1 / 2

Coal Rank / Heat Value

kg S/GJ. 0.13 – 0.30. 0.30 – 0.52. kg Hg/PJ. 0.52 – 0.73. 0.73 – 1.0. 0.9 – 1.7. 1.0 – 1.2. 1.7 – 2.6. 1.2 – 1.6. 2.6 – 3.9. 3.9 – 6.5. 6.5 – 12.9. Coal Province. Coal Province. Coal Province. Coal Province. 12.9 – 22.4. kg Cl/TJ. 1.3 – 11. 11 – 22. 22 – 32. 32 – 43. 43 – 86.

lucian-pierce
Download Presentation

Coal Rank / Heat Value

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. kg S/GJ 0.13 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.52 kg Hg/PJ 0.52 – 0.73 0.73 – 1.0 0.9 – 1.7 1.0 – 1.2 1.7 – 2.6 1.2 – 1.6 2.6 – 3.9 3.9 – 6.5 6.5 – 12.9 Coal Province Coal Province Coal Province Coal Province 12.9 – 22.4 kg Cl/TJ 1.3 – 11 11 – 22 22 – 32 32 – 43 43 – 86 86 – 140 UNDERSTANDING MERCURY IN USA COAL – A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH Jeffrey C. Quick, Utah Geological Survey Web site: http://geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm Email: jeffreyquick@utah.gov Mercury Chlorine 1999 coal production, ICR 2 data, by county 1999 coal production, ICR 2 data, by county Coal Rank/Heat Value Sulfur 1999 coal production, FERC 423 data, by county *coal rank per EIA form 423 instructions 1999 coal production, FERC 423 data, by county

  2. Ceno- zoic Mesozoic Million Years Ago Paleozoic Chlorine increases mercury capture by existing emission control technology. The significance of the coal mercury content depends on the emission control technology at the power plant. Hg emissions out stack (kg/PJ) Hg in coal (kg/PJ) Points show predicted capture for USA county-average, ICR 2 data, modified from Toole O’Neil et al., (2005). Points show different electric power plants, modified from Quick et al., (2005), ICR 3 data. Sulfur reduces mercury capture by existing emission control technology. Chlorine in USA coal varies with rank, but is better explained by geologic age. ASTM rank cold electrostatic precipitator, wet desulphurization [ x ] = %S (dry) cold electrostatic precipitator ( x ) = kg S/GJ Points show USA county-average ICR 2 data, modified from Kolker et al., (in press). Constructed using EPRI and SAIC equations listed by Quick (2006). References ICR 2 (1999) 25,825 coal assays <epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html> ICR 3 (1999) 240 power plant stack emission measurements <epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html> FERC 423 (1999) 19,507 coal assays <eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ferc423.html> Kolker, A., Senior, C.L., Quick, J.C., (in press),Mercury in coal and the impact of coal quality on mercury emissions from combustion systems: Applied Geochemistry. Quick, J.C., Tabet, D.E., Wakefield, S., Bon, R.L., 2005, Optimizing technology to reduce mercury and acid gas emissions: DOE contract DE-FG26-03NT41901, <geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm> Quick, J.C., 2006, Erratum - Correction to an equation used in . . . : Int. J. Coal Geol., v.66, p.155-156. Toole O’Neil, B., Quick, J.C., Akers, D., 2005, Mercury in US Coal and the US EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule: Oil Gas and Energy Law Intelligence, v. 3, 14 p. <www.gasandoil.com/ogel/> after USGS

More Related