FBC Repower    APFBC AES Greenidge    APFBC Dan River    FBC, APFBC Four Corners    CHIPPS H.F. Lee

Products Summary    Sheldon Summary    APFBC Sheldon    GFBCC Sheldon    APFBC L.V. Sutton

The host site for this DOE APFBC repowering evaluation is Progress Energy's L.V. Sutton steam generating station, shown in the photo. This station sits on the Cape Fear River, near Wilmington, North Carolina.  Unit 1 (front right) and Unit 2 (center), share the common stack to the right.  These are the focus of the APFBC repowering evaluations.   The larger Unit 3, in the background, has its own stack, but was not evaluated for APFBC repowering.

PT-96603-02 - Photo Courtesy of Progress Energy

Contents: click below, or browse to find the following

• Existing plant description and site arrangement
• Aerial photograph of station
• APFBC repowering site arrangement
• Appearance of the APFBC buildings
• Heating surface arrangement with APFBC
• Energy efficiency from repowering
• Environmental characteristics
• Cost

The L.V. Sutton station is located near Wilmington, North Carolina.  The station is named after the late Louis V. Sutton, who was a past chairman and president of the Carolina Power & Light Company, now Progress Energy. The photo is a view of the station facing west, toward Cape Fear River, which is in the background. This river provides cooling for the plant.

There are three steam units at this site, all coal-fired. Only Units 1 and 2 are considered for repowering in this study. Unit 1 is a 97,000 kW output 1450 psig / 1000ºF non-reheat steam unit. Unit 1 is at the right in the photo, at the north end.  Unit 2, a 106,000 kW output 1450 psig/1000ºF/1000ºF reheat unit, which shares the same stack with Unit 1, is in the center of the photo. The larger Unit 3, a 474,000 kW reheat unit, has its own stack, and is located at the left of the photo, toward the south. There is adequate space to add APFBC repowering equipment at either end of the plant, either to the south adjacent to Unit 3, which is to the left in the photo, or to the north, adjacent to Unit 1, which is at the right in the photo.

Even though the site walkdown indicated ample room to site the new APFBC equipment, it is anticipated that long steam and feedwater pipelines will be required, regardless of whether the north or south expansion area is used. Tie-ins to the existing coal handling system and high-voltage lines can be accomplished in a satisfactory manner with either location.

Existing Overall Plant Description and Site Arrangement

The L.V. Sutton station is located near Wilmington, North Carolina.  The station is located near major industrial support facilities and rail, interstate highway, and deepwater port transportation access.  The station uses three coal-fired steam units that have a combined capacity of 677,000 kilowatts.  The characteristics of these three units are listed below.

The Three Existing Steam Units at the L.V. Sutton Station

The plant also operates three gas/oil-fired combustion turbines. 
These presently are fired on natural gas.

Back to CONTENTS     Back to TOP

Aerial Photo of the L.V. Sutton Steam Generating Station

North is toward the left of the photograph.

PT-96603-07 -- Photo Courtesy of Progress Energy

The photo above gives an overhead view of the site, showing the general plot plan arrangement of the station.  Site characteristics include:

• The APFBC equipment could be placed either to the north of Unit 1 (which is to the left in aerial photo above, or to the south of Unit 3 (which is to the right in photo above.

• Placing the APFBC repowering equipment at the north end may require some warehouse relocation.

• Placing the APFBC repowering equipment at the south end may require moving the compressor house.

• The water tower may require relocation if the north end is used.

• All of the turbines are outdoor units; there is no power house.

• Sale of process steam to nearby industrial customers has potential.

• Progress Energy prefers to demolish the existing boiler(s) after APFBC tie-in.  This reduces taxes and removes plant maintenance needs.

Back to CONTENTS     Back to TOP

APFBC Repowering Site Arrangement

Click on picture to enlarge

Back to CONTENTS      Back to TOP

Appearance of APFBC Buildings at the L.V. Sutton Site

This is a rendition of the APFBC buildings.  Working from back to front, the incoming coal and limestone handling building is the tall green building furthest away.  The carbonizer and cyclones are in a second tall enclosure, hidden in this view, that has the two square dust collector bag filters on the roof.   The APFBC equipment is in the next closest tall green center building.  The hot air pipes from the candle filters are shown just outside the nearer wall of this building; these manifold to the two legs of the hot vitiated air pipe that enters the sides of the next building.  The combustion turbine/generator and boost compression systems are in the lower green building.  The bypass stack is next, the tall stack furthest back.  Moving forward, the gray structure between the two tall stacks is the combustion turbine heat recovery steam generator, with its stack closest to the reader in this view.  The smaller stack is a shielded flare stack, needed to dispose of fuel gas during startup or in the unlikely event of upset emergencies.  The small dark green building to the left houses the air inlet filters and chiller for the combustion turbine.  Behind that are the transformers for the combustion turbine's generator.   Leftmost, with the two silos on top, is the ash handling system.

The overall length from the back wall of the furthest building in the picture to the end of the stacks is about 500 feet.  The tallest building is about 150 feet high.

Back to CONTENTS     Back to TOP

Heating Surface Arrangement with APFBC

Click on picture to enlarge

The sketch below shows the steam generation surface arrangement and the split of the steam flow between the fluid-bed heat exchanger and the combustion turbine heat recovery steam generator.

Back to CONTENTS     Back to TOP

Energy Efficiency from Repowering of L.V. Sutton Unit 2

Back to CONTENTS     Back to TOP

Environmental Characteristics

Click on picture to enlarge

The environmental performance of the unit upgraded with APFBC is excellent, one of the most attractive features of this type of repowering project.  The expectation for Unit 2 repowered with APFBC is shown in the illustration below:

Back to CONTENTS     Back to TOP

Cost Comparable to a Pulverized Coal Plant

Total plant cost estimates for APFBC repowering show costs similar to those for an all-new pulverized coal plant.   However, since an APFBC plant is much more energy efficient and environmentally clean, this means that the total life cycle cost for APFBC is superior, largely due to the fuel savings.  The table below gives the estimated costs for an APFBC repowering.   Three cases are shown.  The first, Case B, is for the high-efficiency APFBC repowering of Unit 2.  The Case B option is designed with redundancies typical for owners making decisions using regulated utility investment returns.  A plant with similar efficiency, but designed for minimum initial capital expenditure more typical of merchant plant investments, is shown as Case S.  Case S has the same energy efficiency level as Case B, but employs a number of design changes that minimize capital investment at the expense of operating or maintenance cost, single trains instead of duplicate trains, sized limestone delivery rather than on-site limestone preparation, etc.   Case M is another merchant plant repowering, but here, both Unit 1 and Unit 2 are repowered.

Regulated Utility Plant     Minimum Capital Cost Merchant Plants

Click on picture to enlarge

The above total plant cost estimates represent the expected costs for these three repowering configurations without project or process contingency.  These are based on manufacturer and Parsons Corporation estimates.  Since APFBC is not yet commercially demonstrated, there is process cost uncertainty in these estimates.  A range estimation was made of the likelihood of the costs being higher --or lower-- than these levels.  One such estimate is shown for Case B, in the illustration below.  The S-shaped probability profile curve shows the best expectation that can be made today of the range that the total plant cost will be below the levels shown.  The "target" cost is that for which the cost experts feel there is equal likelihood that the cost will be higher as lower.