coal2thorium.com                                   Electricity From THORIUM
Chapter  18-F        Power Plant Examples:    JR Endicott          Directory
The purpose of this page is to explore converting a typical example of tens of thousands of relatively small coal burning power plants to thorium.
 
J.R. Endicott, Litchfield, Michigan   http://www.mscpa.net/
Is repowering J.R. Endicott's single 55 MWe coal-fired steam turbine-generator necessary?
(Air Cooled Generating Units Below 180 MVA) 


(Above) 55 MVA J.R. Endicott coal burning power station.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is developing a number of new regulations for the power sector governing air emissions, cooling water intake structures, and coal combustion waste disposal methods.  Combined, these regulation have the potential to drive as much as 40% of existing coal-fired generating units to retire in the next 10 years, representing about 51 GW. - - Power Magazine, May 2011.

http://carma.org/plant/detail/20570  CARMA report for J.R. Endicott's 2007 Carbon Emissions:
Global Rank: 2,474th,  Short Tons CO
2  744,357,  MegaWatt-hour  474,343,  CO2 Intensity  3.138.
MegaWatt-hour Energy: Annual megawatt-hours of electricity produced.   CO
2 Intensity: Pounds of CO2 emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.

Part  1:  The JR Endicott Power Plant, Litchfield, MI.
Part  2
TRIAGE - Environmentalists are not playing fair.
Part  3:  Options for repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler.
Part  4:  Costly Carbon Emissions Compliance and Small Town America.
 

________________________________________________________________________________________

Part  1:  The JR Endicott Power Plant

Example:  55 MVA (Mega Volt-Ampere, or MegaWatt)  J.R. Endicott Power Station, Litchfield, Michigan

Michigan South Central Power Agency,  720 Herring Road,  Litchfield, MI 49252,  Phone: 517-542-2346,  Fax: 517-542-3049 Website: http://www.mscpa.net/

J.R. Endicott is an independent South-Central Michigan coal burning power station owned by 3 nearby towns and 2 villages.

In the author's opinion, J.R. Endicott power station is an extremely environmentally pro-active coal plant doing everything they can to be as clean as possible.  The plant looks so clean the black coal pile (right) looks out of place. 

Notice the light-colored piles of limestone in their front yard.  Endicott employs a limestone, forced oxidation (LSFO) wet FGD (Enhanced Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization) pollution capture system.  They are working as hard as anyone in the world can to reduce particulates (soot), sulfur dioxide (acid rain), and mercury emissions (brain damage).

See Endicott Advanced Mercury Control Report .pdf   Despite all this effort and cost, greenhouse gas CO2 emissions continue unabated at about 700,000 tons per year as per www.CARMA.org data.  (The EPA is proposing a 25,000 ton per year limit).

Early CCS CO2 Emissions including Mining Methane .jpg  show a maximum capture of 80%, which would come to 560,000 tons per year for Endicott, with 140,000 tons slipping past the CCS equipment - which would also suck off about 25% of Endicott's electricity. 

In addition, the coal ash, soot particulates, and the sulfur and mercury contaminated limestone has to be hauled away and dumped on someone's property - to eventually contaminate their local groundwater. 

And, at the end of the year, despite all this effort and expense, Endicott would still have to pay an EPA penalty.

At some point the world is going to realize that coal has so many pollutants that, all things considered, its better to just leave it buried in the ground and move on to some cleaner source of heat.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Part  2: Environmentalists are not playing fair with most of the electricity power generation industry.

It is the author's opinion that "Ivory-Tower Environmentalists" have little idea about where Global Warming is really coming from and understand even less about how to end it without also destroying the Global Warming producers in the process.  Tragically, our politicians and the EPA are turning to these folks for guidance and usually get information that is either terribly twisted or just plain wrong.  This is creating progressively larger injustices as things get progressively costly.

TRIAGE is the author's suggestion on how the Global Warming issue might be addressed when it comes to electricity generation.

TRIAGE
Those Few Power Plants Responsible For So Much Global Warming

This is one of the major injustices being inflicted on the electricity industry by the environmentalists:
The world's 19,000 average to tiny coal and gas power plants are almost innocent bystanders.

2/3 of all Global Warming is caused by the world's 1 billion or so stationary boilers and furnaces.  About half of that is caused by fossil fuel electricity generating power plants.

Sorting the power stations out:

The 25,000 +/- fossil fuel power stations in the world could be divided into three groups according to how much they are contributing to Global Warming (CARMA).
(NOTE: 2007 Data for 11,432,093,855 short tons CO
2 total out of Global Warming's about 32,000,000,000 short tons CO2 total or about 35.7% of ALL Global Warming.  CARMA is currently updating its 2007 data to 2010 data.  NOTE ALSO: A short ton = 2,000 pounds.) 

1) 1,200 "mega-power plants" (over 2,585,125 tons CO2 per year, 8,565,427,503 tons CO2 total) that make about 27% of ALL Global Warming MUST be converted to nuclear.
2) 4,000 "large power plants" (
between 97,426 and 2,583,740 tons CO2 per year, 2,677,899,634 tons CO2 total) that make about 8% of ALL Global Warming MIGHT need to be converted to nuclear or "cleaned up" as much as fossil technology enables.
3) 19,000 "average to small power plants" (under 97,392 tons CO
2 per year, 188,766,718 tons CO2 total) that make about 0.6% of ALL Global Warming may as well remain fossil but be "cleaned up" as much as fossil technology enables.

 

The zinger is that it now looks possible the mega plants converted to nuclear may run on thorium which is up to 8,000 times cheaper than coal.              (Click on graph to enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

(Left)  The 1,200 mega-sized power plants compared with regular sized power plants.  2% of the world's 65,000 power plants are making over 3/4 of coal's Global Warming.
 

                                                        Largest              Average             Smallest
Supersize power plant CO2:       41,000,000 tons,   7,200,000 tons,   2,600,000 tons.
Regular Size power plant CO2:     2,600,000 tons,      440,000 tons,       25,000 tons.

The average mega-sized coal burning power plant produces 7.2 million tons of CO2 per year.  The average regular sized coal burning power plant produces 440 thousand tons of CO2 per year.  The average mega-sized is 16 times larger than the average regular sized power plant.

Cost to convert isn't much larger for a mega-sized power plant than a regular sized plant.

The EPA has proposed a 25,000 ton-per-year carbon dioxide non-penalty emission limit.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Part  3:  Options for modifying or repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler.

JR Endicott emitted 744,356 tons of carbon dioxide in 2007.  This is a CO2 intensity of 3.138 (According to CARMA)

What can we do about reducing the CO2 from fossil fuel boilers?

What can we do about fossil fuel boilers?

The first move is to check out converting to natural gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle ,    
About 
Combined Cycle Conversions - Babcock & Wilcox pdf , 
Good repowering text about SOAPP's "Do It Yourself" software: 
MSR - Repowering Existing Fossil Steam Plants - SEPRIL .pdf  ( from:  http://soapp.epri.com/ )

Some coal burning power plants have been converted to natural gas simply by replacing their coal burners with gas burners. 

Combined Cycle Natural Gas at Bayside (Tampa FL) has a CO2 Intensity of 0.694.  (The author thinks this is almost too good to be true.  The best coal plants deliver CO2 intensities of 2.1 or so, a direct natural gas, 1.3 or so.)

Another approach is "Carbon Capture and Sequestration."  CCS Retrofitting of Coal-Fired Power Plants for CO2 Emissions Reductions - MIT - meeting-report .pdf 

Coal and natural gas boilers can also be repowered with nuclear boilers.

The boilers that are making 2/3 of Global Warming's CO2 are STATIONARY coal and natural gas burning boilers.

STATIONARY coal and natural gas burning boilers can be replaced with STATIONARY nuclear boilers of similar size.

Do we replace them all?

Absolutely Not!  Only the biggest need replacing because they are making, by far, most of the Global Warming.

(However, heat cost economics are causing China to consider and Russia to use tiny reactors in northern cites.  In a similar manner, air conditioning in large buildings in cities that have warm summers - example: the U.S. Capitol complex in Washington, D.C. - is provided much more economically using heat powered, rather than electricity powered, chiller units.  The author suspects the break point between small reactors and fossil fuel boilers will be about 800 boiler horsepower.)


(Above from:  http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html  )

From above, direct replacement of coal with natural gas reduces CO2 intensity by a factor of 0.62.  A combined cycle natural gas system would yield better results.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Non-Nuclear Options

If JR Endicott has an emissions problem, it is that its carbon intensity - CO2/kWh - is about 4 times greater than it could be.

1) Repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler with direct natural gas.

2) Repowering JR Endicott's coal burning boiler with combined cycle natural gas.

3) Combined cycle gas could be as economic as a hot windbox arrangement - just discharging the gas turbine into the boiler's air intake - rather than getting a new heat recovery steam generator.

4) Switch to a carbon-neutral liquid fuel such as ethanol, biodiesel, or dimethyl ether.

5) Add Carbon Capture and Sequestration - Either postcombustion or OxyFuel will work.

"EPRI analysts concluded that cost-effective retrofits for carbon capture are most suitable for boilers that are “300 MW or larger and less than about 35 years old.”  - Well, maybe.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Options

1) Add a 45 megaWatt NuScale or split a 125 megaWatt mPower conventional solid uranium Small Modular Reactor (SMR).

2) Replace the coal burning boiler with a Czechoslovakian 65 megaWatt fast-neutron IFR reactor.

3) Replace the coal burning boiler with a high temperature thorium-fueled molten salt reactor. 

________________________________________________________________________________________

Part  4:  Costly Carbon Emissions Compliance and Small Town America.
(This story is about a year old now but it still sticks in my craw.)
 

What the EPA's new pollution rules are doing to almost every small town in America.
Here is the EPA's "Fact Sheet" about this issue:  Diesel Engine Emissions - EPA fact sheet - 2006.pdf


(Right) Thousands of small towns around the world have a few diesel generators for emergency stand-by and peak power nearby.
 
These MSCPA semi truck trailer diesel-powered electricity generation modules are near the town of Coldwater, Michigan. 

Combined, they produce about 12 MegaWatts of electricity. 
 

(Left) MSCPA diesel in nearby Hillsdale.

 

According to an article by Don Reid (dwreid@aol.com) in the Coldwater the "Daily REPORTER" ( http://www.thedailyreporter.com/ ) Michigan South Central Power Agency (MSCPA) has to decide whether sell the above portable diesel generators for about $4.4 million or spend just under $1 million to bring them up to federal pollution standards by 2013.  Likely, they would be shipped overseas and not be subject to the retrofit, Coldwater Board of Public Utilities (CBPU) Director Paul Beckhusen said.  He expects the selling price to drop as the deadline for conversions nears.

Glenn White, MSCPA general manager, said even with the pollution upgrades they can be operated only 15 hours a year unless the entire power grid goes down.  "You are going to have to meet capacity requirements somehow.  The question is how much you are going to want to keep (of local generation) for emergencies, if any at all" White said. 

Not only do the five member communities that own MSCPA have these diesel units, each community has other, older, diesel units they operated before joining the MSCPA power generating co-operative.

Coldwater also has almost 12 MegaWatts (MW) in three units ($250,000 to upgrade), Hillsdale has five older diesels producing nearly 20 MW ($425,000 to upgrade).  Total diesel generation for MSCPA is 74.6 MW plus their Litchfield 55 MW coal-powered steam plant (Top of Page).

Worse, sometime in the near future, the EPA will only allow 25,000 tons of Litchfield's annual 700,000 tons of coal CO2 to be emitted without penalty.  With current estimates of penalties running as high as $25 per ton of CO2 (Currently carbon credits are going for 19 Euros per tonne or about US$25 per ton.), this could add over $15 million per year to MSCPA's customer's power bill.

 

Hillsdale and Coldwater are not alone.  At least 311 such diesels are under the gun in Michigan alone.

Michigan Generating Unit Types and their Energy Sources
For DOE energy source abbreviations see:  Michigan Electricity Generation Unit Inventory .pdf

    Unofficial Inventory of Michigan's Generating Sources Connected to Utility Grids  (Nuclear not included)

Source Type

  Site MWe ST IC GT HY CT CA WT PS CS
Power MWe   36,343.5 23,689.9 867.1 4,236.8 352.3 3,169.3 2,000.0 1.8 1,978.8 23.0
                     
Count   220.0 130.0 311.0 102.0 191.0 34.0 15.0 1.0 6.0 1.0
                     
Type Average MWe   165.2 182.2 2.8 41.5 1.8 93.2 133.3 1.8 329.8 23.0
                     
 US Extrapolated Count      6,600.0 3,900.0 9,330.0 3,060.0 5,730.0 1,020.0 450.0 30.0 180.0 30.0

Notice the large number of diesels: (IC) 311 in Michigan alone, perhaps 9,000 in all of the United States, perhaps 30,000 worldwide.

Unit Type Abbreviations:
CA = Combined Cycle Steam Plant;
CC = Combined Cycle Total Unit (use only for plants/generators that are in planning stage, for which specific generator details cannot be provided);
CE = Compressed Air Energy Storage;
CS = Combined Cycle Single Shaft (combustion turbine and steam turbine share a single generator);
CT = Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Part (type of coal must be reported as energy source for integrated coal);
FC = Fuel Cell;
GT = Combustion (Gas) Turbine (includes jet engine design);
HY = Hydraulic Turbine (includes turbines associated with delivery of water by pipeline);
IC = Internal Combustion (diesel, piston) Engine;
NA = Unknown at this time (use only for plants/generators that are in planning stage, for which specific generator details cannot be provided.);
OT = Other;
PS = Hydraulic Turbine - Reversible (pumped storage);
PV = Photovoltaic;
ST = Steam Turbine, including nuclear, geothermal and solar steam (does not include combined cycle);
WT = Wind Turbine;

________________________________________________________________________________________

Tire-Derived Fuel for coal boilers:
http://www.energyjustice.net/tires  Tire-derived fuel at 13 different coal burning power plants.  Tire Derived Fuels - U S  Scrap Tire Markets 2005 11-27-06.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_derived_fuel 
www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/tdf.htm
www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/faq-tdf.htm
www.energyjustice.net/tires/carman1997ciwmb.pdf
www.ecochem.biz/Library/kilnTDF.pdf
www.rma.org/publications
www.p2pays.org/ref/11/10504/html/usa/tdf.htm
www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
www.scraptirenews.com/98dec1.html
www.scraptirenews.com/00mar1.html


 

 

JUMP:      Directory      Top      Previous      Next

 

 

This is not trivial.  The net effect is that the government is ganging up with the largest power plants to put the smallest out of business. 

While this might seem O.K. for the mega-population coastal regions of the United States, there's a big problem that begins about 138 miles inland.  It takes 1,000 Volts to push commercial amounts of electricity one mile and there is a lot of the country located more than 2,000 miles from any coast.  Do you see 2,000 miles on that table?

Electricity can be pushed a little further (but at far greater cost) by converting alternating electricity to direct electricity, transmitting it, and then converting it back to alternating current at the receiving end.  Los Angles gets some of its power from Canadian Pacific hydro that way.

 

Is it about efficiency?  It takes almost as many skilled trade workers to run a small coal burning power plant as a large power plant.