You are here:
UTILITY BOILER DESIGN/COST COMPARISON: FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION VS. FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Citation:
Reese, J. UTILITY BOILER DESIGN/COST COMPARISON: FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION VS. FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/7-77/126 (NTIS PB280751), 1977.
Description:
The report gives results of a conceptual design, performance, and cost comparison of utility scale (750-925 MWe) coal-burning power plants employing three alternative technologies: conventional boiler with a stack gas scrubber (CWS), atmospheric-pressure fluidized-bed combustion (AFB), and pressurized fluidized-bed combustion/combined cycle (PFB). The AFB and PFB designs/estimates used were completed by the General Electric Co. as part of the Energy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS), funded by NASA, ERDA, and NSF. The CWS designs/estimates were developed by GE for this study, using the same basis as for the ECAS. TVA modified the GE results to: reflect TVA costing experience, consider alternate wet scrubbing techniques for the CWS, and include comparable solid waste disposal costs for all three plants, considering alternative disposal options. Results suggest that AFB offers a possible savings of 9-14% in the cost of electricity (COE) in comparison with CWS, and PFB offers a savings of up to 7%. The estimated COE for the three alternatives is so close that all are considered to be within the competitive range for further consideration. (Portions of this document are not fully legible)