The Impact of Environmental Concerns
Another hurdle the SNC-Lavalin team faced in resurrecting Patnów II was dealing with major Polish and EU environmental laws and regulations that affected plant design and operations.
"One of the several unique aspects of the Patnów II plant was the fact that it was approved, designed, and essentially manufactured under one set of environmental standards (Polish standards), and then, in order to be completed, had to conform to the new EU standards that came into effect as we were negotiating to bring the project out of suspension," Larson said. "Both the EU pressure equipment directives and the new EU emissions standards were exhaustively vetted by the regulatory entities prior to allowing the project to continue."
In addition, Larson discussed the environmental issues associated with using lignite as a fuel source. As mentioned earlier, a large number of xylites (long, stringy, fibrous strands that are unique to Polish lignite) are found in the coal used by this plant. Xylites make the lignite difficult to crush, pulverize, and combust.
"Lignite is a common fuel in use worldwide," Larson said. "According to a technical paper on lignite published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ‘the major advantages of firing lignite are that it is relatively abundant, relatively low in cost since it is surface mined, and low in sulfur content, which can reduce the need for post-combustion sulfur emission control devices.’"
Lignite’s disadvantages are that more fuel and larger, more capital-intensive facilities are necessary to generate a unit of power than with bituminous coal, according to the EPA. These disadvantages arise because:
-
Lignite’s lower heating value means that more fuel must be handled to produce a given amount of power.
-
The energy and maintenance costs of coal-handling equipment are higher.
-
The high inherent moisture content of lignite decreases boiler efficiency.
-
Lignite’s ash characteristics require more attention to sootblowing and boiler operation to maintain high availability and reliability.
A Brighter Future
The suspension of the Patnów II project effectively froze development of new power projects in Poland for several years, according to Krzysztof Michalczuk, vice-president, business development for SNC-Lavalin Polska. Even with the substantial equity invested by Elektrim, the bank club formed for the project would not finance it. Bringing the project out of suspension and to successful completion has opened the door to lenders financing other projects in Poland and has allowed significant modernization to occur. Michalczuk indicated that, having established an experienced team of managers and engineers based in Poland, his company is now well-positioned to support the future growth of power opportunities throughout Eastern Europe.
Although the bulk of the power generated by Patnów II is likely to be used in Poland, some may cross the border into Germany. The impact of the new efficiency and clean emissions of this project will help establish a benchmark for future projects in Poland and show how to generate more electricity in an environmentally sustainable manner.
--Angela Neville, JD is POWER's senior editor.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
Comments (2)
When SNC-Lavalin arrived on Patnow scene the new plant was fully designed and majority of its main elements had been earlier constructed waiting for the final assembly. This type of company like SNC-Lavalin was necessary to persuade bankers to unfreeze their loans for manufacturers’ remunerations and finally end up of the project. This plant was completely designed by Energoprojekt Warszawa, similarly as a new 858 MW power generation unit in Belchatow equipped with pulverized lignite boiler no circulating fluidized bed boiler as it states in the article. Saying the SNC-Lavalin came to switch on the lights only would be no truth as well as not appreciating the plant’s engineering.
While designing it was the second of this type and size plant in the world following an example of just finished Schkopau Plant in Germany, however with different types of steam turbines and cooling system. From early beginning the plant was designed to keep pace with the newest European environmental standards and achieve the highest possible efficiency based on reasonable selected steam parameters. Presenting the current state-of-the-art it aimed to be the best lignite fired power plant in the world for this size of generation units. I am proud to be a leader of engineering team but minimum a one name should be also mentioned – Mr Zbigniew Radomski.
In really Soviet block in Poland before 89’ the power plants in Poland are not “based mostly on Soviet-designed power plants” as Mr. Larson said. Really, any of these plants follows the Soviet designs as it occurred to be in East Germany. They were completely engineered by Polish designers and were patterned on the best West European examples so they are similarly efficient and polluting as those plants from 70’s. They were not “supplemented by British-designed mid-sized steam turbine technology” but essentially equipped with Swiss’ Brovn Boveri engineered steam turbines and steam boilers of German’s EVT engineering. It was a previous generation of plants designers but it would be graceful to notice that they did not adopt the Soviet designs.
Best Regards
Jerzy Roszkowski,
Abu Dhabi
The cover story for the March 2009 Power Magazine, referenced in the subject line, appears to have some errors. Perhaps these errors have already been addressed.
First, the description of Patnow II, on page 1, states that it is a supercritical CFB unit. Based on my research, it appears that this is not correct and that it is a supercritical PC unit. The article correctly states that the unit at Lagisza is a 460 MWe nominal supercritical CFB unit.
In the main article there are references to Figures 1, 2 and 3. These figures do not appear to be included in the article. If these references are refering to the photos, labeled 1, 2 and 3, then the photo content does not appear to relate to the paragraph text.
On page 30 there is a reference to the 858 MW CFB unit at Belchatow. Again based on my research, this appears to be a PC unit not a CFB unit.
Especially since this was a cover story, I thought Power might be interested in in investigating these apparent errors and, if you verify the errors noted, possibly printing a corrected article or at least advise your readers of your findings.
James Hurt
Project Manager
Black & Veatch Corp.