1 / 16

Jeffrey C Quick, Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm Sara Pletcher, Project Manager Na

Technology-Specific Mercury Emissions from Coal Combustion by U.S. County of Origin. Jeffrey C Quick, Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm Sara Pletcher, Project Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting

isaiah
Download Presentation

Jeffrey C Quick, Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm Sara Pletcher, Project Manager Na

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. Technology-Specific Mercury Emissions from Coal Combustion by U.S. County of Origin Jeffrey C Quick, Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm Sara Pletcher, Project Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting Salt Lake City, Utah 16-19 October 2005 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. 

  2. Coal Data 25,825 records ICR 2 data (1999) <epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html> 19,507 records FERC 423 data (1999) <eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ferc423.html> 5,823 records FERC 580 data (1992 to 1999) <eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/ctrdb/database.html> 5,059 records COALQUAL data (1973 to 1989) Bragg, L.J., and others 1997, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-134. 1,342 records MSHA data (1999) <http://www.msha.gov/STATS/PART50/P50Y2K/A&I/1999/caim1999.exe> 73 records DOE-PSU data (1985 to 1995) Davis, A., and Glick, D.C., 1993, U.S. DOE contract DE-RP22-87PC79997 Scaroni, A.W., and others, 1999, U.S. DOE contract DE-AC22-93PC93051

  3. Utility Data 240 records ICR 3 data (1999)<epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html> SAIC 2003, Calculation of possible mercury MACT floor values for coal- fired utilities - influence of variability and approach. <netl.doe.gov/coal/E&WR/mercury/pubs/DOE_Report_v120803.pdf> ENSR2003, Multivariable method to estimate the mercury emissions of the best-performing coal-fired utility units. <epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/final_ensr_multivar.pdf> Roberson 2002, UARG variability analysis. <epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/epavarifnl.doc> 561 records CEA dataCanadian Electricity Association, <ceamercuryprogram.ca/EN/sampling_data.html> preliminary Oct. 2004 data

  4. ~ Mercury i n ~ Mercury o ut Mercury i n Mercury o ut ~ ~ 15 most units plot near the 1:1 line ! 10 Mercury Out Stack (lbs per 1012 Btu) Points show average values for 67 pulverized coal fired units (ICR 3 data). 5 Results for 4 units where mercury is >15 12 lbs Hg per 10 Btu are ignored. 0 0 5 10 15 Mercury in Coal 12 (lbs per 10 Btu)

  5. Mercury Out Stack (lbs Hg per 1012 Btu)

  6. Mercury Capture

  7. n MercuryCapture 1,500 2,000

  8. Chlorine in U.S. Coal 1999 ICR data

  9. Sulfur in U.S. Coal 1999 FERC 423 data

  10. Estimated % Hg capture, by coal origin forunitswith cold ESP/FGD emissioncontrols

  11. Mercury in U.S. Coal 1999 ICR data

  12. Estimated Hg emissions, by coal origin forunitswith cold ESP/FGD emissioncontrols 19% of power plants in 1999

  13. The New Cap-and-Trade Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) 2010: 38 ton cap 2018: 15 ton cap States given tradable, mercury emission allowances in proportion to the amount of coal they burn, adjusted for coal rank x 1 Bituminous, x 1.25 Subbituminous x 3 Lignite

  14. Mercury capture varies with Geologic Age - Not Coal Rank All U.S. Coal Cenozoic-Mesozoic Coal % Mercury Capture % Mercury Capture Modified from: State of Utah comment to EPA Docket: OAR-2002-0056-5411

  15. Result of the CAMR Rank Adjustment (1): target Hg emission rates depend on where the coal is burned Assumes no trading, no banking, and no change to the amount of coal burned

  16. Result of the CAMR Rank Adjustment (2): target % Hg capture further depends on how much mercury is in the coal Assumes no trading, no banking, and no change to the amount or quality of coal burned

More Related