120 likes | 134 Views
This presentation provides an overview of the EPRI Mercury Control R&D Program, including the development and demonstration of a range of options for controlling mercury emissions from power plants. The program has studied the factors affecting mercury emissions and the effectiveness of control strategies, and has worked with power producers, agencies, contractors, and suppliers to develop solutions. The presentation also discusses the performance of various control options for bituminous and low rank coals, and highlights emerging technologies such as chemical additives, fixed structures/beds, and novel sorbents.
E N D
Presented to the 2003 Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT February 20, 2003 Mercury Control for Power Plants Arun Mehta, George Offen, Ramsay Chang, Richard Rhudy
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
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
Mercury Reductions for Power Plants – Performance Overview -- Bituminous • 20-95%, depending on NOx, SO2 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 SO2 controls – under development • SCR catalyst age and size may not be critical factors (?) • Re-emissions is growing concern
Mercury Reductions for Power Plants – Performance Overview – Low Rank Coals • Typically Hg < 25% • Includes plants with SO2 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 SO2 control • Chemical additives to enhance capture in SO2 control or via ACI • Fixed structures coated with sorptive material
Full-scale ACI Test Sites *DOE-NETL PRDA Projects
Field Results – Hg By ACI Ahead of ESPs 90 80 Full-Scale Test (Lo S Bit) Full-Scale Test (PRB) 70 60 50 Hg Removal (%) Full-Scale Test (Hi S Bit) 40 30 Pilot Sites (8) 20 $7M/yr for 500MW 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Injection Concentration (lb/Macf)
SD-BH ReducedEffectiveness of ACI 100 Average BH 90 80 70 FGD, SD + BH 60 HOK, SD + BH % Hg Removal 50 LAC, SD + BH 40 IAC, SD + BH 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 Injection Concentration (lb/MMacf)
Mercury Removal Across Wet Scrubber Dependent on Salt Chemical Type • Potential impacts • Air heater pluggage • Opacity increase • Scrubber water chloride increase
Carbon honeycomb Parallel Plates with sorbent surface Gas Flow MerCAPTM Concepts • Currently focusing on post SD/BH with W. fuels • 10’ plates believe 90% Hg • Developmental technology
Mercury Control: What Next?Next? • Long-term (3 months to one year) full-scale ACI tests (withNETL/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?