe differentiate them from their peers.
1. Best of the small. Alliant Energys Lansing Generating Station won the EUCGs Best
Performer award in the small coal category at the groups fall meeting. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
2. Best of the large. Alliant Energys Edgewater Generating Station was named the EUCGs Best Performer in the large coal category. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
Change agent
Alliant Energy serves about a million electric customers in a territory that covers the very southern portion of Minnesota, much of Iowa, and portions of Wisconsin. The company has 860 employees in the Generation
30 www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
Group working at 14 baseload plants; two new baseload plants are moving through the permitting process. Significant management changes occurred in the Generation Group about 10 years ago when Tim Bennington, VP generation, began the slow process of redirecting the organization from a utility-centric to a business-centric one in which modern business practices were made a requirement rather than a goal. Bennington named this program Generation Excellence. Not all of the old school plant managers were able to make the transition. In fact, all of the plant managers were eventually replaced with a new cadre of highly motivated, plantsavvy folks with good business acumen and excellent leadership skills. Many in the current corps of plant managers were recruited from outside the Alliant Energy organization from a diverse group of industries, typically manufacturing. After all, a power plant is really a complex manufacturing facility for electricity, and the required management skill sets for the two industries are similar. Today, over 80% of salaried personnel in the Generation Group have a college degree; 100% is the long-term goal. Change doesnt happen unless employees clearly understand why the new direction is necessary and whats in it for them. The Generation Excellence program is distinguished by its focus on industry-leading performance
According to Bennington, fiscal execution is a key requirement for professional success. That means a plant manager at Alliant must have the skills of both an engineer and a financier.
and an empowered workforce. Bennington summarizes Generation Excellence as a constant commitment to daily operational excellence as characterized by six specific ingredients. Employee safety. Zero accidents is the goal of every power plant, and Alliant Energy is no different. But what Alliant does differently is specifically track and document safety inspections and suggestions, and record near-misses so those events can be included in future safety lessons along with lessons learned from recordables and lost-time accidents. Housekeeping and safety audits have become part of the plant culture rather than optional. Fiscal and operational excellence. According to Bennington, fiscal execution is a key requirement for professional success. That means a plant manager at Alliant must have the skills of both an engineer and a financier. Yes, generation results such as heat rate, forced outage rates, and plant availability remain extremely important to Alliant, as they have been for all plants since Edison commissioned the first U.S. central power plant in 1882. But O&M and capital budget management is now equally important to achieving plant generation goals. A good plant manager must also adopt best practices identified by industry benchmarking and use quality tools such as Six Sigma and lean management practices. The new generation of plant manager must be multidisciplined rather than purely a technical expert. We know from benchmarking that our generating stations are top performers when it comes to managing costs and operating reliably, said Ken Wilmot, regional director-generation. Operating efficiently by controlling costs on behalf of our customers is central to our core values. Our employees continually
How the EUCG selects best performers

The EUCG awards program looks at two periods of performance excellence: a calendar year for the fall awards and a five-year average for the spring awards. The awards program is entirely data-driventhe plant with the best reliability and lowest O&M costs combined is the winner. However, the details of the calculations reveal the Fossil Productivity Committees interest in using very specific metrics when making the calculation. Reliability analysis. The reliability calculation is based on an equivalent unplanned outage factor (EUOF) that is calculated by the following formula: EUOF = FOH + EFDH + MOH + EMOH PH Where, FOH = forced outage hours EFDH = equivalent forced derate hours MOH = maintenance outage hours EMOH = equivalent maintenance derate hours PH = period hours Cost analysis. The cost analysis portion of the evaluation process is unique: it uses a ratio of actual O&M costs compared with those predicted by a regression analysis of the actual O&M costs experienced by the group. This approach has the effect of minimizing the variances in cost due to capacity factor, net plant generation, and the number of units at a plant, so all plants are placed on an equal footing. Putting it all together. The analysis is a two-step process. The first regression is used to predict the O&M cost based on a plant capacity factor. An equation of the regression fit to the data is found. Step two is to predict the O&M cost as a function of the EUOF. A plants actual O&M costs are then compared with the predicted O&M costs for its EUOF to arrive at a second ranking. The rankings of each plant are then summed to develop a final placement for the awards standing, and the plant with the lowest score wins. Combining scores from the two evaluation techniques allows a plant to win by being best of class in one ranking while scoring well in the second category. Conversely, a plant that scores at the top in one ranking but that lags in the second will be an also ran in the final standings. The final rankings for fall 2007 identified Lansing Generating Station as the Best Performer in the Small Coal category, resulting from its second place in O&M and fourth place in EUOF. Lower Colorado River Authoritys Fayette Power Plant (#4 in O&M and #3 in EUOF) tied with Alliant Energys Edgewater Generating Station (#2 O&M and #5 EUOF) in the Large Coal category.
February 2008 POWER
31
look for ways to manage costs while maintaining our high reliability and safety standards. Environmental stewardship. Any significant environmental mistake today will reverberate all the way to the board room and can attract considerable scrutiny from regulators and the press, whether or not a violation was intentional. Generation Excellence implemented a system of environmental peer reviews and audits to ensure regulatory compliance and anticipate potential problems. A proactive approach to environmental issues was also introduced that includes the beneficial use of ash to minimize landfill usage and use of advanced NOx reduction technologies such as SmartBurn (www.smartburn.com).
Performance goals tied to stakeholder value. Individual plant operation goals
Alliants generating fleet is also migrating to Maximo 6.2, the new browser-based upgrade that will link the maintenance management system more closely to the companys enterprise resource management system.
Workforce planning and engagement.
are now directly linked with monitored operational and commercial availability, O&M costs, the efficiency of capital investments, Six Sigma savings, any environmental violations, and the severity and rate of safety violations.
Improved asset performance monitoring. A plant manager cant manage what he
Alliant Energy, like so many other companies in this industry, is addressing the effects of an aging workforce on plant operations with a series of recruiting and retention programs. The brunt of the impact on Alliant began last year and is expected to extend through 2011, when the largest projected turnover in the companys history will occur. Alliant has the typical recruitment processes in place for technical staff and skilled craft labor but has also focused on hiring skilled management staff from outside the utility industryan unusual approach in what is typically thought of as a very insular industry. The plant staff is also more engaged with daily and weekly planning meetings, during which improvements in operating processes are explored and best practices are shared among plants.
Lansingbig on performance
When one plant wins a performance award multiple times, it reflects well on plant management and staff (Figure 3). When multiple plants from the same company win the same EUCG annual Best Performer Small Coal award four years running, it not only reflects well on the winning plants but also on the entire corporation. Lansing Generating Station, located south of the Minnesota border in Iowa, is the fourth
cant monitor. Accurate and timely data is a key feature of an organization striving to operate using lean management principles. Significant investment has been made to improve standard work practices by using Maximo at all of Alliant Energys plants for managing preventive and predictive maintenance programs and hours tracking, and by using EtaPRO and Thermal Engineering software tools for thermal performance monitoring.
in a succession of Alliant Energy Iowa plants to take top honors in the small plant category. In 2006, Alliant Energys Sixth Street Generating station in Cedar Rapids took the title. In 2005, the award went to Alliants Dubuque Generating Station. The M.L. Kapp Generating Station in Clinton started the winning streak in 2004. A staff of 51 is responsible for operation and maintenance of the three-unit Lansing Generating Station. Unit 2, commissioned in 1948, is a 15-MW unit. Unit 3, added in 1954, is a 38-MW unit, and the 275-MW Unit 4 was commissioned in 1977. Unit 1 was retired in 2004. Units 2 and 3 boilers and Units 2 and 3 turbines are on a common 850psi header, allowing operation of boilers and turbines in any combination. Units 3 and 4 run continuously throughout the year, so the statistics presented to the EUCG came from those units. Unit 2, with boilers 1 and 2, is usually run only during peak periods in the summer months. Unit 4 burns approximately 2,800 tons of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal each day, while Unit 3 burns a blend of high-Btu and PRB coals. Ingram Barge Co. makes about four barge deliveries of coal to Lansing daily while the Mississippi River is open, and each barge carries approximately 1,500 tons of fuel. Fuel deliveries are highly seasonal: PRB coal is brought by train to southeastern Iowa and then barged to the plant, usually between April 1 and November 1. The river freezes over during the winter months, so all deliveries have to be planned well in advance.
3. The power of teamwork. The staff of the Lansing Generating Station. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
32
POWER February 2008
Lansing, coal-constrained during the winter, also operates in a transmission-congested region of Iowa. Unit 3 is typically operated in baseload mode, and Unit 4 operates on automatic generation control and is baseloaded daily, typically from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., when demand drops to about 140 MW, every day of the week. Proud staff. Marty Burkhardt, Lansings operations manager, provided some insight into his plants excellent operations and safety record. He is especially proud of the plants strong safety committee that continually communicates with every staff member the importance of a safe working environment. The results speak volumes: the plant recently completed one million man-hours without a lost-time accident. For the small staff at Lansing, that record started in February 1999 and continues today. Burkhardt also noted that all members of the plant staff have deep pride in their jobs and are dedicated to securing the plants future success. The plant is located in a remote, rural area of the state and is a mainstay in the community. (See sidebar.) Location hasnt protected the plant from the challenges of an aging workforce; a large number of staff members are eligible to retire in the next five years. The plant, with the strong support of the IBEW local, has invested in an active apprenticeship program that will maintain a well-trained workforce. Empowered staff. The plant has very strong leaders within the hourly ranks who are involved in all significant plant initia-
Plant stack provides a safe haven for raptors

The once-endangered Peregrine Falcon is again flying above the Mississippi River bluffs thanks to Raptor Resource Project (www .raptorresource.org) and the Lansing Generating Station. The Peregrine Utility Program began in 1990 when the first home for nesting falcons was placed at Xcel Energys King Power Plant, located in Oak Park Heights, Minn. Plant stacks are attractive nesting sites for these raptors because falcons capture their prey in the air, and the stacks provide an undisturbed, tall lookout. Since the start of the program, approximately 300 young falcons have been born at power plant locations along the
5. New neighbors. A more permanent nesting place for the falcons was constructed adjacent to the plant. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
4. Happy home. Five new Peregrine Falcons, known as eyasses, were born in a nesting box on Lansing Generating Stations Unit 4 stack in 2005. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
Mississippi River and its tributaries and more than 500 at power plants in the Midwest. Today, tens of thousands of people worldwide visit web sites featuring utility-based Peregrine Falcon and owl cams, waiting for the young birds to hatch each spring. Alliant Energys Lansing Generating Station was an early member of the program, and in June 2005, five Peregrine Falcons hatched in a nesting box halfway up Unit 4s 499-foot stack (Figure 4). The nesting box was eventually moved to the cliff next to the plant (Figure 5).
February 2008 POWER
33
6. Culture of success. Stan Schwartzhoff at the controls of Lansing Generating Station.
Courtesy: Alliant Energy
shared responsibility between the operations and maintenance staffs. The programs scope is typical for most plants: predictive, vibration trending, thermography, lube oil analysis, and the like. The plant engineer receives the data and makes an evaluation that is fed back to the maintenance planner, who schedules repairs. The plant also has a full-time water chemistry technician to keep an eye on the plants working fluids; that persons collateral duties include preparing the inevitable list of environmental reports for the plant managers signature.
Edgewaters edge: A finely tuned staff

The Edgewater Generating Station, located in Sheboygan, Wis., has much in common with the Lansing plant: both began service with now-retired units in the 1940s and both have baseload units that are dispatched to serve areas with constrained transmission access. Both have also benefited greatly from the Generation Excellence program, as evidenced by their top-place EUCG ranking, which is all the more impressive because the competition included a number of other very well run plants. Edgewater operates three coal-fired units today. Unit 3 is a 78-MW cyclone unit built in the early 1950s. Unit 4 is a 330-MW cyclone unit that went commercial in 1969, followed by the 395-MW pulverized coal Unit 5 that entered service in 1985. All three units use a common, centralized control room. Control systems are continuously upgraded by the plant staff, which also handled the Unit 3 and 4 DCS conversion. All three units also now burn PRB coal. All are equipped with secondary overfire air modifications by RMT (www.rmtinc .com), originally developed through Alliant Energys Combustion Initiative Program to reduce NOx. Alliant has made the economic decision to operate all three units continuously, and it takes the MISO-offered system power price at minimum load during off-peak hours rather than cycle the units every night. Unit 5 was originally designed as a peaking plant with a minimum load of around 50 MW, which is often reached at night. The decision whether or not to cycle units over the weekend is dependent on MISO marginal pricing. However, because the units serve a transmission-constrained region of Wisconsin, the plant typically provides baseload power and is constrained only by periodic coal delivery disruptions during the summer. Patrick Hartley, Edgewaters plant manager, identified his highly motivated work force as the secret of the plants success. Edgewater relies heavily on a cadre of
POWER February 2008
tives. For example, most new craft and operations employees are local residents who are hired after a rigorous assessment of their skills, knowledge, and abilities. When moresenior positions are being filled, hourly and bargaining unit employees serve as members of the hiring committee to ensure that new employees not only have the requisite skills but also fit the plant culture (Figure 6). Employees are also involved in determining how limited capital and O&M dollars are invested in their plant to support plant reliability goals. Who better to determine the timing of these expenditures than those who have to grapple with problems every day? The operations organization is empowered as few other plant staffs are. The plant has no shift supervisors and no first-line supervisors for technicians or maintenance work34
ers. Of the 50-plus staff members, only six are salaried. Certainly, the small staff makes this option more attractive, but there is a wide gap between the concept of an empowered workforce and actually fitting together a jigsaw puzzle of people with different technical skills, personalities, and self-motivation. Lansing has successfully solved this puzzle for the past five years. Active communication among staff members continues to be seen as essential for a smoothly operating plant. Every day begins with a coordination meeting involving the chief plant operator, maintenance foreman, and coal yard foreman, who plan the days events. Minor outages are supported by plant staff, although boiler welds require contractor support. The predictive maintenance program is a
THE BIG KIDS ALWAYS CAME TO US
WHEN THEY NEEDED SOMETHING FIXED.

FUNNY, THEY STILL DO.
PSM has earned its reputation by improving the longevity, performance and reliability of industrial gas turbine hot parts. From ultra-low NOx retrot combustion systems to airfoils that better resist the wear-and-tear of todays demanding duty cycles, we design and manufacture a full range of critical capital parts for large gas turbines that are less expensive and perform as well as or better than the big boys parts that they replace. Fully compatible and available for 7FA, 501F, 6B, 7E/EA, 9E, and 501B and D series machines.
The Proven Alternative
1440 West Indiantown Rd. Suite 200 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Phone: 561-354-1100 Fax: 561-354-1199
psm.com
highly skilled, experienced hourly foremen and technicians in the craft group (Figure 7). Plant operations is organized into five crews on 12-hour shifts, each with a technically knowledgeable salaried shift supervisor. There are only 12 salaried positions, including the five shift supervisors, among the staff of 120 who operate the plant. Safety is always on a plant managers mind, and Hartley is no exception. His plant hasnt experienced a lost-time accident in more than 500 days. Edgewaters safety committee is organized with representatives from each department plus the plant manager, the administrative assistant, and the plant environmental and safety specialist; the chief union steward is also a standing member (Figure 8). That committee is charged with making the zero-injuries corporate policy a reality at Edgewater. Day-to-day maintenance requires periodic contractor assistance in specialized areas, although the plant does have its own R Stamp program for repairing tube leaks. The decision to develop this in-house capability came at the conclusion of a recent tube failurereduction program. A task force examined the root cause of tube leaks and developed specific projects to address nagging tube leak problems that were reducing plant availability. This project has more than paid for itself many times over. A process performance engineer on the staff is responsible for maintaining the right combustion stoichiometry and optimizing performance of the three steam generators. Burning PRB coal has also challenged the plant with learning how to balance erosion versus cleaning frequency with sootblowers in certain areas of the boiler. In other locations, additional sootblowers were added, as were boiler cleanliness probes for better monitoring of boiler performance. Coal combustion by-products, such as bottom ash, are sold to a contractor for recycling, and the slag from the cyclones is sold to road-paving contractors. Hartley also emphasized the pride the staff have in their plant and what the plant has accomplished. Edgewater has a long history of service to its community, beginning in the 1930s, and the staff take pride in passing down not only their experience, by training new operating staff members, but also the plants heritage and history to the next generation. In addition to the three coal-fired units, the plant operates and maintains two remote simple-cycle combustion turbine sites. The Fond du Lac, Wis., site has four ABB 11 N1 units rated at 83 MW each; two other units at the Sheboygan Falls, Wis., site are GE Frame 7 units rated at 147 MW apiece.
7. Self-motivated staff. Don Singer is a master maintenance technician on second shift at Edgewater. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
8. Focused on safety. The Edgewater Generating Station safety committee. Back row (L to R): Mike Cichocki, Coal Yard Supervisor; Jerry Strouf, Senior Environmental and Safety Specialist; Joy Hoffman, Administrative Assistant; Jason Mills, Maintenance Technician; and Don Yanna, Equipment Operator. Front row (L to R): Paul Schlegel, Equipment Operator; John Hodzinski, Maintenance Electrician; and Pat Hartley, Plant Manager. Courtesy: Alliant Energy
No-excuses excellence
The preeminent common trait shared by the two Alliant Energy plants profiled in this article, and probably all Alliant plants, is a culture of excellence thats engrained in the DNA of every employee. It doesnt matter if the employee happens to be a union member, technician, or member of the management staff, each person has a part to play if the plant is to be successful. A razor-thin plant staff is not uncommon today. What is uncommon are staffs that can consistently focus on excellence in operations and maintenance regardless of the staffing and budgeting constraints now common in our industry. Congratulations to the Lansing and Edgewater Generating Stations staffs for safely walking that tightrope.
36
POWER February 2008
Check out www.powermag.com

News items updated weekly Dont miss the candid comments in POWER Blog
MEET THE EDITORS of POWER magazine CAREERS IN POWER could lead you to your next job Visit MARKET PLACE to discover new products and services Read the current issue of POWER magazine, including web exclusives Search POWERconnect POWERs Buyers Guide for the latest products and services in the generation energy Download entry forms for Plant of the Year, Marmaduke and Top Plants Awards
Visit the powermag.comthe online source for power industry professionals.
CARBON CAPTURE
Alstoms chilled ammonia CO2-capture process advances toward commercialization

Carbon dioxide emissions arent yet regulated by the EPA, but its likely they will be soon. There are many technically feasible, but as-yet-undemonstrated ways to reduce the considerable carbon footprint of any coal-fired plant, whether it uses conventional or unconventional technology. One promising approach to removing CO2 from a plants flue gas uses chilled ammonium bicarbonate to drive the separation process.
ing Dionysius I, ruler of Syracuse, Italy, in the 4th century B.C., invited his courtier Damocles to exchange places with him for a day. While enjoying a feast, Damocles immediately lost his appetite when he noticed a sword suspended above him by a single horsehair. Dionysius, as they say in Las Vegas, was making his point the hard way: handling risk is part of a leaders job, and danger can arise at the most unexpected times. Today, utility executives have a better retirement plan than Dionysius, but theres a figurative sword hanging over their heads: uncertainty about the timing and strength of future federal and/or state CO2 regulations.
Company and Floridas Orlando Utilities Commission terminated a 285-MW integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) project just two months after it broke ground at the latters Stanton Energy Center. The stunning reversal of fortune was viewed as a slap in the face to the U.S. DOE, which was planning to pay $294 million of the projects $855 million cost to make it a showpiece for the Bush administrations Clean Coal Power Initiative. Mike Tyndall, a spokesman for Southern Company, said no single event during the two-month period had changed the companys mind about the IGCC project. It was a culmination of the growing uncertainty, he said
Perhaps another dozen coal projects have gotten a thumbs-down from a state regulator over the past year; the reason most often cited was the rising uncertainty of carbon controls or untenable project cost risks. The crazy quilt of different state carbon caps that could emerge if Californias emissions standards arent adopted as national standards would only heighten the FUD felt by utilities. Expect more utilities to take a wait and see position on carbon and, in the interim, resort to the lowest-risk option for adding capacitybuilding more gas-fired generation.
Big retrofit market

The industry may have put new coal projects on hold while it deals with carbon paralysis, but greater commercial opportunities for carbon capture lie with the future retrofitting of many of the 1,100-plus existing U.S. coal plants. Whether you prefer your carbon legislation with a cap-and-trade or a tax flavor, the aftertaste will be bitter: the need to build a small refinery on the power plants grounds. Considerable chemical processing is needed to implement all of the post-combustion carbon capture processes that have proven their worth in the lab or at pilot scale and are now advancing toward commercial viability (POWER, October 2006, p. 60). Two processes that seem to have gathered the most steam in the marketplace are the chilled ammonia process favored by Alstom Power (see sidebar) and Powerspans Electro-Catalytic Oxidation (ECO) process, which was recently upgraded to include CO2 removal and relabeled ECO2. Powerspan and FirstEnergy Corp. plan to demonstrate the ECO2 process at a 1-MW (equivalent) pilot scale at the utilitys R.E. Burger plant in Ohio early this year (POWER, October 2007, p. 54).
POWER February 2008
Greater commercial opportunities for carbon capture lie with the future retrofitting of many of the 1,100-plus existing U.S. coal plants.
Congress currently seems to be favoring a European-style cap-and-trade approach over a straight tax on carbon emissions, but that may change once this election year passes. Indeed, it may take the rest of the decade to exorcise the devil from federal legislation that will surely raise everyones electricity rates and create a two-tier (large and small carbon footprint) national bulk power supply system. of the cancellation decision. The partners are just not able to take the financial risk. As another example, Floridas Public Service Commission, citing potential CO2 control costs and other related project risks, last June rejected a proposed coal plant by Florida Power & Light. The no vote came shortly after Gov. Charlie Crist (R) issued an executive order to substantially reduce Floridas emissions of the greenhouse gas. Fear of carbon risk wasnt limited to the Sunshine State, parts of which are projected to end up under water if global warming raises worldwide sea levels. Far from any coast, two 700MW coal-fired units that Sunflower Electric Power Corp. had proposed building at its existing plant near Holcomb were axed by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in late October.
www.powermag.com
Managing risk
The list of utilities that have decided to cancel a new coal plant rather than bear its unquantifiable carbon risk is growing. Last month, POWERs 2008 industry forecast attributed the cause of this collective loss of appetite to FUD: fear, uncertainty, and doubteach anathema to utility executives. For example, last November Southern
38
CARBON CAPTURE
Theres no doubt that Alstom is about to enter the flue gas treatment market; the company continues to fund an extensive R&D program whose target is to make a CO2 capture system commercially available before the end of 2011. The evolution of Alstoms business development plans for its chilled ammonia systems has been transparent from the start:

A 5-MW (equivalent) pilot plant with EPRI and We Energies. A 5-MW demonstration plant for E.ON in Sweden. A 30-MW (equivalent) product validation unit for American Electric Power (AEP), followed by the design, construction, and commissioning of a commercial-scale (up to 200 MW) unit by 2011.
A 40-MW (equivalent) product validation facility for Statoil in Norway.
Taking the first step

Alstoms first carbon capture pilot project is currently under construction at We Energies Pleasant Prairie Power Plant (P4) in Kenosha County, Wis. (Figure 2). Working closely with EPRI, Alstom is responsible for the design,
Inside Alstoms chilled ammonia CO2 capture system

You dont need a degree in chemical engineering to understand Alstoms chilled ammonia CO2 removal processbut it wouldnt hurt. First, lets break the entire process down into three separate process blocks (Figure 1) and follow the exhaust gas as it leaves the plant and is treated to remove its CO2. One key point about Alstoms chilled ammonia design is that it does not require extremely low levels of SO2 removal from flue gas. If the candidate plant already has a scrubber operating at a 95% removal rate, and its steam system can be reconfigured to accommodate the process steam demand, a chilled ammonia system may be just the ticket, assuming theres sufficient space for it.
1. Coming to a coal plant near you? Schematic of a commercial chilled ammonia

CO2 capture system added between a plants existing flue gas scrubber and stack. Source: Alstom Flue gas Water Rich slurry Lean slurry CO2 Stack Scrubber Flue gas CO2 Wash 120F Chiller Purge 35F 2-stage cooling Cooling and cleaning of ue gas HP Heat pump exchanger CO2 absorption Reboiler CO2 absorber Lean ammonium carbonate Rich ammonium bicarbonate
Wash Regenerator
Step 1: Cool and clean the gas

The first step is to cool and clean the flue gas, which typically is at 120F to 140F, is water-saturated, and contains residual amounts of SO2, NOx, HCl, and particulate matter. Both steps can be accomplished by injecting refrigerated water directly into the gas stream. As the gas is cooled, much of its water content condenses out, carrying the residual contaminants with it. The water is then evaporated in cooling towers, substantially reducing the total flue gas volume. The cooled flue gas leaves as a chilly (35F) and dry (<1% moisture) gaseous substance. Cooling the flue gas first pays big dividends by reducing the size and cost of equipment required downstream. For example, if the volume of the saturated flue gas is one-third smaller at 32F than at 140F, a smaller, cheaper induced-draft fan would suffice. Flue gas cooling itself consumes only 1% to 2% of the plants power output.
CO2 regeneration
The performance penalties of a chilled ammonia CO2 separation system. Source: Alstom Power Parameter Illinois #6 coal feed rate (lb/hr) Coal heating value (Btu/lb), (HHV) Boiler heat input (mmBtu) LP steam extraction for reboiler (lb/hr) Steam turbine power (kW) Total auxiliary power used by plant (kW) Net power output (kW) Net efciency (HHV), (%) Supercritical PC-red unit without CO2 removal 333,542 11,666 3,891 0 498,319 29,050 462,058 40.5 Same unit with chilled ammonia CO2 removal 333,542 11,666 3,891 179,500 484,995 53,950 421,717 37.0
The second process step is CO2 absorption, which is similar to the SO2 absorption common at many coal-fired plants today. After the 35F flue gas enters the bottom of the absorber vessel, it is forced upward against the current of a slurry containing a dissolved and suspended mix of lean ammonium carbonate (AC) and rich ammonium bicarbonate (ABC). Chemical reactions remove over 90% of the CO2 in the flue gas,
February 2008 POWER
Step 2: Absorb the CO2
leaving it only with nitrogen, excess oxygen, and low concentrations of CO2. Any residual ammonia is captured by a cold-water wash and returned to the absorber.
The third step of the process takes the CO2rich slurry at 1,200 to 1,500 psi (anticipated for commercial use or for transportation to an enhanced oil recovery process or sequestration) from the ABC-rich output of the high-pressure pump and directs it to a heat exchanger. The heat exchanger dissolves the slurry into a clear solution
Step 3: Separate the CO2
at about 175F and sends it on to the highpressure regenerator, where additional heat is added by a reboiler to strip away the CO2 gas. The only by-product of the entire process is a small amount of water; it can either be treated by the plants wastewater system or recycled and reused. A baseline study on the auxiliary load and cost of a full-scale CO2 capture project found that retrofitting a 462-MW supercritical pulverized coalfired boiler operating at 40.5% net thermal efficiency would result in only small performance penalties (see table).
39
CARBON CAPTURE
construction, and operation of the $10 million pilot plant, which engineers hope will be able to extract 90% of the CO2 from 1% of the flue gas produced by one of the plants two 617MW coal-fired units. Project costs are spread among more than 30 project sponsors. The goal of the project is to capture about 15,000 tons of CO2 per year (Figure 3). Construction of the pilot plant began last September; the plant will be operational by press time. Alstom will then operate the plant for at least one year while EPRI evaluates the performance of the technology from several perspectives (Figure 4). Specifically, Alstom and EPRI will:

DELIVERS!
April 2008
ELECTRIC POWER 2008 Show Issue Waste-to-energy plants looking good again Advanced plant maintenance practices Nuclear plant upgrades add cheap capacity Closing Date: March 5, 2008
Develop and evaluate the process control logic and operating system. Operate the system in long-term tests to identify O&M issues and establish system reliability baselines. Conduct a techno-economic analysis of scaling up the system for commercial use (Figure 5).
Validate operation of the entire system on actual flue gas. Measure the actual heat of reaction and compare it to theoretical values.
The development of cost-effective carbon capture technology is one of the most important environmental challenges facing the utility industry in the 21st century, said Gale Klappa, chairman, president, and CEO of Wisconsin Energy, the parent company of We Energies. This pilot is a crucial step in the research and development process necessary for achieving a long-term technology solution. This pilot project is just the latest in a long line of improvements at the Wiscon-
2. Beta version. This two-step, 5-MW (equivalent) pilot CO2 capture process is being implemented at We Energies Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. Source: Alstom
Existing boiler (within P4*) Removes 85%90% of NOx Electrostatic precipitator Flue gas desulfurization scrubber <1% ue gas from one boiler unit Continuous emission monitoring system
May 2008
Emerging trends in plant water treatment Improve plant economics with a properly designed DG system Survey of the latest advances in renewable technologies Bonus distribution at ISA POWID/EPRI Conference and AWEA Wind Power Closing Date: April 2, 2008
Coal
Selective catalytic reduction unite Step Flue gas 1 cooling Removes 99.7% of yash *Pleasant Prarie Power Plant Removes 90%95% of SO2 CO2 Step capture 2
Potential to remove 90% of CO2 Two-step carbon capture pilot Existing chimney
3. Virtual design.
This 3-D representation depicts the completed pilot plant at Pleasant Prairie. Courtesy: Alstom
Reserve Your Ad
Contact your sales representative (listed on p. 2)
40
POWER February 2008
CARBON CAPTURE
4. Up and running. The chilled ammonia pilot plant began operation in January. Courtesy:
Alstom
5. CAFE vs. CO2 standards for plants. As with automotive fuel economy, the effect
of overall power plant efficiency on CO2 emissions can be significant. For example, a 47% efficient supercritical plant naturally has about 20% less CO2 in its flue gas than a 37% efficient subcritical plant. Todays U.S. coal-fired fleet has an average thermal efficiency of about 33%. The curves shown were derived from plants firing Pittsburgh #8 coal. Source: Alstom 0.90 30 CO2 reduction from subcritical PC plant (%)
If the system captures about 1.5 million tons of CO2 a year, Alstom will consider the accomplishment a successful validation of the chilled ammonia separation technology. The CO2 captured at Northeastern Station will be used for enhanced oil recovery. Alstoms 5-MW (equivalent) CO2 capturing demo plant being built at E.ONs Karlshamn Power Plant in southern Sweden is expected to begin operation later this year. The two companies plan to introduce the technology at other Swedish power plants if it passes muster. For the longer term, Alstom has signed a joint development contract with Norways state-owned oil gas and company, StatoilHydro, to test the chilled ammonia technologys ability to remove the CO2 from flue gases particular to natural gasfired combined-cycle power plants. The first milestone of the agreement calls for designing and building a 40-MW (equivalent) test and product validation facility at Statoils Mongstad refinery in Norway by 20092010. The facility will then be operated for up to a year and a half to see whether it can capture at least 80,000 tons per year of CO2, either from flue gases from the refinerys cracker unit or from a new combined heat and power plant now under construction on-site. A commercial-scale unit now in the early planning stages for Mongstad would capture over 2 million tons of CO2 per year.
CO2 emissions (metric tons/MWh)
0.85 100% coal 0.80 Coal w/10% coring biomass 0.75 Ultrasupercritical PC plant range 0.70 Subcritical PC plant Commercial supercritical
25
Policymakers try to keep pace

Once CO2 has been removed from a power plants flue gas, what can and should be done with it? Given that a 1,000-MW coal plant produces about 3 million pounds of CO2 per hour, storing it on-site is not an option. A bill called the Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Study Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) would require the DOE to identify and resolve key obstacles to commercializing CO2 sequestration, transportation, and storage technologies. S. 2144 also would ensure that a robust national CO2 infrastructure would be created as part of any federal climate change legislation. Last year also saw the introduction of the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007 (S. 731) by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and The Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 2007 (S. 962) by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). The three bills are meant to work together to bring all relevant federal departments and regulators (Energy, Interior, Transportation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency) together to address the broad range of policy questions surrounding CO2 sequestration, transportation, and storage.
41
20
15
10
0.65
0.60
0 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Net plant efciency (HHV), % 47 48 49 50
sin plant. Last October, POWER designated P4 as one of its Top Plants of 2007 on the strength of several recently completed air emissions upgrade projects. We Energies has added a hot-side selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system to Unit 1 and a wetlimestone, forced-oxidation scrubber to both units. Unit 2 was retrofitted with a hot-side SCR system in 2003.
Other steps to follow

Meanwhile, Alstom and AEP have signed an agreement to bring Alstoms chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture to full commercial scale by 2011. The project will be implementFebruary 2008 POWER
ed in two phases. In phase one, Alstom and AEP will jointly develop a 30-MW (equivalent) product validation plant that will capture more than100,000 tons of CO2 per year from the flue gas of AEPs 1,300-MW Mountaineer Plant in New Haven, W.Va. Notably, the captured CO2 will be sequestered in deep saline aquifers at the site. This pilot project is scheduled to start up at the end of 2009 and operate for at least 12 to 18 months. In phase two, Alstom will design, build, and add the first commercial-scale (up to 200-MW) CO2 capture system to one of the 450-MW coal-fired units at AEPs Northeastern Station in Oologah, Okla., by late 2011.
PLANT DESIGN
Accelerating the deployment of cleaner coal plants

The dearth of commercial operating experience for advanced coal-fired facilities is forcing their early adopters and builders to use long development cycles and pay high costs for unique engineering design studies. A broadbased industry collaborative effort fostered by EPRI to address this issue is beginning to show results.
By Jack Parkes, Neville Holt, and Jeffrey Phillips, Electric Power Research Institute
n recent years, U.S. utilities have shown increasing interest in deploying new coalfired power plants based on advanced technologies such as integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC), ultrasupercritical pulverized coal (USC PC) combustion, and supercritical fluidized bed combustion (SC FBC). The appeal of innovative and moreefficient coal plants continues to be driven by volatile natural gas prices, the need for new baseload generating capacity, ever-lower limits on plants air pollution, and likely future restrictions on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Yet deployers of advanced coal plants face considerable obstacles. Unlike natural gas fired plants of the 1990s, which were inexpensive and could be built and permitted relatively quickly, advanced coal plants are challenged by high capital and construction costs, reliability shortfalls, long project schedules, and lengthy environmental permitting processes. On a timeline of technology development (Figure 1), advanced coal-fired facilities are now nearing the crest of the curve, where commercial units must overcome high initial costs to reach technological maturity and the lowest achievable cost. If advanced coal plants
are to succeed, the industry must get beyond the current penalties in cost and schedule that dog first-of-a-kind plants to achieve the shared economies of Nth-of-a-kind plants. A major contributor to this challenge has been a lack of experience with the new technology. For example, although more than 130 coal gasification plants are currently operating worldwide, only 16 can be considered IGCC plants, whose primary role is to produce electricity. Only four of those 16 plants are in the U.S. A shortage of operating experience has not been the only hurdle on advanced coal plants road to technological maturation and lower costs. Another is the fact that all of the advanced plants in commercial service today were conceived, designed, and built as custom projects. Standard design specifications are needed to lower initial capital costs, support repeatable and reliable performance, and reduce development time and cost for potential plant owners.
CoalFleet for Tomorrow

An EPRI-sponsored collaborative effortcalled the CoalFleet for Tomorrow programseeks to lower the hurdle of tech-
1. Ride the wave.
Advanced coal plants, like any new technology, must overcome the crest of the technology development cost curve if they are to become economically viable. Source: EPRI
Anticipated cost of full-scale application
Research Development Demonstration Advanced USC PC plants 760C CO2 capture 620C+ Deployment Mature technology
USC PC plants 620C+ IGCC plants
600C
Oxyfuel CO2 storage Expected availability can increase with time/learning
<600C SC PC plants
565C
nology development by deploying the first group of full-scale advanced coal plants as quickly as possible. Launched in 2004, the program brings together a broad cross section of generating companies, turbine and boiler suppliers, engineering/procurement/ construction (EPC) firms, and research partners from around the world. Today, more than 60 companies from five continents are active participants in the effort. One of CoalFleets key initiatives is a unique, circular, learn-by-doing process in which expert information is provided to utilities developing plant designs, and the utilities experience is fed back into growing databases of information on advanced coal technologies. The process works as follows. EPRI provides expert consultation to an early deployment project (EDP) utility that has committed to design and build a new IGCC, USC PC, or SC FBC plant. For this consultation, EPRI enlists a large team of independent world-class experts to work with its own knowledgeable staff to advise the EDP utility on how to optimize the plants design. In return for the expert advice, the utility shares nonproprietary information from its site-specific feasibility studies and front-end engineering designs (FEEDs) with the broader CoalFleet membership. The expert consultations and the feedback from EDPs are creating a family of design guidelines and permitting data and guidance that are continually updated to reflect new information and lessons learned. It is estimated that participating in this process could cut the costs of feasibility and preliminary engineering studies by 30% to 50%, shorten a projects development cycle by up to two years, and reduce an advanced coal plants capital costs by $100/kW to $200/kW or more.
It takes a village
To date, the process has produced four types of documents and databases that are used
POWER February 2008
Time Notes: IGCC = integrated gasication combined-cycle, SC PC = supercritical pulverized coal, USC PC = ultrasupercritical pulverized coal.
42 www.powermag.com
PLANT DESIGN
2. Design for success. The CoalFleet for Tomorrow program produces a series of design guides and specifications that are progressively more detailed. Early experience with the specifications is fed back and captured in later editions of the documents. Source: EPRI
Pre-design specs Expert and user groups Knowledge base EPRI and DOE studies Industry feasibility studies Operating plant data Generic design specs
Supplier 1
Supplier 1
Design guide Supplier 2 Supplier 2
BURN PRB COAL?

VISIT
www.powermag.com/ prb101
Supplier 3
Supplier 3 Early deployment projects
both progressively and for feeding back lessons learned into their predecessor documents (Figure 2). The first resource at the start of the process is the Advanced Coal Technology Knowledge Base, a web-based repository of information on trends in advanced coal technology design, cost, and performance. The core of the knowledge base is more than 50 design cases from eight state-of-the-art studies conducted by EPRI, the DOE, utilities, consultants, and teams of technology suppliers. Each case study details vital characteristics in up to 450 defined fields. CoalFleet adds data as they become available from new feasibility studies by members and from design decisions made by companies undertaking early deployment projects. The Knowledge Base also includes papers from key conferences and lessons learned from demonstration units. A second resource is a series of plant design guides that were developed out of the knowledge base. The first of these guides, developed for IGCC plants, is the CoalFleet User Design Basis Specification for CoalBased Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or UDBS for short. The UDBS is intended to foster the benefits of standardization in design specifications. The 800-page IGCC UDBS defines the major specifications needed to contract for IGCC reference plantsgeneric, 600-MW and 900-MW (nominal) plants that use gasification processes and combustion turbines from several manufacturers that commercially guarantee their equipment. For bituminous coal plants, the UDBS includes plant designs using commercial entrained-flow gasifiers from GE Energy, ConocoPhillips, and Shellboth with and without CO2 separation. For low-sulfur Powder River Basin (subbituminous) coal, the UDBS includes plant designs from ConoFebruary 2008 POWER
coPhillips, Shell, and KBRagain, both with and without CO2 separation. A reference plant replicates both the design and execution from project to project in order to reduce costs, shorten project schedules, and improve the projects certainty of outcome. However, while defining the reference plants, the UDBS also allows for different coal types and other basic options to match the needs of different power companies. The UDBS provides a comprehensive picture of what is involved in planning, building, and operating an IGCC plantincluding, crucially, the tradeoffs an owner must make when making design and operational decisions. For example, the specification lays out the risks and rewards of various strategies for incorporating CO2 capture into a prospective plant design. The UDBS has two novel aspects. First, it was written by more than 25 experts from around the world with experience and expertise in IGCC technologyand with the cooperation of equipment suppliers, plant designers, and EPC firms. Second, the document has been designed so users can substitute siteand system-specific data for nominal data, producing information that can become part of a site-specific specification. The UDBS provides a choice of configurations, reference site information, target performance, RAM (reliability, availability, and maintainability), and operability goals, along with matching data based on an EPRI reference site. The designs also provide for making a swap-out choice of environmental cleanup systems tailored to two levels of licensing constraint.
for an overview of the requirements to safely and efciently use Powder River Basin coal.
Organized by:
PRB COAL 101

SPONSORS:
International, Inc.
Pre-design and generic design specs

Two types of documents derive from the UDBS: pre-design specifications and gener43
PLANT DESIGN
3. Next-generation coal.
An artists rendering of the 630-MW IGCC plant that Duke Energy plans to build in Edwardsport, Ind. Source: Duke Energy
ic design specifications for IGCC plants. A pre-design specification is a nonproprietary description of the design of a specific IGCC plant whose feasibility study has been completed and is ready to begin a FEED study. Essentially, it is a generic version of the feasibility study. As part of several EDPs, four pre-design specifications have been developed for different IGCC suppliers and coal types based on feasibility studies conducted by Duke Energy, Excelsior Energy, Nuon, and Southern Company. By contrast, a generic design specification is a nonproprietary description of the design of an IGCC plant created after its developer has completed a FEED study. It corresponds to about the first half of the FEED study. CoalFleet intends to publish its first generic design specification early this year; it will be based on the FEED study completed by Southern Company and Orlando Utilities Commission for the recently cancelled IGCC project at the latters Stanton Energy Center.
database includes narrative summaries of 18 existing or proposed IGCC plants, including descriptions of the facilities and the permitted discharge sources. The database also details permit conditions for plant operations (heat rate and hours of operation, for example), limits on air and water emissions, and the test methods required for compliance with the permit conditions. CoalFleet also has developed a series of regularly updated IGCC permitting guidelines that summarize federal requirements for obtaining air, water, and solid waste permits for a generic IGCC facility, as described in the CoalFleet UDBS. These guidelines will improve the dialogues that owners of planned facilities have with regulators regarding IGCC plants technology, typical emissions, and appropriate monitoring and compliance approaches. By establishing a common basis for all IGCC permit applications, owners could also reduce the time needed to obtain permits.
Permitting histories and guidelines

The owner of a proposed power plant must obtain permits to build and operate the plant during its planning and construction phases. Obtaining an environmental permit for a new IGCC plant is a critical-path item before construction can begin. Given the limited regulatory experience base, permitting could cause significant delays in a projects schedule. Accordingly, there is a need for readily accessible information on past permits for use in system design and regulatory negotiations. To meet this need, the CoalFleet for Tomorrow program has compiled an IGCC permitting database in Microsoft Access format. The
44
Other advanced coal plants

The CoalFleet for Tomorrow program is using a similar process to develop design and permitting guidelines for USC PC and SC FBC power plants. Last year, EPRI published the first of these guidesVersions 1 and 2 of the CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants, which are intended to help power companies define the technical requirements for a site-specific USC PC plant.
power plant at the site of its existing coal- and oil-fired power plant in Edwardsport, Ind. (Figure 3). As part of the project development process, the company has already completed a FEED study. The utility is seeking to ensure that the design incorporates the best available information while accelerating the design process and reducing its cost. As a sponsor of a CoalFleet EDP, Duke Energy has been able to use the UDBS and the permitting guidelines to gain insight into several areas of plant design and permitting. They include the possible application of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for additional NOx control, and engineering assessments of future options that include various levels of CO2 capture. These documents have helped Duke develop a design that will achieve very low emission levels and support the air permit application process. Duke also has gained an understanding of the technical requirements for the sulfur market that were incorporated into the design of the plants sulfur recovery system. The utility also worked with CoalFleet IGCC experts to understand the issues involved in potentially retrofitting CO2 capture into the plant design at a later date. For example, Duke identified several options for various levels of CO2 capture that could be implemented at lower cost, compared to other IGCC and PC designs. Finally, information from permitting guidelines and CoalFleet meetings was used by Duke in its discussions with the permitting agency on technical issues affecting IGCC design and emissions. Among the subjects discussed were the feasibility of applying SCR technology to IGCC, start-up and shutdown emissions levels, and the applicability of EPA guidelines and regulations to coal-fired IGCC plant operations, as opposed to those of natural gasfired combined-cycle plants. In return for those tangible and intangible benefits, Duke provided valuable support to the CoalFleet program. Duke representatives maintained an open dialogue with EPRIs IGCC experts and other members of the IGCC Design Guidelines working group and provided significant input to the UDBS. Finally, as a designated EDP, Duke will help develop a CoalFleet pre-design specification that will contain a nonproprietary description of the Edwardsport design that other CoalFleet members can use as a reference when deciding which standard IGCC they would like to adopt for their own project.
Sharing pays off

As mentioned, Duke Energy is one of the EDP utilities that has participated in the CoalFleet program. Duke plans to build a 630-MW IGCC
Jack Parkes (jparkes@epri.com) is the senior manager of EPRIs Advanced Coal Generation program. Neville Holt (nholt@epri.com) is a technical fellow with the program, and Jeffrey Phillips (jphillip@epri.com) is one of its managers.
POWER February 2008
The Pathway to Power Automation for the 2010 Decade

Gain information on the latest innovations in instrumentation, automation, security and business systems technologies in the power industry
18th Annual Joint
ISA POWID/EPRI Controls and Instrumentation Conference

and the
51st ISA POWID Symposium

Hilton Scottsdale Resort Scottsdale, AZ
Save the Date!

813 June 2008: POWID Symposium 911 June 2008: Conference Sessions
Standards Certification Education & Training Publishing
www.isa.org/powersymp
Conferences & Exhibits
BENCHMARKING
Whos doing coal plant maintenance?

POWER has reported on several EUCG benchmarking studies over the past several years. This month we examine the maintenance staffing of 45 coal plants reported by 13 EUCG member utilities. If you benchmark your plants or fleet, as you should, some of the studys results challenge what is considered conventional wisdom.
By Robert Oldani, DTE Energy and EUCG Inc.s Fossil Productivity Committee
his maintenance staffing study is the third in a series of plant staffing benchmarking studies published in POWER. The first, in the September 2004 issue, was on plant operator staffing; the second, in July/August 2006, examined engineering staffing. Taken as a whole, the three surveys provide extraordinary insight into the staffing of most coal-fired power plants. Such unique information is not available elsewhere in the industry at any price. Though the detailed results are proprietary to EUCG members that participated in it, POWER was given access to the overall findings. If you want details at the plant or unit level, youll have to join the EUCG and participate in the next study. Joining the EUCG and participating in its ongoing series of benchmarking studies gives you access to the next layer of detail and a way to rank your plant against its peers.
The studys scope

The latest plant maintenance staffing benchmarking study by the EUCG (formerly the Electric Utility Cost Group, see sidebar) was based on data from 45 baseload coal-fired plants comprising 142 generating units. Only day-to-day staffing data were collected, to exclude the effects of planned outages on overall staffing levels. Plant, fuel yard, and instrumentation and control (I&C) maintenance personnel were included in this study. The plants range in size from less than 500 MW (27%) to over 2,000 MW (11%), and most are owned by one of 13 geographically dispersed utilities. Of the 45 plants, 71% report that that their fuel mix includes at least 50% Powder River Basin (PRB) coal or lignite. A little over half (58%) reported that a regional maintenance supervision and craft workforce was available to work at the plant. Several other characteristics of the study
population add perspective to the survey results. For example, based on responses, 16% of the steam generators have cyclone furnaces, 13% have been retrofitted with a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system, and 18% have a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system. Not surprisingly, 82% of the units report having a plant distributed control system (DCS), but only 11% have cooling towers. Some 74% of respondents said their plants have an equivalent availability factor (EAF) greater than 85%, and 44% said their EAF is above 90%.
Finding good help

One of the primary goals of the maintenance staffing study was to develop benchmarking targets for the split between in-house and contract labor. Respondents from 31 plants in the 45-plant sample said that, in addition to plant maintenance staff, they use some fulltime contractors to perform plant maintenance; contractor job descriptions range from manager (14 plants) and supervisor (12) to laborer (8). The most popular craft positions included insulator (18), janitor/cleaner (18), electrician (12), and scaffold erector (11). About two-thirds of respondents noted that paying full-time craft contractors consumed 20% or less of their plants total nonplanned outage maintenance labor budget. Although contract maintenance represented more than 50% of the overall maintenance outlay at two plants, the average was 12%. Many plants farm out specific maintenance chores, as opposed to retaining several contractors and having them share general maintenance duties. A number of plants reported spending more than 75% of their budget for a particular type of maintenance on hiring contractors. The top categories here were fuel yard mobile equipment (26 plants), air compressors (21), and forced outage boiler tube repairs (18). To obtain more detailed information on
POWER February 2008
Meet the EUCG

Founded in 1973, the EUCG is an association of utility professionals that provides a forum through which electric utilities can improve their operating, maintenance, and construction performance. It holds technical conferences, including workshops, twice yearly for the purpose of information exchange. The EUCG is organized into committees and working groups by interest areas such as fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric plants; transmission and distribution; and financial management. One of the key functions of the EUCG is to develop benchmarking information and to share it and unit reliability strategies and best practices among member utilities to help them excel in competitive markets. To that end, the EUCGs Fossil Productivity Committee has 32 members reporting operating data from their more than 300 individual units. A Data Membership in the EUCG entitles you to receive a complete benchmarking data set customized for your plant. The maintenance staffing study, whose results are summarized in this article, and earlier benchmarking studies on plant operator staffing and engineering and technical staffing, are ongoing EUCG projects. If you would like to include your plants in the study database and receive a copy of the complete study (with your data included), please contact the EUCG. For more information about the EUCG, contact Executive Director Pat Kovalesky at 623-572-4140 or visit www.eucg.org.
46
www.powermag.com
BENCHMARKING
contractor use, the survey asked, How would you most likely staff a three-day forced outage caused by a boiler tube leak? Just over half of responding plants (24) said the majority of that ad hoc staff would be in-house craft workers, supplemented by staffers from nearby plants (we should all be so lucky). Another 13 respondents said they would contract out that kind of repair work. Notes added to survey forms provided the sought-for details. They included these: Plant personnel get core work, then supplement with contractors, and Welding tube leaks is considered non-core work since our plant personnel arent certified welders. One respondent noted that All craft work outside the boiler will be ours, and work inside it would be contracted out due to a staff shortage of certified welders. If youre interested in more benchmarking data specific to boiler tube repairs, I direct you to a two-part article on an earlier EUCG benchmarking survey that ran in the October 2005 and November/December 2005 issues of POWER. To cover the other end of the spectrum, the study also asked respondents whether they are increasingly asking maintenance workers to perform crossover tasks traditionally done by operators. The overwhelming response (93%) was no, although three plants did note that their boiler water monitoring is done by chemistry/environmental techs, and their daily chemistry by I&C techs. Clearly, the trend is to train operators to perform more maintenance-related tasks, rather than to train maintenance workers to handle more operations chores. The survey responses were mixed on whether in-house and contracted craft workers were assigned jointly to maintenance tasks (comingling). Fifty-three percent of respondents said that is common practice, but only on a straight-time basis. The detailed maintenance staffing survey has several layers of data that can be sliced and diced by study participants. Lets begin exploring them by delving into the details of maintenance craft and full-time contractor head count by plant size. (Remember, only by participating in the study can you gain access to all the raw data youll need to benchmark yourself against your peers.) Figure 1 illustrates the full-time craft maintenance head count at small plants (<499 MW) in the reporting sample, identified by company and contractor. To enable comparisons on an apples-to-apples basis, head counts include I&C and full-time contractors but exclude supervisors, planners/schedulers, regional maintenance workers, plant cleaners, occasional contractors, and non-craft maintenance personnel. Figure 2 shows the maintenance craft head counts at plants rated between 500 MW and 999 MW, Figure 3 shows the
Sharing the load

Many plants report doing more multi-skill training of operators to qualify them to perform the more routine maintenance tasks that in the past would have been considered the purview of the maintenance department. The top reported goals of such training were to have operators assist maintenance during outages (26 respondents), replace large motor air filters (15), and perform equipment oil changes (14). The two tasks for which maintenance craft workers were surely grateful for operators help were change light bulbs (20) and clean the plant (18).
1. Full-time maintenance craft head counts at plants smaller than 499 MW. The plant codes shown were assigned to
respondents to ensure their anonymity. Source: EUCG Company Contractor 40 35 30 Head count 25 20 15 10 5 0 25 39 2 22 19 35 11 Plant code Note: Red stars represent plants with >90% equivalent availability factor. Patterned bars represent units with a scrubber. Green triangles indicate units that burn more than 50% coal or lignite. 33 20 31 37 13
10 6.5 15 12 12 13 13 21 17 29 27 40
3. Full-time maintenance craft head counts at plants between 1,000 MW and 1,999 MW. Source: EUCG
120 100 80 Head count 60 40 20 0 23 1 9 17 42 16 14 Plant code Note: Red stars represent plants with >90% equivalent availability factor. Patterned bars represent units with a scrubber. Green triangles indicate units that burn more than 50% coal or lignite. 28 5 10 3 32 43 37 63 66 82 71 73 85 Company Contractor 99 117 112 115
2. Full-time maintenance craft head counts at plants rated between 500 MW and 999 MW. Source: EUCG
90 80 70 Head count 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 21 36 7 6 15 41 18 27 44 Plant code Note: Red stars represent plants with >90% equivalent availability factor. Patterned bars represent units with a scrubber. Green triangles indicate units that burn more than 50% coal or lignite. 29 34 26 43 38 45 4 18 51 47 48 42 42 43 44 39 34 37 55 57 Company Contractor 71 72 83
4. Full-time maintenance craft head counts at plants larger than 2,000 MW. Source: EUCG
Company Contractor 181 128 132 145 182
200 Head count 150 100 50
8 12 24 Plant code Note: Red stars represent plants with >90% equivalent availability factor. Patterned bars represent units with a scrubber. Green triangles indicate units that burn more than 50% coal or lignite.
47
30
40
February 2008 POWER
BENCHMARKING
counts for plants between 1,000 MW and 1,999 MW, and Figure 4 reflects plants larger than 2,000 MW. The plant codes shown below the bars were assigned to respondents to ensure their anonymity. Maintenance craft head count appears to be a function of the number of units in a plant, but only up to a point. For example, Figure 5 shows that head count varies widely, butnot unexpectedlyincreases sharply when a plant has larger units. Higher head counts also seem to be the case for plants configured with FGD systems. The study results also indicate that some plants cross-train their I&C technicians to
5. Full-time maintenance craft head count by number of units per plant. Source: EUCG
200 180 160 140 120
Plant capacity:
<500 MW
500999 MW
1,0002,000 MW
>2,000 MW
Head count
100 80 60 40 20 0
20 31 25 2 29 19 34 38 4 36 39 22 35 28 11 5
6 15 32 44 42 13 26 43 41 3 27 1 30 8 24 37 7 10 18 40 12 33 45 9 21* 16 17 23 14
1 unit Note: Patterned bars represent units with a scrubber.
2 units Plant code
3 units
4 units
10
In 27 Countries on 7 Million Bolts just last year...
easy to see why Squirters keep bolting off the critical path
the best way to bolt!

TRAINING FIELD SUPPORT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
applied bolting
TECHNOLOGY
1 802 460 3100
1 800 552 1999

|
email: power@appliedbolting.com
48
www.appliedbolting.com
1413 Rockingham Rd. Bellows Falls, VT 05101 USA

POWER February 2008
BENCHMARKING
make them combination I&C techs/electricians, or IC&Es. Figures 6 through 9 show the head counts for this craft category in the same four plant size categories as Figures 1 through 4 for full-time maintenance craft personnel. The next layer of survey detail, available only to survey participants, correlates I&C head count with the presence of a DCS and an FGD system. The IC&E staffing strategy was found to be more prevalent in smaller plants than in larger plants.
6. Full-time I&C and IC&E (I&C/electrician) craft head counts at plants smaller than 499 MW. Source: EUCG
10 8 Head count 6 4 2 0 2 1 13 33 2 37 20 31 22 Plant code 25 39 19 35 11 4 3 3 4 6 5 5 5 I&C IC&E 10 9
7. Full-time I&C and IC&E head count at plants rated between 500 MW and 999 MW. Source: EUCG
15 12
I&C
IC&E
10 10 10 11 11 11 11
14
Head count
9 7 6 3 0 5 5 5 7 7
29 43 45 21 26 36
7 41 15 27 34 Plant code
18 38
44
8. Full-time I&C and IC&E head counts at plants between 1,000 MW and 1,999 MW. Source: EUCG
20 15 Head count 10 6 5 0 5 28 9 10 23 3 1 Plant code 14 32 17 16 42 7 8 9 9 10 I&C IC&E 16 13 16 16 18 19
9. Full-time I&C and IC&E head counts at plants larger than 2,000 MW. Source: EUCG
25 20 Head count 15 10 5 0 24 8 30 Plant code 40 12
I&C
IC&E 18 18 18
24
14
February 2008 POWER
49
BENCHMARKING
10. Reported hourly wage rates for craft maintenance workers. The numbers atop the bars indicate the number of responses
received for the specific specialty and wage rate range. Source: EUCG
20 $23.00$25.99 $26.0028.99 $29.0031.99 17 15 $32.00 18
Responses
12 11 10 8 7 6 5 2 1 0 C&M 1 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 IC&E 2 3 9
13 10
12
5 3 1 Machinist 1 Pipetter Plumber Ironworker Certied welder 3
Mechanical Electrician MS Electrical I&C General Mechanic MS electrical tech tech mechanical MS Notes: C&M = Controls and mechanical, MS = Multiskilled.
The leadership factor

Hiring craft journeymen, either to add expertise to a plants workforce or to fill staff vacancies, will not be productive unless the workers are well-supervised. Accordingly, the survey asked each of the 45 respondents to state their plants supervisory ratiothe number of craft workers (in-house craftsmen, I&C and IC&E techs, and apprentices) divided by the number of managers, general foremen, and craft supervisors. Eight plants reported their ratio as 10 or greater; one plant reported a ratio of 19; the median was 7.3.
The survey asked the same question about the ratio of craft workers to planners/schedulers. The median reported was 13.3, although the data ranged from 30 to as low as three, with a ratio of 48 disregarded in the calculation.
Cost of doing business

Getting a handle on hourly wage rates is always difficult because raw reported figures fail to take into account the local cost of living, fringe benefits, and the range of union pay scales. However, the survey did request raw hourly wage information by craft specialty. The results (Figure 10) underscore the wide range of rates that plants are paying for essentially the same skill set. Straight-time wage rates are only a ballpark measure of craft costs because overtime assignments can bust a budget for direct labor. In this survey, 36% of respondents reported that overtime was typically 11% to 15% of the straight-time 40 hours/week, 29% reported that it was 6% to 10%, and 9% reported that it was 21% to 25%. Maintenance coverage (the number of hours in a day when a maintenance staff is on duty) varied pretty much linearly by plant size. Small plants (<499 MW) generally had 40 hours/week of coverage, but two plants reported coverage of 96 hours/week. Plants larger than 1,000 MW tended to have two-shift coverage, although roughly onethird reported still using single shifts of maintenance workers. Plants larger than 2,000 MW tended to have two- or three-shift coverage, but the mix of specific shift schedules and craft specialties varied significantly among plants.
Filling the craft pool

The final survey questions asked about minimum requirements for entry-level positions in power plant maintenance. Of responding plants, 21 said new hires only had to be high school graduates, 13 required the candidate to have a trade school diploma, and seven insisted on an associates degree. More than three-quarters of respondents (76%) reported having a formal maintenance apprenticeship program in place, although some required new hires to work as a helper for one year before entering the program, to avoid breaking company seniority rules. Over half of the respondents (54%) said their maintenance apprenticeship program lasts 37 to 48 months.
Robert Oldani (oldanir@dteenergy.com) is a plant performance manager at DTE Energy and a member of the EUCGs Fossil Productivity Committee.
POWER February 2008
GAS PIPELINE SAFETY
The case for cathodic protection

All fossil fuels carry some risk with their reward of an energy density thats sufficient for producing electricity economically. For coal and natural gas, that threat is a fire or explosion. However, the risk of an explosion isnt limited to gas-fired plants. Gas poses a threat to any plant that uses the fuel, even in small quantities for heating. Heres an overview of what you should be doing to keep gas pipelines from corroding and exploding.
By Ted Huck, Matcor Inc.
ts only a matter of time before someone in a power plant is killed by a preventable catastrophic failure of a buried natural gas pipeline. The danger posed is less the result of willful negligence than of the temptation to ignore an invisible problem. Safety has long been a primary concern of U.S. industry, particularly in the power generation sector. Today, on a tote board at their entrances, many plants proudly display a running count of the number of work days accumulated without a lost-time accident.
All employees must attend numerous safety training seminars, not only because the U.S. Labor Departments Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) requires it, but also because most companies have come to realize that safety is good for business. Despite this attention, major threats still escape detection by the risk radars of plant workers and managers. One such threat is external corrosion of underground natural gas pipelines at all plants, not just those that convert the fuel to electricity. According to decades
of statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportations Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the leading cause of pipeline failures is external corrosion of buried pipe. The threat is so significant that the OPS insists that pipeline operators take extensive steps to minimize it. Such steps include installing sophisticated corrosion-prevention systems (Figure 1), regularly maintaining and testing those systems, and reporting the results to regulatorsa process the industry calls pipeline integrity management. An
1. Laying pipe. This segment of a natural gas pipeline is being installed to serve a power plant. Operators are required by law to protect
their pipelines from corrosion that could compromise pipe integrity and lead to an explosion. But their responsibility for corrosion protection ends at the isolation flange, where the line enters the plant through a metering station. Courtesy: Matcor
February 2008 POWER
www.powermag.com
51
GAS PIPELINE SAFETY

army of specialists, consultants, and service providers supports the pipeline companies in their efforts to mitigate corrosion. This process does much to protect the public from the devastating effects of a ruptured pipeline, but it does little to protect plant workers. Thats because pipeline operators responsibility for integrity management ends at the metering station, where the pipeline enters the plant. There, the pipeline company installs a flange that electrically isolates its regulated portion of the line and its corrosion system from the final unregulated segment of pipe. The isolation flange marks the physical and legal transfer of responsibility for pipeline safety from the pipeline operator to the plant owner. Pipeline companies corrosion-prevention measures take three forms: coating the pipeline during its construction, installing whats known as a cathodic protection (CP) system to keep stray currents from fostering corrosion as the coating deteriorates, and regularly testing the integrity of the pipeline and the performance of the CP system. The tests include monthly inspections of the systems key componentsrectifiers (Figure 2), annual testing to ensure that the operating environment hasnt changed, and intense surveying every seven to 10 years to validate the pipelines physical integrity. If any defects detected in the system are not reported to regulators and fixed promptly, the pipeline operator is fined.
2. Rectifying the problem. The key components of a pipelines cathodic protection system are rectifiers like these. Courtesy: Matcor
Out of sight, out of mind

Recently, I visited a power plant built around 1970. Unlike many plants of that vintage, the inside the fence portion of this plants gas pipeline was coated and equipped with a CP system to keep corrosion at bay. But although my hosts showed me the detailed drawings and other documentation supplied as part of the installation, no commissioning report was available, and the plants maintenance files lacked any test data to confirm that the system had ever worked properly. That didnt surprise me as much as it probably shocks you. At too many power plants built with a pipeline CP system, the system is installed and turned on but never inspected or tested later. At the plant I visited, the CP system was neglected because it was forgotten. I talked to some veteran maintenance personnel who knew where the rectifiers were located and to one technician who checked them occasionally to see if they were still on. But there was no rigorous testing of the system, and no process was in place to balance the outputs of individual rectifiers to optimize the systems compensation for coating deterioration. I attribute those shortcomings not to negligence on the part of workers or management but
52
rather to the sad fact that CP of buried gas pipelines is not a priority at a competitive power plant. Finally, after operating with this risk for more than 35 years, the plant hired a knowledgeable CP service company to test the system. Management took this step not for safety reasons but as part of an unrelated corporate environmental initiative to minimize the potential for fuel oil leakage from two large, above-ground storage tanks. The results were predictable: the CP system installed in 1970 no longer worked because it had several inoperable rectifiers and depleted anodes. What the tests could not say, however, was when the system had stopped workingor even whether it had ever been functional. What I found most disturbing about the CP service companys report was that it did not identify the unprotected buried gas pipeline as a threat to the plants personnel and assets. Unfortunately, this out of sight, out of mind attitude is all too common in the U.S. power industry. At too many power plants, the contractor-grade CP systems installed to protect buried gas pipelines are neither maintained nor tested. As the plants age and pipeline coatings deteriorate, external corrosion becomes a very serious threat.
party expert been retained to advise them and to validate the systems performance on a regular basis? Develop a plan and budget for testing your system and submit it to management. Be sure the proposal emphasizes the dire and expensive consequences of a catastrophic gas pipeline failure inside the plant. Hire a qualified expert to develop a budget for thoroughly testing your existing CP system and upgrading it to good working condition. Make sure that the recommended test protocols meet criteria established by NACE, formerly known as the National Association of Corrosion Engineers. Implement your own pipeline integrity plan. A good initial resource for developing the plan is your natural gas provider, which has a corrosion technician responsible for your supply line up to your isolation flange, as well as an integrity plan that can be partially emulated. For example, above-ground tools are available that can detect signs of underground corrosion and assess its severity. Add a course on CP to your maintenance training curriculuma little knowledge can go a long way.
No time to lose
What can power plants do to prevent failures of their buried gas pipelines? Matcor recommends taking the following basic steps:
Research your plants construction. Was a CP system originally installed? Do you have a copy of the original CP system acceptance test report? Talk to your maintenance personnel. What do they know about the plant CP system? Do they inspect it periodically? Are they maintaining good records? Has a third-
In a subsequent article, Ill explain in detail how modern cathodic protection systems work to mitigate the corrosion risks specific to power plants with buried natural gas pipelines. Until then, I hope this article has achieved its goal: alerting you to the very real threats posed by unprotected gas pipelines. Corrosion is a time-dependent phenomenon: the longer you wait, the higher the risk. Given the deadly and costly consequences of a natural gas explosion, why not act now?
Ted Huck (thuck@matcor.com) is vice president of sales and marketing for Matcor Inc.
POWER February 2008
Aggregated backup generators help support San Diego grid

Last year, San Diego Gas & Electric tapped Boston-based EnerNOC Inc. to aggregate 25 MW of backup generators throughout SDG&Es service area to relieve the grid when its stressed by peak demand for electricity. By combining stringent environmental controls with field-proven expertise managing distributed assets, EnerNOC has helped to improve grid stability in Southern California.
hree years ago, Dennis Quinn, president of what was then Seattle-based Celerity Energy, proposed to San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) that it develop a Clean Gen program designed to upgrade 25 MW of existing backup generators to support the grid during times of peak demand. Recognizing the value of the Clean Gen program, in terms of both an operating cost perspective and its ability to positively affect SDG&Es environmental impact, the utility accepted Celeritys proposal. In May 2006, Celerity was acquired by Boston-based EnerNOC Inc., a demand response aggregator that has more than 900 MW of demand response capacity under management.
85% (Figure 1). Another important benefit of the DPFs is that they significantly reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. In addition, recent California regulations require the exclusive use of ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel.
Generators save the day

The University of San Diego (USD) was the first to come on-line in November 2006 with
three 2,000-kW diesel-fired Cummins generators. Not only does USD get payments for the use of its generators, but EnerNOC also has taken over responsibility for ongoing generator maintenance, which, according to Roger Manion, assistant vice president, facilities management at USD, gives the university a greater sense of security that its generators will operate when needed. In addition, USD is also notified when the grid is at risk, which
1. Nonsmokers only please.
EnerNOC installs a California Air Resources Boardapproved filter on each generator to reduce emissions. Both generators are running in this picture. The generator on the left shows post-installation air quality; the generator on the right shows pre-installation air quality. Courtesy: EnerNOC
Nonsmoking engines
The Clean Gen program aggregates existing backup generators and operates them during periods of peak demand to support the electric grid and minimize blackout risk. Shortly after partnering with SDG&E, Quinn and the EnerNOC team signed contracts with several end users to enroll their backup generators in the program. However, before it could move forward, emissions had to be addressed with San Diego Countys Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD had concerns about 25 MW worth of backup generators operating more hours than their then-current permits would allow because of the potential negative impact on San Diegos air quality. The APCD and EnerNOC worked to identify filters that would allow the generators to emit the same amount of particulate matter or less in 200 hours as they would have emitted in the normally permitted 30 hours of operation per year. Quinn and EnerNOC agreed to install California Air Resources Boardapproved diesel particulate filters (DPFs) that would reduce particulate matter emissions by over
February 2008 POWER
www.powermag.com
53
is important information for the managers of a 7,600-student campus. When an event is called, USD does not notice the transition because the generators run parallel with the grid. If there is a blackout despite an event being called, USD wont notice because it will already be running on backup generators. According to Les Young, senior project manager at EnerNOC, This is a great aspect of the program because USD is not subject to a momentary outage if a program event is called or the grid fails during an event. The San Diego County Water Authoritys (SDCWAs) Olivenhain Dam facility in Escondido, Calif., also enrolled its four 2,000-kW Caterpillar diesel generators in the program (Figure 2). These generators, normally used to provide power to the facilitys three 2,500-hp water pumps in the event of a power failure, are the perfect fit for the program: theyre big, powerful, and willing to work. They are also set up in parallel with the grid, so there is no interruption if a program event is called or the grid blacks out. EnerNOC didnt stop with the USD and SDCWA sites; it went on to include several diesel generators from various San Diego area wastewater treatment plants. All those generators had open transition transfer switches that would not allow EnerNOC to use the full potential output of the generators, because the loads running on the generators were only a percentage of their nameplate ratings. As a result, EnerNOC designed an innovative wrap around breaker system to parallel the generators with SDG&E. According to Young, this system picks up the facility load and then exports the excess power back to the utility.
2. Mighty generators.
In this construction photo of Olivenhain Dams four 2,000-kW Caterpillar diesel generators, the two generators on the right have the new filters installed; the gensets on the left are awaiting the upgrade. Courtesy: EnerNOC
The NOC in EnerNOC

Tim Healy, EnerNOCs chairman and CEO, is proud of the companys accomplishments. When SDG&E calls an event, Healys team in Boston at EnerNOCs Network Operations Centerthe NOC in EnerNOCsprings into action (Figure 3). The NOC sends automated dispatch information to all designated facility managers informing them that their engines will be remotely fired within 2 minutes. NOC operators then initiate the event, which automatically notifies customers and remotely starts their generators. Within minutes, clean, permitted generators from numerous sites remove 25 MW of load from the grid and help SDG&E avoid blackouts and brownouts. SDG&E can call an event during specified hours on any Monday through Saturday, including holidays. However, there is a limit on the total number of hours per year that SDG&E can use Clean Gen. Remotely firing the engines is an added service we provide, says Healy. In other parts of the country it is not required that the generators start so quickly, so we offer our customers the option of firing the generators up themselves or having us start them remotely. Because EnerNOC has invested millions of dollars in its software to power the NOC, it is not only capable of starting an engine in San Diego with the click of a mouse in Boston, but the NOC can also track and analyze electricity usage and manage demand response events for thousands of locations across North America simultaneously (Table 1).
POWER February 2008
3. The NOC in EnerNOC.
EnerNOCs Network Operations Center in Boston is a state-of-the-art facility that can dispatch thousands of assets across the U.S. and Canada. The NOC is staffed 24/7/365much like an ISO control room. Courtesy: EnerNOC
54
Table 1. Demand is skyrocketing. All across the country electricity demand is increasing as a result of economic growth. In order to keep pace with this demand, certain utilities and independent system operators (ISOs) are finding that demand response programs help address the problem. Source: EnerNOC
2005 ISO ERCOT PJM ISO-NE MISO NYISO CAISO SPP IESO Peak (MW) 60,279 133,763 26,922 131,434 32,075 45,431 40,081 26,160 Date 8/23/05 7/26/05 7/27/05 8/3/05 7/26/05 7/20/05 6/27/05 7/13/05 63,065 144,796 28,021 136,520 33,939 50,270 42,227 27,005 2006 Peak (MW) Date 8/17/06 8/2/06 8/2/06 8/1/06 8/2/06 7/24/06 7/19/06 8/1/06 Growth 4.62% 8.25% 4.08% 3.87% 5.81% 10.65% 5.35% 3.23% Capital cost Total annualized cost Transmission losses Time to build Siting a 100-MW demand response program is considerably more cost-effective than installing a 100-MW GE LMS 100 in a constrained air shed. Source: EnerNOC 100-MW demand response network $900,000 $80/kW-year None 3 months Anywhere 100-MW gas peaking plant $60,000,000 $90/kW-year 8% 3 years Limited
Table 2. Demand peakers. Instituting
response
vs.
Performance under fire

On October 24, 2007, the EnerNOC program was put to the ultimate test. In response to electricity shortages caused by multiple wildfires in southern California, the California Independent System Operator declared a state of emergency. With the overall electricity supply in jeopardy, the NOC was notified and, within minutes, the Clean Gen program was supplying approximately 17 MW of electricity to the grid. This event wasnt the first time the program had been called into action, but it was
the first time in an emergency situation, and the results strongly validated the program. The Clean Gen program functioned just as it was designed to, helping us to meet our needs for increased electricity production through a system of aggregated back-up generators, said Matt Burkhart, vice president of electric and gas procurement for SDG&E. The rapid response of the EnerNOC team was especially impressive and helped us address the situation before the threat of brownouts became a serious concern.
With field-proven effectiveness, even under emergency circumstances, programs like Clean Gen offer an innovative, economic approach to tackling peak demand crises. According to Healy, A 100-MW aggregated backup generator program is cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, has no transmission losses, and takes just a few months to build. On the other hand, a gas peaking power plant can be 60 times the capital cost, be more expensive to run, and take three years to build (Table 2).
Visualize the electric power industry

with Platts new suite of Electric Power System wall maps for the US
New U.S. Electric Power Suite of Maps include: Megawatt Daily Pricing Regions U.S. Electric Power System Map & CD-ROM U.S. Utilities Service Territories U.S. Power Generation U.S. Transmission System Northeast Electric Power System ERCOT Electric Power System N. America Electric Power System Atlas & CD-ROM* WECC Electric Power System
*Coming August 2007
Visit www.maps.platts.com or call the Platts sales office at 1-800-PLATTS8

Priority code: JSUDI0707A
February 2008 POWER
55
NEW PRODUCTS
TO POWER YOUR BUSINESS
Remote temperature and humidity measurement

TandD Corp. has just introduced the TR-72W recorder with an integrated Ethernet/LAN interface. The unit can serve as both a data logger and monitor of temperatures between 0C and 50C and relative humidity between 10% and 95%. The TR-72W can be connected either to a wired 10/100 Base-T Ethernet local area network or to a wireless LAN using the 802.11b standard. Thanks to this connectivity, it can even send warning e-mails and text messages to cell phones. With this introduction, TandD also released a new software tool that enables end users to configure their LAN to automatically upload recorded data from the logger. (www.tandd.com)
Seal off valved slurry flows

Red Valve Co., Inc. recently announced a new slurry knife gate valve designed for heavy applications in the power industry. When the Series DX valve opens, its reinforced elastomer sleeves seal against each other, providing a 100% port opening while minimizing turbulence that causes wear. The seats isolate and protect all metal parts of the valve from coming into contact with the slurry. When the valve is closed, the sleeves provide a drop-tight seal in both directions. Each time the Series DX valve strokes, it discharges a small amount of slurry, keeping the gate path and seat area clear of trapped particulates. This valves unique action prevents slurry from building up in the seat area and possibly keeping the valve from closing. (www.redvalve.com)
Prep your pipe ends

Esco Tool has introduced a right-angle end-welding preparation tool whose pneumatic clamping option provides for instant attach and release of various tubes and pipes in high-volume, repetitive work. The Millhog Air Clamp is an air-operated cylinder that fits the firms small-diameter welding end prep tools for use on tube and pipe with an inside diameter of up to 3 inches. The tool features a self-centering draw rod that rigidly mounts into the tube or pipe. The clamping mechanism uses clamp ribs that automatically retract off the mandrel, reducing friction and wear. The Millhog Air Clamp is designed to be used with Escos line of Ground, Tube Weasel, and Wart Millhog welding-end prep tools, which can bevel, face, and bore tubes simultaneously and in any orientation. (www.escotool.com)
56
www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
NEW PRODUCTS
Intelligent gas detector certified to SIL 2
General Monitors TS4000 Intelligent Toxic Gas Detector, which provides protection against a wide range of hazardous industrial gases and oxygen deficiency, is now suitable for use in safety instrumented systems rated at Safety Integrity Level 2. The TS4000 monitors gases such as ammonia, carbon monoxide, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxygen, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. It displays gas concentrations up to 500 ppm, fault codes for troubleshooting, prompts when calibration is needed, and provides complete status to the user. According to the manufacturer, the TS4000 is easy to operate and maintain and reduces downtime by indicating remaining sensor life. Some of the important features of the detector include remote mounting at up to 2,000 feet, dual-redundant Modbus communications, a three-digit display, and a 4-20 mA output. All electronics are contained within an explosion-proof housing so sensor information can be processed at the point of monitoring. The TS4000 is easy to install and can be calibrated simply, by activating a magnetic switch and applying gas. An interface module processes information at the sensing site and communicates detected gas values to the base unit for control and display. (www.generalmonitors.com)
Premise cable puller

Arnco Corp. has introduced the Kati-Blitz device that makes it easy to pull premise cables into conduits, even under difficult conditions. The Kati-Blitz navigates curves and long sections of conduit, or piping where cables have already been laid. At the heart of the Kati-Blitz is a unique Polykat fiberglass rod that can be hand-cranked in and out quickly without knotting or forming loops in the cable. Threaded rod ends are attached at both ends of the rod, where cable grips, pulling eyes, or guide heads can be screwed on easily and quickly. Available in lengths of 50, 100, and 150 feet, the Polykat rod is housed in a solid, heavy-duty case that is light, compact, and easy to handle. (www.arncocorp.com)
Lower-cost, maintenance-free silica monitoring

According to ABB, the new Navigator 600 silica analyzer substantially reduces the amount of reagents and maintenance needed for silica analysis without compromising the accuracy or reliability of the process. The instrument is said to use one-fourth the amount of reagents consumed by units from other manufacturers, greatly lowering annual reagent cost. Maintenance is reduced by features such as remote management, automatic calibration, and selfcleaning; together, they allow three months of unattended operation. The unit can detect silica concentrations from 0 to 5,000 ppb. It is available in single- or multi-stream configurations (that enable up to six streams to be monitored sequentially) and can be configured for either continuous or sampled measurements. As a standard feature, the instrument provides current-loop and Ethernet outputs; Profibus DP V1 output is optional. The Navigator 600 offers a choice of data display formats, including chart, bar graph, and digital indicator views. Historical logs give operators access to alarm, totalizer, and audit trail data. Process data and historical logs are securely archived to a removable SD card with a capacity of up to 2 GB. The instrument also includes a built-in Ethernet communications link with onboard web and ftp servers. This feature enables remote monitoring, the choice of configuration, and web browser access to the analyzers data and log files. (www.abb.us)
Inclusion in New Products does not imply endorsement by POWER magazine.

February 2008 POWER
57
58
www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
General Counsel
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), a corporate municipal instrumentality of the State of New York, seeks candidates for the position of General Counsel. This position will be responsible for providing legal advice, assistance and representation to the Authority as well as managing, monitoring, and coordinating LIPAs in-house staff and outside counsel. All candidates must be admitted to the New York State Bar and possess a minimum of 15 years experience handling complex legal matters and experience handling legal matters involving the electric utility industry. Experience advising or representing public agencies is preferred. LIPA offers a competitive salary and benefits package commensurate with experience and responsibilities. Interested parties should immediately submit their cover letter, resume, and salary requirements to: Ms. Barbara Ann Dillon, Director of Human Resources and Administration Long Island Power Authority 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 403 Uniondale, NY, 11553 or to: generalcounseljob@lipower.org LIPA is an equal opportunity employer.
POWER PROFESSIONALS
Opportunities in Operations and Maintenance, Project Engineering and Project Management, Business and Project Development, First-line Supervision to Executive Level Positions. Employer pays fee. Send resumes to:
P.O. Box 87875 Vancouver, WA 98687-7875 email: dwood@powerindustrycareers.com (360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292 www.powerindustrycareers.com
Best Recruiters in Power!

Management Technical Contract Nuclear Fossil Renewable T&D
Sanford Rose Associates

265 Main St. Akron OH. 44308 888-333-3828 Fax 330-762-6161
resume@SROCPower.com
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART

United Dynamics Corporation 2681 Coral Ridge Road Brooks, KY 40109 502.957.7525 www.udc.net Established in 1979 UDC stands as an industry leader in outage management, professional boiler inspection services, and educational training. Driven by the demand for experience and expertise of quality continuing education we developed our inplant training seminars. UDC offers excellence in educational training for organizations in the power industry aspiring to achieve proven and effective results. Each individual seminar focuses on issues experienced at your plant. All seminar sessions are conducted on-site at your location. Seminar topics include Inspection Techniques and Practical Solutions for Prevention of Tube Failure. Elevate your inspection team to its greatest potential. Schedule your In House Seminar today! We are enjoying a great year from a reliability standpoint and realize United Dynamics Corporation contributed to this in a major way. We appreciate what you do and look forward to working with you again. Current UDC Client
READER SERVICE NUMBER 200 February 2008 POWER 59
Jacobs, one of the Most Admired Companies in the industry (FORTUNE Magazine, 2007) is integral in creating the world of tomorrow as one of the largest and most diverse providers of architecture, engineering, construction, and other professional technical services. We have the following opportunities available in our Raleigh, NC office where we serve clients in the power and cogeneration, and pharmaceutical industries. Mechanical Engineers (IRC420) 5-15 years experience in industrial plant environments, including power and thermal generation, process, and infrastructure systems and the development of P&IDs, PFDs, scopes of work, equipment specifications, and arrangement drawings. Experience with design of boiler, steam turbine generator, and gas turbine generator systems required. PE preferred. Electrical Engineers (IRC3183) 10-20 years of experience in the design of medium to high voltage electrical systems, including generator systems, substations, and transmission. PE required. Experience in a leadership position preferred. Structural Engineers (IRC3706) 10-20 years experience in industrial plant design, with experience in concrete and structural steel design. Proficiency in analysis software such as STAAD or RAM required. PE required. Jacobs offers competitive compensation and full benefits packages. For consideration and a complete listing of our career opportunities worldwide, visit our website at www.jacobs.com or send your resume and cover letter to HR.Raleigh@jacobs.com.
www.JACOBS.com
Jacobs Values Diversity and is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer.
www.powermag.com

CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.
FOR SALE/RENT
Seeking Plant Documentation Projects

Fossil/GT/CC/SCR Rapid Turnaround, Low Overhead Operating Procedures, Turnover Sets, Training
Rydnbok 3318 Highway 5 Suite 269 Douglasville, GA 30135 (678) 361-5299 info@rydnbok.com
24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE BOILERS

20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.
Easy to install, saves time and money.

ADJUSTABLE PLUGS-all rubber with brass insert. Expand it, install it, reverse action for tight t. PUSH PULL PLUGS- are all rubber, simply push it in. Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D. Tel: (203) 881-0190 Fax:(203)881-0178 E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com www.conklin-sherman.com OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD
DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS

50 - 25,000 KW
GEARS & TURBINES

25 - 4000 HP
READER SERVICE NUMBER 201
WE STOCK LARGE INVENTORIES OF:

Air Pre-Heaters Economizers Deaerators Pumps Motors Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets Valves Tubes Controls Compressors Pulverizers Rental Boilers & Generators
GEGU's - 7.5 MW Guascor - natural gas red - 3/60/480 volts (Qty 2) GTGUs - 20 MW Brown Boveri oil red cheap BOILERS - 200,000#/HR Combustion Engineering package - 600# steam pressure - gas red - 25,000#/HR ABCO - 150# steam pressure natural gas and propane red (Qty 4)
We buy and sell transformers, boilers, steam turbine generator units, gas turbine generator units, diesel engine generator units, etc.
NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK

Copper Power to 69kv; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor; Underground UD-P & URD, PILC-AEIC; Interlock Armor to 35kv; Copper Instrumentation & Control; Thermocouple
BASIC WIRE & CABLE

Fax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292 E-Mail: basicwire@basicwire.com WEB SITE: www.basicwire.com
847-541-5600 FAX: 847-541-1279 WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com
wabash
POWER
EQUIPMENT CO.
444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

Life Assessment Condition Assessment Failure Analysis

Providing 30+ years of wide-range metallurgical processing for those seeking the most effective and efficient results possible. We wrote the book... Metallurgical Failures in Fossil Fired Boilers. Full Service Metallurgical Lab David N. French Metallurgists We specialize in boiler tube failures. 2681 Coral Ridge Road Brooks, KY 40109 502.955.9847 www.davidnfrench.com Metallurgical service solutions with unsurpassed results!
INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY CO.

50 Public Square - Terminal Tower, Suite 834 Cleveland, OH 44113 U.S.A. PH 216-621-9514/FAX 216-621-9515 Email: kernx06@sbcglobal.net Web: www.intlpwr.com
Corrections/Additions for 2008 POWER Buyers' Guide

Team Industrial Services 200 Hermann Drive Alvin, TX 77511 Phone: 800-662-8326 Fax: 281-331-4107 E-mail: rmcafee@teamindustrialservices.com Web: www.teamindustrialservices.com General Physics Corp 25 Northpointe Pkwy, Ste 100 Amherst, NY 14228 USA Phone: 716-799-1080 Fax: 716-799-1081 E-mail: energyservices@gpworldwide.com Website: http://www.energy.gpworldwide.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 208 60 www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008

Norm Harty - The First and Last Word in Professional Dynamiting, serving you since 1964. We have pioneered, perfected and proven the methods of explosive cleaning the worst of s\lag or ash out in a matter of hoursin all boiler areas. We specialize in Electric Utility work and have over 4000 jobs to our credit. Call the NUMBER ONE COMPANY for the quickest response and most efcient job for your emergency needs and scheduled outages. N.B. Harty General Contractors, Inc. Phone: 573-624-4645 or 573-624-4588 Fax: 573-624-4589 E-mail: norm@nbharty.com www.nbharty.com
For Sale
CFB Boiler
Steaming Capacity: 700,000 lb/hr of superheated steam Pressure: 1250 psig Temperature: 1000 F at main steam stop outlet valve Feedstock: PRB Coal Fabrication is partially complete. Reduce your project schedule by purchasing the rights to this CFB Boiler. For complete details please contact: Keith Schick, 720-945-0641
GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.

Chemical cleaning advisory services for boilers and balance of plant systems
George H. Bodman
Pres. / Technical Advisor
BoilerCleaningDoctor.com Ofce 1-800-286-6069
Ofce (281) 359-4006 PO Box 5758 E-mail: blrclgdr@aol.com Kingwood, TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225
Need a Thorough Mix?

Ash, coal, sludges, what do You need to mix?
Get a thorough mix with:
Pugmill Systems, Inc.

P.O. Box 60 Columbia, TN 38402 USA ph: 931/388-0626 fax: 931/380-0319 www.pugmillsystems.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 212 READER SERVICE NUMBER 213 READER SERVICE NUMBER 214
READER SERVICE NUMBER 215 February 2008 POWER
READER SERVICE NUMBER 216 www.powermag.com 61
PRODUCT
Showcase
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION SYSTEM FOR PACKAGE BOILERS
Nationwide Boiler offers a new six-page brochure describing the design congurations, principle of operation and performance of their selective catalytic reduction system, CataStak. Suitable for use with package boilers to 250K lb/hr., CataStak reduces NOx emissions to 6ppm and lower. Brochure includes comments from users from different industries regarding their experience with CataStak. info@nationwideboiler.com
62
www.powermag.com
POWER February 2008
ADVERTISERS INDEX
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.
Page
www.appliedbolting.com
Reader Service Number
Applied Bolting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48. . . . . . . . 17 Babcock and Wilcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 4. . . . . . . . . 4

www.babcock.com
Benetech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. . . . . . . . 13
www.benetechusa.com
Columbus McKinnon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . 9

www.cmindustrial.com
Hitachi Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 3. . . . . . . . . 2

www.hitachi.com
Martin Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . 10

www.martin-eng.com
Membrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. . . . . . . . 12
www.liqui-cel.com
Paharpur Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49. . . . . . . . 18

www.paharpur.com
Panasonic Toughbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. . . . . . . . 11

www.panasonic.com/toughbook/utilities
Power Systems Mfg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. . . . . . . . 16

www.powermfg.com
Roberts & Schaefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. . . . . . . . 15

www.r-s.com
Stanley Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. . . . . . . . . 7

www.stanleyconsultants.com
Sturtevant Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . 8

www.sturtevantinc.com
The Shaw Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 2. . . . . . . . . 1

www.shawgrp.com
Turbine Energy Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. . . . . . . . 19

sales@turbineenergysolutions.com
Ultra Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . 6
www.ultratechpipe.com
United Brotherhood of Carpenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. . . . . . . . 14

www.carpenters.org
Worley Parsons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . 4
www.worleyparsons.com
Zolo Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . . . 5
www.zolotech.com
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
Pages 5862. To place a classified ad, contact: Myla Dixon, POWER magazine, 832-242-1969, mylad@tradefairgroup.com.
February 2008 POWER
www.powermag.com
63
COMMENTARY
Michael Shellenberger
Ted Nordhaus
What Congress can learn from Google

By Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus
computer microchips, driving the cost of a single microchip down from $1,000 to $20 in less than a decade. Before that the Pentagon subsidized radio. And the Internets precursor was invented in a Defense Department lab. Perhaps because they know this history, some Silicon Valley executives and investors seem to understand the energy challenge better than policymakers. In November, Google announced a Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal initiative to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in wind and solar power. But achieving this objective requires a global investment in the hundreds of billions, not millions. What would happen if Europe and the U.S. guaranteed the market for silicon solar panelsas we did with silicon microchips? We know that for every doubling of production of solar panels, price drops 20%. Experts say it would cost $50 billion to $200 billion to make solar power as cheap as coal power. Solar and wind are just part of the solution. Whats needed is a portfolio of investments made by the worlds wealthiest countries. The U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan should create a 10-year, $1 trillion energy fund to invest in a range of technologiesincluding geothermal, efficiency, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, low- to zero-emissions technologies, and other advanced energy technologiesmany of which (like solar) would be manufactured in China. The prospect of substantial new investment might persuade China to adopt some emissions limits or even a carbon tax. Raising the money Whether through auctioning permits or taxing carbon dioxide directly, federal carbon regulation can potentially generate tens of billions of dollars annually for clean-energy investments. These investments should include dramatic increases in funding for basic research in the energy sciences, a 10-year commitment to buy down the price of solar technology and battery and other energy storage technologies, and a commitment to build a smarter and more efficient electricity grid. Just before the Bali climate change conference last December, more than three dozen Nobel laureates and energy scientists sent an open letter to presidential candidates and members of Congress calling for a minimum of $30 billion per year. Just as past public investment in railroads, highways, microchips, the Internet, computer science, and the medical biosciences triggered billions in private investment, and paid for themselves many times over, so will new investments in energy. One econometric analysis found that a $300 billion investment would pay for itself in 10 years through energy savings, economic growth, job creation, and profit taking. Its time for a new energy strategy that aligns economic and ecological interests and appeals to the aspirations of both developed and developing nations. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are co-authors of Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, and founders of the Breakthrough Institute.
POWER February 2008
hances are good that legislation to cap and auction greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will become law as early as 2009. While many environmentalists, utilities, and energy companies agree that cap and auction is the right framework, huge differences remain. Environmentalists want an 80% reduction of GHG emissions by 2050, or sooner. Energy companies want more modest reductions and for pollution allowances to be given away rather than auctioned. The energy lobby will likely favor, and environmentalists oppose, a safety valve to prevent the price of carbon dioxide (and thus the cost of energy) from rising too high. Though the regulatory aspects of managing greenhouse gases are important, the biggest reductions in emissions wont come from regulations but from technology innovations that lower the price of clean energy. The opportunity for agreement between industry and environmentalists lies in using revenues from auctioning emissions allowances to fund major investment in clean energy technology and infrastructure. But before describing what this win-win might look like, we need to understand the lessons of the Kyoto treaty.
The failure of Kyoto Many environmentalists believe that Kyotos failure is due to Bush administration opposition to it. This story gives too much credit to the U.S. and too little responsibility to the wealthy nations that ratified Kyoto. The latter saw their GHG emissions go up, not down, by 4% from 2000 to 2004. In Britain and Germany, emissions fell not because of Kyoto but because Margaret Thatcher broke the coal miners union, moving Britain to cleaner-burning natural gas, and because the East German economy collapsed after the fall of communism, reducing a reunified Germanys reliance on dirty coal plants. When you remove Germany and Britain from the calculation, European emissions rose 10% between 1990 and 2005. The reality is that Europe hasnt reduced its emissions because its policymakers fear the backlash that will result from higher energy prices and slower economic growth. U.S. lawmakers considering cap-and-auction legislation will soon face the same challenge as lawmakers in Europe: increase energy prices too much and face a public backlash; increase them too little and have no impact on emissions. This is the heart of the Kyoto problem. For regulations to work, the price of fossil fuels must increase enough that clean energy alternatives become cost-competitive. Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal There is a better way. Instead of making clean energy relatively cheaper, a new, post-Kyoto agreement should focus on making clean energy absolutely cheaper. The right model comes not from past efforts dealing with pollution problems but rather from investments in technology innovation and infrastructure. Silicon Valley, we often forget, was largely built on U.S. government contracts. In the 1950s, the Pentagon guaranteed the market for
64
www.powermag.com
a world of Solutions
13M012008D
Generating New Solutions

Its a different world out there. Finding solutions to the growing demand for energy while also satisfying regulators, energy providers, and the public is more challenging than ever. When you partner with Shawan industry leader in clean energyyou gain access to a world of safe, efcient, effective energy solutions. Shaw is delivering peace of mind to energy providers around the globe. Let us show you what we can do for you.
www.shawgrp.com
Be part of the solution. Join the Shaw team. Click on Careers to nd out how.
ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION START UP AND TEST MAINTENANCE & MODIFICATIONS TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
We call these tangible renewable energy credits.
Consider biomass as an energy source for electric power production. Energy from biomass is dependable, dispatchable and readily available. In addition, biomass is CO2 neutral and can reduce plant emissions. Diversify your fuel portfolio and earn renewable energy credits. Call 1-800-BABCOCK or visit www.babcock.com.
2007 The Babcock & Wilcox Company. All rights reserved.


New Long-Run Record Set by 50-Year-Old TVA Unit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

New Long-Run Record Set by 50-Year-Old TVA Unit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY

www.powermag.com Vol. 152 No. 2 February 2008

New long-run record set by 50-year-old TVA unit

ONE HITACHI... HITACHI...

Established 1882 Vol. 152 No. 2

COVER STORY: COAL PLANT OPERATIONS

30 Alliant Energy sweeps EUCG Best Performer awards

38 Alstoms chilled ammonia CO2-capture process advances toward commercialization

42 Accelerating the deployment of cleaner coal plants

46 Whos doing coal plant maintenance?

GAS PIPELINE SAFETY

51 The case for cathodic protection

53 Aggregated backup generators help support San Diego grid

February 2008 POWER

BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY

EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION

ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC

POWER February 2008

U.S. a paper tiger in nuclear power

Behind the power curve Foreign-flavored renaissance

Dr. Robert Peltier, PE Editor-in-Chief

Solutions from Pre-feasibility to Plant Operations and Support

Duke applies for first greenfield COL

1. FutureGen finds a home.

Preparation of COL application

NRC review and hearing Full power operations

Plant construction and start-up

POWER February 2008

PPL to work with UniStar on another COL

Areva seeks NRC certification of its reactor

February 2008 POWER

5. Air Force goes solar. These photovoltaic panels at Nellis Air

Mitsubishi also in line at the NRC

PV project shines in Nevada

SunEdison commissions Colorado PV plant

POWER February 2008

Super Boiler celebrates first anniversary

Big concentrating solar plant proposed

Go online or call 800-626-8243

A division of Construction Forms, Inc.

LEADING THE WAY IN ABRASION RESISTANT PIPE SYSTEMS

CIRCLE 6 ON READER SERVICE CARD February 2008 POWER

Interstage cooling pass

Water HP economizer LP economizer Transport membrane condenser

Deaerator Humidifying air heater Preheated humidied air

Small fuel cell uses JP-8 jet fuel

H2 Fuel processor O2 from normal air

Fuel cell stack

800.878.6806 www.stanleyconsultants.com Excellent Career Opportunities Available

POWER February 2008

EMISSIONS CONTROL Sequestering coal plant emissions

February 2008 POWER

Thats What Complete Lifting Systems Are All About.

800 - 888 - 0985

cleaner, safer, more productive

coal-red power generation Cleaner, Safer, and More Productive.

MARTIN ENGINEERING 800.544.2947 or 309.594.2384 info@martin-eng.com www.martin-eng.com

A simplified schematic of the Hydra AA. Source: Teledyne Leeman Hg lamp

Atomic absorption cell

Naon dryer Reference Argon gas

Gas control Liq/gas separator

MERCURY CONTROL Comparing mercury measurement methods