Mercury Control for Power Plants Arun Mehta, George Offen, Ramsay Chang, Richard Rhudy Presented to the 2003 Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Estimated Mercury Emission Reductions in NC from Co- control as a Result of CSA 2004 NC DENR/DAQ Hg & CO2 Workshop Raleigh, NC April 20, 2004 Steve Schliesser.

Advertisements

Performance and Costs of Mercury Control Technology for Bituminous Coals Performance and Costs of Mercury Control Technology for Bituminous Coals NC DAQ.

Barrett Parker, EPA Emissions Measurement Center

Some Projected Add-On Control Options for CO 2 Reductions at a Coal-Fired Generating Unit Kevin Johnson URS Corporation Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina.

Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.

Insights on Economic Impacts of Utility Mercury and CO 2 Controls Anne Smith Charles River Associates North Carolina DENR/DAQ Workshop on Mercury and CO.

Mercury Issues for Coal-Fired Power Plants: Emissions, Fate and Health Effects, Controls George Offen Technical Executive Emissions/Combustion Product.

A laboratory study of Hg oxidation catalyzed by SCR catalysts Karin Madsen on at CHEC Annual Day Anker Degn Jensen Joakim Reimer Thøgersen Flemming.

CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON MISSOURI ELECTRIC UTILITIES LEWIS MILLS MISSOURI PUBLIC COUNSEL November 11, 2012.

Pollution Controls and Available Monitoring Techniques A quick summary of various control measures and important monitoring characteristics Peter Westlin,

The Wastewater Spray Dryer

Update on Full-Scale Activated Carbon Injection for Control of Mercury Emissions Michael D. Durham, Ph.D., MBA ADA Environmental Solutions 8100 SouthPark.

Previous MACT Sub Categories EPA has recognized differences in other industry rules by using sub-categorization: – Differences in processes – Differences.

Essential Expertise in Hg Control Nalco gives you control from pile to pond Nalco can help you in every phase of your Mercury control challenge…from the.

Lewis Benson Carmeuse Technology

E&CS Overview & Major Construction Update Eddie Clayton.

Use of FGD Byproducts in Agriculture: DOE Perspective Workshop on Research and Demonstration of Agricultural Uses of Gypsum and Other FGD Materials St.

The ProRak™ Advantage An introduction to Hg Process Monitoring and Feedback Control.

Director of Technology Development, Emerging Technology Department

CALPINE March 2, 2004 HARVARD ELECTRICITY POLICY GROUP Natural Gas and Electricity Ron Walter Executive Vice President.

CONTROL OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND SULFUR TRIOXIDE USING MAGNESIUM-ENHANCED LIME Joseph Potts and Erich Loch Cinergy Corporation Lewis Benson, Robert Roden.

Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic Lime

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Alvaro Linero, P.E. Administrator, Special Projects Bureau of Air Regulation Mercury Puzzle Hg(0), Hg(II),

EPA Regulations On Electric Utility Generating Units (EGU)

Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture using Solid Sorbents Sharon Sjostrom, Chief Technology Officer CREA Energy Innovations Summit, October 27, 2014 Carbon Capture:

Proprietary and Confidential © 2007 The Babcock & Wilcox Company. All rights reserved. The Babcock & Wilcox Company.1 Role of Sulfides in the Sequestration.

The good, the bad, and the ugly.. Coal Basics Most abundant of fossil fuels World’s largest energy source Type of rock composed of organic matter having.

Danielle Vaguine Fariha Zaman Harrison Smith. What is Coal? Coal is a fossil fuel formed from the decomposition of organic materials that have been subjected.

James Gallup, PhD U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) Washington, DC Nick Hutson, PhD U.S. EPA.

Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC

HAPs To Be Regulated: Mercury Only Electric utility steam generating units are uniquely regulated by Congress under 112(n)(1)(A) EPA was required to study.

Mercury MACT Development for Coal-fired Power Plants A Presentation by the WEST Associates at the EPA’s HAPs MACT Working Group Washington DC, September.

The Importance of FGD Gypsum To the CCP Industry By David Goss, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association OSU – EPRI Workshop St. Louis, September.

Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants April 13, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

Cost-Effective Strategies and Emerging Federal and State Regulations for Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants Praveen Amar, Ph.D., P.E. Director,

FGD MONITORING PROJECT ORSANCO Technical Committee Meeting June 4, 2013 Item 8a.

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS by Trey Lightsey 2010 Annual Meeting & Technical Conference A&WMA – Southern Section Renaissance Riverview Plaza Hotel.

Elemental Mercury Capture by Activated Carbon in a Flow Reactor Shannon D. Serre Brian K. Gullett U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Risk Management.

“Advanced sorbent solutions for the environment.” © 2003, all rights reserved Demonstration of Amended Silicates™ for Mercury Control at Miami Fort Unit.

AEP’s Emission Reduction Strategy AEP’s Emission Reduction Strategy Presented by: John McManus, Vice President Environmental Services APP Site Visit October.

Clean Coal Applications…NICE Perspectives Chang Wei National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy (NICE) Shenhua Group, China February 2, 2015 Page.

Massachusetts’ Power Plant Mercury Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection WESTAR Fall Business Meeting - September.

IPM Overview Elliot Lieberman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C

Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.

Freeport Generating Project Project Description Modernization projects at Power Plant #2 Developers – Freeport Electric and Selected Development Company.

Mercury in the West* Land and Water Fund of the Rockies and Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental Defense January 2003 *The information in this presentation.

“Enhanced Plant Performance via Effective SO 3 Control” Sterling Gray, URS Corporation Mick Harpenau, Duke Energy EUEC Conference Phoenix, AZ February.

WEST Associates’ Assessment of Hg MACT Floor Variability CAAAC Mercury MACT Working Group Washington, DC March 4, 2003.

Coal as a Future Generation Fuel Chris M. Hobson S enior Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer December 3, 2009.

2011 Governor’s Conference on Energy and the Environment LG&E and KU Carbon Capture and Storage Project September 27, /27/2011.

Colorado Springs Utilities Drew A. Rankin, General Manager Energy Supply.

UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.

Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03.

Mercury Control Technologies Utility MACT Working Group May 30, 2002.

CFD Modeling for Design of NOx Reduction in Utility Boilers Seventeenth Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT February 20-21, 2003 S. Vierstra J.J.

1 The Clean Air Rules of 2005 Bill Wehrum U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation.

Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.

Workshop of St Petersburg - 27 th October 2009 Expert sub-group on Emerging Technologies/Techniques EGTEI - Emerging technologies/ techniques for LCPs.

Stoichiometric and Temperature Effects on Boiler Corrosion from High Chlorine and High Alkali Coals Research Group : Shrinivas Lokare, David Dunaway, Douglas.

The Effect of Environmental Regulation upon the Electric Power Industry: A Rating Agency Perspective 23rd February 2005 At the California Public Utility.

Can Coal be used for Power Generation by an Environmentally Responsible Society? An Overview of “Clean Coal” Technologies Ben Bayer November 20, 2006 ChE.

PARTICULATE MATTER: REGULATORY RESPONSE Presented by: Karl Loos.

Sorbent Polymer Composite Mercury and SO2 Control Installation and Full Scale Performance Update John Knotts - W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Non-mercury HAP March 4, 2002 Washington, D.C. Bill Maxwell US EPA.

Tampa Electric Company’s Emission Reduction Program

Pulverized Coal Combustion

Air Quality & SO2.

A Science Sisters Presentation.

Do Now Please have out any information pertaining to heat islands as we will be discussing them today to prepare for your engineering design challenge.

Presentation transcript:

Mercury Control for Power Plants Arun Mehta, George Offen, Ramsay Chang, Richard Rhudy Presented to the 2003 Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT February 20, 2003

2 EPRI Mercury Control R&D Program Program started with developing understanding of factors affecting mercury emissions Studies of flue gas parameters controlling the effectiveness of control strategies Development & demonstration of a range of options

3 Key Partners Power Producers Allegheny, Cinergy, Duke Power, First Energy, GRE, LG&E, Minnesota Power, MidAmercan Energy Co, NIPSCo, Ontario Power Generation, PG&E NEG, PSEG, Southern Company, TVA, TXU, We Energies, Xcel Agencies NETL/DOE, EPA, ICCI, NDIC Contractors and Laboratories ADA-ES, Apogee, EERC, ISGS, URS Suppliers –Hamon RC, Norit, EnviroCare, EEC

4 Mercury Reductions for Power Plants – Performance Overview -- Bituminous 20-95%, depending on NOx, SO 2 control –SD/BH or SCR/FGD with high Cl  highest  Hg Options to increase Hg removal –Activated carbon injection (ACI) furthest developed –Oxidation catalysts or chemical additives may increase capture by SO 2 controls – under development SCR catalyst age and size may not be critical factors (?) Re-emissions is growing concern

5 Mercury Reductions for Power Plants – Performance Overview – Low Rank Coals Typically  Hg < 25% –Includes plants with SO 2 control ACI again furthest developed, but –Ahead of ESP < 60-70% –Ahead of FF??? Tests planned 2003 –SD/BH impedes ACI performance Possible solutions –Oxidation catalysts ahead of SO 2 control –Chemical additives to enhance capture in SO 2 control or via ACI –Fixed structures coated with sorptive material

6 Full-scale ACI Test Sites Test SiteCoalParticulate ControlStatus Gaston Alabama Power* LSEBHot-side ESP COHPAC FF Completed 2001(2003 long term) Pleasant Praire WE Energies* PRBESPCompleted 2001 Abbott U of Illinois HSEBESPCompleted 2001 Brayton Point PG&E NEG* LSEBESPCompleted 2002 Salem Harbor PG&E NEG* LSEBESPIn Progress Stanton Great River Energy ND lignite SD-BHCompleted 2002 (2003 planned) Laskin Minnesota Power PRBWet particulate scrubber Completed 2002 *DOE-NETL PRDA Projects

7 Field Results – Hg By ACI Ahead of ESPs Injection Concentration (lb/Macf) Hg Removal (%) Full-Scale Test (PRB) Full-Scale Test (Lo S Bit) Full-Scale Test (Hi S Bit) Pilot Sites (8) $7M/yr for 500MW

8 SD-BH Reduced Effectiveness of ACI Injection Concentration (lb/MMacf) % Hg Removal FGD, SD + BH HOK, SD + BH LAC, SD + BH IAC, SD + BH Average BH

9 Hg o Oxidation Activity (Sub-Bituminous Coal)

10 Mercury Removal Across Wet Scrubber Dependent on Salt Chemical Type Potential impacts –Air heater pluggage –Opacity increase –Scrubber water chloride increase

11 Parallel Plates with sorbent surface Gas Flow MerCAP TM Concepts Carbon honeycomb Currently focusing on post SD/BH with W. fuels 10’ plates believe  90%  Hg Developmental technology

12 Mercury Control: What Next? Next? Long-term (3 months to one year) full-scale ACI tests (with NETL/DOE) –EPRI actively seeking partners – hosts and contractors Short-term full-scale ACI/chemical injection tests on western fuels Emerging technologies (some with NETL/DOE) –Chemical additives –MerCAP™ and other fixed structures/beds –Novel sorbents (from EPA, EPRI, others) –Mercury oxidation catalyst field pilot testing –Other concepts, IECs?