Development of fluidized bed combustion—An overview of trends, performance and cost

Abstract The goal of this article is to chart and analyse the development and economical performance of fluidized bed combustion (FBC) and its derivates circulating fluidized bed (CFB) and bubbling fluidized bed (BFB). A descriptive overview is given of the technology and the market penetration is discussed. To make further analysis possible a database is constructed. This database comprises technological and economical data on 491 FBC projects. Analysis of these projects shows that the technology variants (CFB and BFB) diffused differently over time. Drivers, which influenced the market diffusion and technological development are market regulation, environmental legislation and RD&D programs. Important drivers for FBC technology are fuel availability, required applications in the market, innovation spill over and competing technologies. In this article technical characteristics are charted, which show improvements in fuel diversification, technical availability, efficiency and emissions. In terms of economical performance the results show a decline in specific investment cost. Finally, the effect of technological learning and experience on the economical performance of FBC technology is analysed using the experience curve method and theory on economies of scale. A problem with applying the experience curve method is that it is not used often for large power plants like FBC plants and with it lacking a methodological standard. A method is therefore suggested. The analyses yielded progress ratios (PR) from 0.42 to 0.93 for different groups of projects (new plant, repower, retrofit, add-on and conversion) and different parts of the capital breakdown (total project price, engineering, procurement and construction price and boiler price). This means that the specific investment prices (in $/kWe) decline with, respectively, 58% and 7% with every doubling of cumulative installed capacity (in MWe). The progress ratio found for new FBC plants lies between 0.90 and 0.93. These values correspond with the average PR of 0.90 found for power plants in the literature. Further results show that economies of scale have a significant influence on the investment price. Scale factors are found in the range of 0.62–0.81 for different groups of projects. According to these scale factors specific investment price decreases, respectively, between 25% and 12% with every doubling of plant capacity (in MWe).

[1]  Prabir Basu,et al.  Circulating Fluidized Bed Boilers: Design and Operations , 1991 .

[2]  Vicki Norberg-Bohm,et al.  Public policy for energy technology innovation ☆: A historical analysis of fluidized bed combustion development in the USA , 2002 .

[3]  Kari Myöhänen,et al.  A MAJOR STEP FORWARD---THE SUPERCRITICAL CFB BOILER , 2003 .

[4]  Jim Watson,et al.  Selection environments, flexibility and the success of the gas turbine , 2004 .

[5]  Michael D. Mann,et al.  Nitrous oxide emissions in fluidized-bed combustion: Fundamental chemistry and combustion testing , 1992 .

[6]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[7]  Ulrika Claeson Colpier,et al.  The economics of the combined cycle gas turbine - an experience curve analysis , 2002 .

[8]  North Africa Regional Office.  The current state of atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion technology , 1989 .

[9]  G. Tassey.  Standardization in technology-based markets , 2000 .

[10]  H. M. Junginger,et al.  Learning in renewable energy technology development , 2001 .

[11]  Björn A. Sandén,et al.  Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches , 2005 .

[12]  H. Boerrigter,et al.  N2O emissions from fluidised bed combustion. The effect of fuel characteristics and operating conditions , 2003 .

[13]  V. I. Kouprianov,et al.  Emission performance and combustion efficiency of a conical fluidized-bed combustor firing various biomass fuels. , 2004, Bioresource technology.

[14]  V. Norberg-Bohm.  Creating Incentives for Environmentally Enhancing Technological Change: Lessons From 30 Years of U.S. Energy Technology Policy , 2000 .

[15]  Hartmut Spliethoff.  Verbrennung und Vergasung in Wirbelschichtanlagen : Stand, Entwicklung und Forschungsbedarf , 2000 .

[16]  Antonio Soria,et al.  Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching , 2000 .

[17]  C. Wene.  Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy , 2000 .

[18]  D. Pai,et al.  Fluidised bed combustion technology : the past, present and future , 1999 .

[19]  G. Sapy.  CFB : scaling up to 600 MWe , 1998 .

[20]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-Burning Generating Units , 1985 .

[21]  Erkki Karppanen,et al.  Advanced control of an industrial circulating fluidized bed boiler using fuzzy logic , 2000 .

[22]  A. J. Minchener.  Fluidized bed combustion systems for power generation and other industrial applications , 2003 .

[23]  Power-Gen Asia.  Why Build a Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler to Generate Steam and Electric Power , 2000 .

[24]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  The Effects of Learning by Doing on Nuclear Plant Operating Reliability , 1979 .

[25]  Wim Turkenburg,et al.  Global experience curves for wind farms , 2005 .

[26]  Lena Neij,et al.  Dynamics of Energy Systems - Methods of analysing technology change , 1999 .

[27]  Jack A. Fuller,et al.  Costs of Atmospheric Fluidized-Bed Combustors for Electric Power Generation , 2002 .

[28]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition , 1982 .

[29]  Arnulf Grubler,et al.  Technology and global change , 1998 .

[30]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Learning rates for energy technologies , 2001 .

[31]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Dynamics of energy technologies and global change , 1999 .

[32]  S. Rajaram.  Next generation CFBC , 1999 .