1 / 37

Control of Mercury Emissions by Injecting Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

Control of Mercury Emissions by Injecting Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC). Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC. Michael D. Durham, Ph.D., MBA ADA Environmental Solutions 8100 SouthPark Way B-2 Littleton, CO 80120 303 734-1727. Outline.

didina
Download Presentation

Control of Mercury Emissions by Injecting Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Control of Mercury Emissionsby Injecting Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC Michael D. Durham, Ph.D., MBA ADA Environmental Solutions 8100 SouthPark Way B-2 Littleton, CO 80120 303 734-1727

  2. Outline • ADA-ES DOE/NETL Hg Control Program • Background on PAC Injection Technology • Results from PAC with an ESP • Results from PAC with a FF • Conclusions and Future Plans

  3. ADA-ES Hg Control Program • Full-scale field testing of sorbent-based mercury control on non-scrubbed coal-fired boilers • Primary funding from DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) • Cofunding provided by: • Southern Company • Wisconsin Electric • PG&E NEG • EPRI • Ontario Power Generation • TVA • First Energy • Kennecott Energy • Arch Coal

  4. Project Overview • Perform first full-scale evaluations of mercury control on coal-fired boilers (up to 150 MW equivalent). • Evaluate effectiveness of sorbent-based Hg control (activated carbon). • Test several different power plant configurations. • Document all costs associated with Hg control.

  5. DOE/NETL Test Sites Test Site Coal Particulate Test Control Dates Alabama Power Bituminous HS ESP Spring Gaston COHPAC FF 2001 Wisconsin Electric PRB Cold Side ESP Fall Pleasant Prairie 2001 PG&E NEG Bituminous Cold Side ESP Summer Brayton Point 2002 PG&E NEG Bituminous Cold Side ESP Fall Salem Harbor 2002

  6. Sorbent Injection Air Hg CEM ESP or FF H2O Spray Cooling Ash and Sorbent Coal-Fired Boiler with Sorbent Injection and Spray Cooling

  7. Semi-Continuous Mercury Analyzer Heater Dry Air CVAA Flue Gas Chilled Impingers Gold Trap Mass Flow Controller Micro controller with Display Waste

  8. Sampling Time Required

  9. Comparison of OH and S-CEM*, Long Term Tests (10 lbs/MMacf)

  10. Capture of Vapor Phase Hg by Solid Sorbents • Mass Transfer Limits (getting the Hg to the sorbent) • Removal increases with particle concentration • Produces percentage removal independent of concentration • Particle control device (FF vs ESP) is a critical parameter • Sorbent Capacity to hold Hg depends upon: • Sorbent characteristics • Temperature • Mercury concentration • Concentrations of SO3 and other contaminants

  11. Equilibrium Adsorption Capacities at 250°FUpstream and Downstream of SO3 Injection

  12. WEPCO Pleasant Prairie • Testing completed fall of 2001 • PRB coal • ESP only • Spray cooling • SO3 conditioning system

  13. Activated Carbon Storage and Feed System

  14. ESP 2-4 Carbon Injection Spray Cooling ESP Configuration, PPPP

  15. Powdered Activated Carbon Injection System

  16. Baseline Hg Measurements (g/dscm)

  17. Mercury Trends Week 1

  18. Response Time for PAC Injection on an ESP

  19. Carbon Injection Performance on a PRB Coal with an ESP

  20. Long Term Trend Data

  21. Speciated Mercury Measured by Ontario Hydro Method (10 lbs/MMacf) (microgram/dncm) PARTICULATE ELEMENTAL OXIDIZED TOTAL Baseline ESP Inlet 1.97 12.22 2.51 16.71 ESP Outlet 0.01 9.80 6.01 15.82 Removal Efficiency 99.5% 19.8% -139.3 5.3% PAC Injection ESP Inlet 0.98 14.73 1.73 17.44 ESP Outlet 0.00 4.27 0.44 4.71 Removal Efficiency 100.0% 71.0% 74.5% 73.0%

  22. Alabama Power E.C. Gaston • Alabama Power Company E.C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant Unit 3, Wilsonville, AL • 270 MW Firing a Variety of Low-Sulfur, Washed Eastern Bituminous Coals • Particulate Collection System • Hot-side ESP, SCA = 274 ft2/1000 acfm • COHPAC baghouse supplied by Hamon Research-Cottrell • Wet Ash Disposal to Pond

  23. Sorbent Injection COHPAC Electrostatic Coal Precipitator Fly Ash (98%) Fly Ash (2%) + PAC Site Test Configuration with EPRI TOXECON at Alabama Power Plant Gaston

  24. S-CEM Duct Traverse

  25. Example of S-CEM Data

  26. Response Time of PAC Injection with a Fabric Filter

  27. Mercury Removal vs. Injection Rate

  28. Pressure Drop Increase from PAC Injection

  29. PAC Rate Limit Due to Pressure Drop Mercury Removal vs. Injection Rate

  30. 5-Day Continuous Injection

  31. Average Mercury Removal Long-Term Tests Gaston, Ontario Hydro (microgram/dncm) PARTICULATE OXIDIZED ELEMENTAL TOTAL Baseline COHPAC Inlet 0.09 9.54 5.97 15.60 COHPAC Outlet 0.01 11.19 3.34 14.54 Removal Efficiency 89.1% -17.3% 44.1% 6.8% PAC Injection COHPAC Inlet 0.23 6.37 4.59 11.19 COHPAC Outlet 0.12 0.91 0.03 1.05 Removal Efficiency 45.6% 85.7%99.3%90.6%

  32. Comparison of Sorbent Costs for a Fabric Filter and an ESP

  33. Conclusions (PAC General) • PAC injection can effectively capture elemental and oxidized mercury from both bituminous and subbituminous coals • Additional field tests and long-term demonstrations are necessary to continue to mature the technology • Fabric filters provide better contact between the sorbent and mercury than ESPs resulting in higher removal levels at lower sorbent costs • New COHPAC FF’s will have to be designed to handle higher loadings of PAC to insure high (>90%) mercury removal • Conventional FF’s should not require any modifications for PAC

  34. Conclusions (Response to Concentration Variations) • Response times to changes in inlet concentrations: • Feedback data from outlet CEMs—tens of minutes • Impact of changes in injection rate: tens of minutes to hours • Long averaging times will be required to recover from upsets • Injection at somewhat higher rates will make the technology more capable to handle inlet fluctuations • PAC injection lends itself to the use of feed rate parameters as a definition of Maximum Achievable Control Technology

  35. Future Plans • Short-term testing at additional sites • PG&E Brayton Point (Bituminous coal, large ESP) 6/ 2002 • PG&E Salem Harbor (Bituminous coal, SNCR, large ESP) 9/2002 • * TBD (PRB coal, small ESP) 3/2003 • * Southern Company (Bituminous coal, small ESP) 8/ 2003 • Long-term testing • *Alabama Power (Bituminous coal, COHPAC FF) 2002-2003 • *CCPI Program (PRB Coal, COHPAC FF) 2004-2006 • *CCPI Program (Bituminous Coal, COHPAC FF) 2004-2006 • * Proposed

  36. For More Information • www.adaes.com • www.adaes.com/mercury.htm • Link to other mercury related web sites • Publications/reports • www.adaes.com/MercuryPublic.htm • Public information on DOE/NETL Mercury Control Program • www.netl.doe.gov/products/environment/index.html DOE/NETL Website

More Related