1 / 17

Large Unit vs. Small Unit Retrofit Considerations for Multi-Pollutant Emission Control

Large Unit vs. Small Unit Retrofit Considerations for Multi-Pollutant Emission Control. William T. Stark. APPA Engineering & Operations Technical Conference March 8, 2004. Basis of Presentation. 1600 MW, PRB coal-fired, base load plant

mara-randolph
Download Presentation

Large Unit vs. Small Unit Retrofit Considerations for Multi-Pollutant Emission Control

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. Large Unit vs. Small Unit RetrofitConsiderations for Multi-PollutantEmission Control William T. Stark APPA Engineering & Operations Technical Conference March 8, 2004

  2. Basis of Presentation • 1600 MW, PRB coal-fired, base load plant • 100 MW, Illinois Basin, bituminouscoal-fired, intermediate load plant • Individual units ranging in size from10 MW to 550 MW pulverized coal-fired

  3. Regulatory Considerations • 8-hr Ozone Standard • PM2.5 Standard • Regional Haze Rule • Utility Boiler MACT • Industrial Boiler MACT • Clear Skies Act of 2003 • Clean Power Act of 2003 • Clean Air Planning Act • Interstate Air Quality Rule

  4. Utility Boiler MACT Option 1 • Emission standards by coal rank • Averaging allowed for facility • Incorporates Ontario Hydro Method and continuous sampling (Method 324) Option 2 • Cap-and-Trade program

  5. Industrial Boiler MACT • Applies to coal-fired units < 25 MW • Large units (>10 MMBtu/hr) must meet PM or metals standard, as well as HCl and Hg limits • Proposal contains initial testing and compliance requirements

  6. Interstate Air Quality Rule General • Affects 29 eastern states and DC • Proposal requires upwind states to revise SIPs to include control measures to reduce emissions of NOx and SO2 • Options are to participate in cap-and-trade program or comply with state budget set by EPA

  7. Interstate Air Quality Rule Proposed Caps and Allocations • SO2 allocations made in proportion to Title IV allowances. Overall a 50% reduction for 2010 and a 65% reduction for 2015 • NOx allocations based on highest year of heat input for state during 1999-2002 • Compliance on an annual basis

  8. Wet Scrubber Capital Costs *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  9. Wet Scrubber O&M Costs (1% S Coal) *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  10. Spray Dryer Absorber Capital Costs *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  11. Spray Dryer Absorber O&M Costs *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  12. SCR Capital Costs *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  13. SCR O&M Costs *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  14. Mercury Control • Concurrent reductions resulting from control of SO2 and/or PM • Sorbent Injection • Sorbent injection systems cost in the vicinity of $1.5 – 3.0 million • Depending on removal requirements, a baghouse may be required in addition to the sorbent injection system

  15. Baghouse Capital Costs *Line Drawn to Show Trend

  16. Emission Control Scenarios for Consideration • Emission control for each individual unit • Emission controls for combined flue gas streams from units • Use of high efficiency controls on larger units with less control on smaller units • Use of multi-pollutant control technologies

  17. Summary Comments • Compliance could be costly • Items to consider: • Capacity factor • Load shifting • Fuel switching • Shutdown of units

More Related