Conclusion

The proposed methodology achieves the project goal to independently validate the performance impact caused by retrofitting a PCC-plant into an existing power station. The results for the PCC plant and coal drying plant were found to be in-line with the expectations of the plant owner and confirmed the data provided by the technology IP Proprietor to the point where the expected performance obtained through the validation process agreed with the data provided.

The concept of independently validating the technology provided by the IP Proprietor’s “black box” allows a high level of transparency and confidence between technology driven performance and overall plant performance, whilst ensuring the confidentiality of the technology vendor’s intellectual property. The process ensured that individual process components could be validated using an independent process that would assess that the data provided by the IP Proprietors fits within the window of expectation and confirms that it is within the realm of credibility. This is essential to provide the confidence to all stakeholders that the performance of the chemical and thermodynamic processes is credible.

The selection of a suitable software suite and compatible software tools has been critical in achieving the project goals as no fully integrated software package was commercially available to execute the entire project scope. The selected software tools are flexible enough to be used with not only the defined case study, but also for green-field sites and other boiler technologies employing super-critical or ultra-supercritical steam cycles.

It is important to note that although this study is based on a specific IP technology, the validation methodology developed is readily applicable to studies using other types of post combustion capture, coal drying and/or combined technologies retrofitted to existing or green field coal power plants.

In the absence of an all-encompassing thermodynamic/process software package that specifically addresses coal drying and/or PCC retrofits, the methodologies formulated in this study can be presented as the current best practice for modelling such retrofits.

This independent validation of the plant performance would contribute to a reduction of the currently required risk premiums to finance the execution of a large scale PCC project as it identifies a methodology to independently validate the performance of the first-of-a-kind plants. It is important that this methodology is applied at critical project stages to ensure a high level of transparency of performance impacts and operating costs to the plant owner and other project proponents and stakeholders.

The key recommendation arising from this study is that proponents of PCC retro-fit projects should study the methodology described in this report, identify differences between the PCC scheme described in this report and their proposed PCC scheme, and modify this methodology as required to in order to develop a customised methodology for application on their plant.