1

Use of Coal Blending process A

Case study of Dahanu TPS
2 confidential
Flow of Presentation
q About DTPS
q Power sector scenario
q DTPS Performance.
q Problem associated with F-Grade coal
q Blending as solution
q Evaluation of performance
q Conclusion.
3 confidential
DTPS Geographical Location
q Well connected by Western
Railway & National Highway No. 8.
q On the bank of Arabian Sea
q Surrounded by two natural creeks.
q Nearby Surya River dam (32 kms). Dahanu
4 confidential
LAND
q Total land F 821.58 hectares
q Land For Plant F 351.58 hectares
q Land for Ash disposal F 370.00 hectares
q Land for Colony F 100.00 hectares
Background
2
5 confidential
RESOURCE REQUIREMENT
q Total Coal F 2.1 Million tons
q Wash coal F 1.7 Million tons
q Imported coal F 0.4 Million tons
q Sea Water (M3/Hr.) F 84,000
q Sweet Water (M3/Hr.) F 300
Background
6 confidential
Salient Features Of Dahanu TPS
q First 250 MW sets in the Country
q Indigenous technol ogy of BHEL
q Coastal power plant far away from
Coal Mines
q Sea Water Open Cycle cooling
system
q Tallest Chimney in the Country
q High efficiency Electrostatic
Precipitator for Ash collection
q Advanced process control
equipments
q SCADA based Islanding system for
reliable supply
7 confidential
DTPS Vision
To be amongst the world class power plants, delivering reliable
generation of electricity at competitive costs, with international
standards of environmental emission.
To set new benchmarks in standards of performance through the
pursuit of operational and financial excellence.
8 confidential
Plant Performance
3
9 confidential
National PLF (Average Thermal units) : 73.6%
Plant Performance
100.34
101.35
101.79 101.53
98.7
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Plant Load Factor (%)
Average PLF for last 5 years = 100.74% (Above 100%)
10 confidential
Plant Performance
96.84
94.71
96.79 96.7 96.88
2003-04 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Availability (%)
National Availability (Average Thermal units) : 81.78%
11 confidential
Plant Performance
103.61
104.22
105.17 104.99
104.61
2003-04 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Loading Factor (%)
Average Loading for last 5 years = 104.52% (Above 100%)
12 confidential
2288
2305
2320
2373
2272
2268
2261
2286
2278 2279
FY2003-04 FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08
HEATRATE WITH AGEING EFFECT
ACTUAL HEAT RATE
Plant Performance
4
13 confidential
National Sp. Oil Consumption : 1.37ml/KWH
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.13 0.13
2003-04 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Specific Oil Consumption(ml/Kwh)
Plant Performance
14 confidential
0.39 0.38
0.24
0.22
0.37
2003-04 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
DM Makeup (%)
Design Norm : 3%
Plant Performance
15 confidential
0.112 2393 7.23 101.62 96.52 98.02 Dadari NTPC
0.68 NA 8.82 101.79 95.77 97.49 Sabarmati AE CO
0.28 NA 7.33 100.38 97.30 97.67 Jindal SW JINDAL
0.13 2471 8.03 103.12 97.39 101.43 Budge Budge CESC
0.13 2279 7.67 104.99 96.70 101.53 Dahanu REL
Sp.Oil
(ml/KWH)
Ht rate
(Kcal/KW
H)
Aux.
Power
%
Loading
(%)
Availability
(%)
PLF
(%)
Station Company
Name
Benchmarking 2007- 08
0.14 2393 6.66 100.54 92.25 92.75 Vindhyachal NTPC
0.19 2355 5.56 99.63 92.44 92.10 Simhadri NTPC
1.74 NA 8.96 99.39 94.69 95.59 Unchahaar NTPC
0.126 2466 8.13 102.81 97.04 99.77 Budge Budge CESC
0.11 2278 7.64 105.17 96.79 101.79 Dahanu REL
Sp.Oil
(ml/KWH)
Ht rate
(Kcal/KW
H)
Aux.
Power
%
Loading
(%)
Availability
(%)
PLF
(%)
Station Company
Name
Benchmarking 2006- 07
16 confidential
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
T
P
M

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n

M
g
/
N
M
3
TPM Limit given by MPCB (150mg/Nm3)
TPM Emission f romDTPS
Environment PerformanceTPM Emission
5
17 confidential
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
S
O
2

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

(
T
o
n
/
D
a
y
)
SO2 Emission from DTPS (Ton/Day)
SO2 Limit by MPCB (80.4 Ton/Day)
Environment Performance..SO2 Emission
18 confidential
SO
2
Emission
SO2 EMISSION (Station)
0.5
10.5
20.5
30.5
40.5
50.5
60.5
70.5
80.5
90.5
A
p
r-0
7
M
a
y
-0
7
J
u
n
-0
7
J
u
l-0
7
A
u
g
-0
7
S
e
p
-0
7
O
c
t-0
7
N
o
v
-0
7
D
e
c
-0
7
J
a
n
-0
8
F
e
b
-0
8
M
a
r-0
8
A
p
r-0
8
M
a
y
-0
8
J
u
n
-0
8
J
u
l-0
8
A
u
g
-0
8
S
e
p
-0
8
Actual SO2 (T/Day) (Station)
MPCB Limit
FGD Commissioned
19 confidential
65
85
105
125
145
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
N
O
x

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

(
P
P
M
)
Actual NOx Emission from
DTPS
NOx Emission Limit by MPCB
(150 ppm at 15% excess O2)
Environment Performance..NOx Emission
20 confidential
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
Year
u
g
/
m
3
MPCB Limits :
SO
2
= 30 ug/m
3
,
NOx = 30 ug/m
3
,
SPM = 100 ug/m
3
AAQM Stations
6
21 confidential
Power Sector Scenario
22 confidential
Total Installed Capacity- 1,43,061 MW (as on March 31, 2008 )
Fuel wise distribution in MW
Sector wise Distribution in MW
q More than 70% electricity generation by Thermal Power Plants
q Plant load factor is 78% & Availability is @84% (National Average)
q @8 % non-availability on account of forced outage
q More than 50% outage on account of boiler auxiliaries which are related to coal
quality-DTPS faced similar problems during initial operation
23 confidential
Problems With F Grade Coal-During initial Operation
q Poor coal quality 3300 Cal orific Value and 45% ash
q 75% Of Generation Cost Is Fuel Cost.
q High freight cost Leading to high landed cost of coal
q Very high erosion rate & Forced Outage
q Availability loss due to poor coal quality.
q Higher O&M Cost.
q High Ash of generation disposal problems and costs
q Adverse Impact On Environmental Performance
q Extraneous material damage to the equipment
q Strain on railway system
q Erratic delivery and uncertainty regarding availability
24 confidential
Alternatives to Resolve above Problems
q Change of fuel Modification-Non-availability
q Import coal for total consumption Design limitation
q Use beneficiated coal from Indian mines Feasible -
Establishing washery
q Try blending of various coals avail able -Feasible
7
25 confidential
Advantages of Coal Blending
q Lower ash less erosion &related breakdowns
q Higher G.C.V. less coal to handle, grind and fire
q Reduced Auxiliary consumption
q Reduced air and solid effluents
q Location Most suitable
q Started Blending with F grade & evaluation in 1996-subsequently
washed
26 confidential
Blended coal
27 confidential 28 confidential
Blending Process at DTPS
Various ways of Bunkering
q Wagon Tippler And S/R # 1 To Bunker
q Wagon Tippler And S/R # 2 To Bunker
q Wagon Tippler And Vf. To Bunker
q Emergency Stock Pile And S/R # 1 To Bunker
q Emergency Stock Pile And S/R # 2 To Bunker
q S/R # 2 And S/R # 1 to Bunker
q Where :-
S/R : Stacker And Reclaimer
Vf : Vibrating Feeder.
8
29 confidential
Blending Ratio- criterion
q GCV of coal
q Cost of imported coal
q Availability of imported coal
q Cost of as fired coal
q Ash percentage in coal
q Efficiency
q cost optimization.
30 confidential
Proximate Analysis Of Blended Coal
COAL
'F'
Grade
Blended
(F:A)
Washed Blended
W:A
GCV
(Kcl/Kwh)
3500 4250 4100 4250
TM (%) 10.20 11.18 12.60 14.00
VM (%) 22.00 27.00 26.00 28.00
ASH (%) 40 33 30 26
Imported Coal parameters GCV 5300-6400,TM 22 -26,VM 30
31 confidential
q Operation performance parameters
q Equipment performance
q Cost of Generation
Criteria for Performance Evaluation of Various Coal
32 confidential
Operation Performance
q Main Steam & Reheat temperature-No appreciable difference
q Unburnt Carbon in bottom ash and fly ash.-Reduced
q Flue Gas outlet temperature.-On lower side
q Mill outlet temperatures.-maintained
q Fouling, Slagging and Flame characteristics.
q Overall Boil er efficiency.-Improved
9
33 confidential
Equipment Performance
q Less Erosion
q Less Aux. Power Consumption
q Reduced down time
q Reduced Maintenance cost
34 confidential
Equipment Performance Details-
Coal mill
q Reduced ball consumption to 80 to 90 mg/Ton coal from 150-170 mg/T
observed normally.
q Increased screw conveyor life to 2 years from 6 months.
q Increased liners life.
q Reduced initial ball charge reducing Aux.Power consumption.
q Reduced mill down time.
35 confidential
q Increased coal burner life to 4 years from 1 years observed.
q Reduced boil er tube leakages due to less erosion.
q Increased APH baskets reversal time to 7 years from 2 years.
q Virtually no erosion of ducts.
q Virtually no erosion of ID Fan blades.
Equipment Performance Details-Boiler
36 confidential
Coal Handling Plant
q Crusher operation eliminated.
q No consumption of crusher hammers.
q Reduced Aux. Power Consumption.
Ash Handling Plant
q Only one system operation required for deashing
q Reduced Aux. Power reduction.
Equipment Performance Details
10
37 confidential
26
33
30
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
F Grade Washed Blended (F:A) Blended (W:A)
ASH (%)
Ash Content in various Coal
38 confidential
15352
8189
9405 10611
7416 7574
7660 9216
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
" F" GRADE COAL WASHED BLENDED COAL
(F: A)
BLENDED COAL
(W: A)
POWER FOR AHP(KWH) P OWE R F OR C H P ( K WH )
68784
69432
71568 73200
66000
68000
70000
72000
74000
" F" GRADE COAL WASHED BLENDED COAL
(W: A)
BLENDED COAL
(F: A)
Auxiliary Power Consumption
CHP / AHP
BOILER
39 confidential
Total Particulate Matter
124
110
90
80
60
80
100
120
140
FGRADE WASHED BLENDED (F,A) BLENDED (W,A)
mg/Nm3
40 confidential
Indicative Fuel Cost
11
41 confidential
UNBUR NT CAR BON LOSSE S
10
8
30
16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FGRADE WASHED BLENDED (F, A) BLENDED (W,A)
KC AL
42 confidential
DTPS has developed cost optimization model for decision
making regarding blending ratio.
43 confidential
q Reduction in fuel cost.
q Higher GCV- less coal to handle and grind.
q Lower ash Less erosion & breakdown.
q Better equipment performance.
q Stable generation of power at 262 MW against 250MW.
q Better environmental performance
q Gcv Of Coal Can Be Controlled.
q Low Ash Content.
q Aux. Power Cons. Can Be Reduced.
q Ash Pond Life Can Be Increased.
q Soot Blowing Freq.. Can Be Decreased.
q Saving in DM Water Makeup .
q Maintenance Cost Can Be Decreased.
q Clinkers Formation Can Be Decreased.
Benefits of coal blending process
44 confidential
Conclusion
q DTPS is first plant using optimized blending of coal governed by efficiency
and cost.
q Top Plant Performance from successive five years is indicative of Blending
effectiveness of DTPS.
q Major benefits due to effective blending are :-
q Saving up in fuel cost by
- Selecting proper coal.
- Selecting optimum blending ratio.
q Provides Customer low cost power
q Minimum expenditure--Man days
q Stabilised process of blending Emulated by power plants
12
Thank you