Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Technical Paper

BR-1922

Emissions Control Technology


Choices for Coal-Fired Plants in Asia

Authors:
A.L. Moretti and M.J. Schmeida
Babcock & Wilcox
Power Generation Group, Inc.
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Presented to:
Power-Gen Asia
Date:
September 10-12, 2014
Location:
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Emissions Control Technology Choices for Coal-Fired Plants in Asia


A.L. Moretti and M.J. Schmeida
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
BR-1922
Presented to:
Power-Gen Asia
September 10-12, 2014
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Introduction
The need for environmental protection systems in Asia is related to the growth of coal-fired
power generation and environmental regulatory practices in each country. Demand for power in
Asia is increasing at a rapid rate and, as a result, the demand for environmental protection
systems is increasing as well. Environmental protection systems for electric utilities are tied to
two (2) major categories. The first category is where environmental protection systems are
installed on new coal plants as required by national environmental regulations for new plants or
by rules imposed by certain development financing sources. The second category is where
environmental protection systems are retrofit on existing coal-fired boilers to meet lower
emissions regulations.
The choices for coal-fired utility power plant air quality control system (AQCS)
equipment to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur trioxide/sulfuric acid (SO3/H2SO4),
hydrogen chloride (HCl), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and mercury (Hg) are
varied and quite complex. There are a multitude of AQCS technologies available to address
these commonly targeted pollutants as well as other pollutants which are increasingly becoming
targeted worldwide, such as condensable PM, and other trace metals. For example, SO2 can be
controlled by a wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system, spray dryer absorber FGD,
circulating dry scrubber/fluidized-bed FGD, or dry sorbent injection. Wet FGD was the
traditional choice for high sulfur fuels with high SO2 removal requirements, but now additional
factors, such as wastewater treatment and mercury control, are having major influences on the
selection of an FGD system. This paper will provide information to assist the end user with
selecting the appropriate AQCS, as well as the factors that will likely affect AQCS equipment
selection in the future as environmental regulations in Asia continue to evolve.

NOx Control
NOx emissions can be initially reduced by the use of low NOx burners. Each boiler
manufacturer has its own version of low NOx burner technology. Figure 1 shows the Babcock &
Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (B&W PGG) AireJet low NOx burner. NOx reduction is
also achievable with two-stage combustion, where less than the total air required for complete
combustion is introduced at the burners, with the balance entering through overfire air (OFA)
ports. Combustion system NOx control such as low NOx burners and/or two stage combustion is
typically the lowest cost approach to reduce NOx, but may not be enough to meet required
emissions.
1

Beyond combustion controls, further NOx reduction requires the use of selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems if the targeted NOx
removal cannot be achieved with SNCR. In either technology, NOx is reduced to nitrogen (N2)
and water (H2O) through a series of reactions with a chemical reagent injected into the flue gas.
SNCR technologies inject the reagent into a
specific temperature zone. For SNCR, the most
common chemical agents used in commercial
applications are ammonia and urea. To initiate the
reaction, it is important to properly mix the reagent
with the flue gas, and the mixture must have
adequate residence time at the required temperature.
The acceptable temperature range for the reaction is
760 to 1100 C (1400 to 2012 F), although
temperatures above 925 C (1697 F) are preferred.
Below 870 C (1598 F), chemical enhancers, such
as hydrogen, are needed to assist the reactions. As
the temperature increases within this range, the
Figure 1 B&W PGG AireJet low NOx burner
ammonia or urea may react with available oxygen to
form NOx. This reaction becomes significant at temperatures above 1100 C (2012 F) and may
become dominant as temperatures approach 1200 C (2192 F). Typical NOx removal with
SNCR ranges from 15 to 35%. NOx removal can be extended to approximately 50% but with
high ammonia slip (unreacted ammonia exiting the process), which can have undesirable
consequences. The level of NOx reduction with this technology is frequently limited by the need
to maintain low levels of ammonia in the stack gas.
When high NOx removals are required, SCR technology is needed. SCR systems reduce
flue gas NOx to N2 and H2O by use of a catalyst. This technology is the most effective method
of reducing NOx emissions, especially where high removal efficiencies (70 to 90%) are required.
NOx removal can approach approximately 93%, but requires a tightly controlled inlet ammoniato-NOx distribution. In the SCR process, ammonia is added to the flue gas immediately
upstream of multiple levels of catalyst in a reactor that is located between the economizer and air
heater. Reagents commonly used for SCR are anhydrous, aqueous ammonia (19 to 28%
concentration) and urea. When urea is used for SCR, it is typically decomposed on site to
ammonia, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. Regardless of the source, once the ammonia is in
vapor form, it is common to dilute the ammonia stream with air to assist with transport, flow
control and injection functions. Many ammonia-based systems have used anhydrous ammonia
(NH3) as the reducing agent. However, due to the hazards of storing and handling anhydrous
ammonia, many systems use aqueous ammonia. Urea [(NH2)2CO] can be stored as a solid or
mixed with water and stored in solution.
The NOx reduction takes place as the flue gas passes through a catalyst chamber. Before
entering the catalyst, ammonia is injected into the flue gas where it is mixed. Once the mixture
enters the catalyst, the reactions occur. See Figure 2.
The SCR reactions take place within an optimal temperature range. Most catalysts can
operate in the range of 230 to 450 C (446 to 842 F), but optimum performance occurs between
360 to 450 C (680 and 842 F). The minimum temperature varies and is based on fuel, flue gas
specifications and the catalyst formulation. The minimum temperature tends to increase with
flue gas SO2 concentration; ammonium bisulfate forms when ammonia is injected into high

Figure 2 SCR Process

sulfur content flue gas, which is a


sticky compound that precipitates out
of the gas at lower temperatures and
fouls the catalyst.
SCR catalysts are susceptible
to poisoning by various elements
frequently found in coal ash, most
notably arsenic and phosphorus. In
some cases, fuel additives may lessen
the impact of these unfavorable fuel
constituents on catalyst life. The SCR
process also provides some mercury removal benefits
which will be discussed later in this paper.

Particulate Control
Particulate control equipment is designed to remove particulate from the flue gas stream.
There are several types of particulate removal equipment including electrostatic precipitators
(ESP), fabric filters, mechanical collectors and venturi scrubbers. Each uses a different
collection process with different factors affecting the collection performance. For new units that
need to meet stringent requirements, the selection is typically limited to ESP and fabric filters to
meet high particulate collection efficiency and high reliability requirements.
Dry ESPs have historically been used to control particulate emissions from coal-fired
boilers. A dry ESP electrically charges the ash particles in the flue gas stream to collect and
remove the particulate. It is comprised of a series of parallel vertical plates through which the
flue gas passes. Centered between the plates are charging electrodes which provide the electric
field. See Figure 3.
With a dry ESP, operating collection
efficiencies exceeding 99.9% are common for
medium and higher ash coals with outlet
emissions levels of approximately 12 to 36
mg/Nm3 at 6% O2 (0.01 to 0.03 lb/106 Btu heat
input) on most coals. The resistivity of the ash
plays a significant role in dry ESP design. Dry
ESPs are also widely installed on utility boilers
that fire oil as their principal fuel. The
advantages of a well-designed ESP are high total
collection efficiency, high reliability, low flue
gas pressure loss, resistance to moisture and
temperature upsets, and low maintenance.
A fabric filter collects the dry
particulate matter as the flue gas passes through
the filter material. The fabric filter is comprised of a multiple compartment enclosure, with each
compartment containing up to a thousand or more long, vertically supported, small diameter felt
or woven fabric bags. The flue gas passes through the porous bag material which separates the
particulate from the flue gas. The particulate in the flue gas is deposited on the fabric surface as
Figure 3 Dry ESP

the dust-laden gas passes through the filter bag. The dust cake which forms on the fabric from
the collected particulate contributes significantly to collection efficiency. Depending on the
alkalinity of the collected solids, a highly alkaline dust cake can be used to remove additional
flue gas constituents and acid gases, such as SO2. Also, because of this dust cake mechanism,
fabric filters can also be used to improve the effectiveness of additives, such as activated carbon,
that can be injected into the flue gas to control mercury emissions. Fabric filters generally are
better collectors of the additives and mercury components than ESPs and provide a means for
extended contact between the flue gas and the carbon.
There are two types of fabric filters for utility applications: reverse air and pulse jet. The
first fabric filters that were employed were of the reverse gas type, in which flue gas passes from
the inside of the filter bag to the outside. The dust is dislodged from the filter bag by passing
clean flue gas in reverse through the fabric filter media. Today, the pulse-jet fabric filter (PJFF)
is typically chosen over the reverse-air type because a pulse-jet fabric filter is smaller in size and
lower cost. In a pulse-jet fabric filter, cake forms on the outside of the bags and is removed by a
pulse of high pressure air. This cleaning is accomplished with the compartment online, unlike a
reverse air application where the compartment must be taken out of service. Later, PJFFs, which
were already proven on industrial applications, came to be accepted for utility applications. In a
PJFF, blow pipes are located immediately above the bags through which short bursts of air are
emitted to dislodge the dust from the filter media. See Figure 4.
Well-designed fabric filters routinely achieve greater than 99.9% particulate removal,
meeting most current regulations. In addition to standard utility pulverized coal-fired
applications, fabric filters are used on circulating fluidizedbed boilers, industrial pulverized and stoker-fired coal
Clean
Gas Outlet
units, and refuse-fired units in combination with a dry
FGD. Fabric filters are not generally used on oil-fired
boilers due to the sticky nature of ash. Fabric filters have
also been used upstream of a wet FGD on a few higher
sulfur, newer units, usually with lime dry sorbent injection
(DSI) upstream of the fabric filter. The lime injection is
Dirty
used to protect the bags and other fabric filter internals
Gas Inlet
from SO3 attack.
Advantages of a fabric filter (with proper bag
material selection) include high collection efficiency
Figure 4 PJFF Compartment
throughout the particle size range, high reliability,
resistance to flow upsets, little impact of ash chemical
constituents on performance, and good dust cake characteristics for integration with dry acid gas
removal systems.

SO2 Control
There are a variety of SO2 removal technologies available. These include wet FGD, dry
FGD utilizing a spray dryer absorber (SDA), circulating dry scrubber (CDS), and dry sorbent
injection (DSI). Wet FGD is the predominant technology used worldwide for the control of SO2
from coal-fired utility power plants. The widespread implementation of FGD first began in the
U.S. in the 1970s. In the late 1980s, FGD technology saw widespread implementation in Europe,
and then beginning in the early 2000s, in China. In the past, wet FGD was favored when the
4

required control efficiency for SO2 was 90% or greater for either high sulfur or lower sulfur coals.
Today, wet FGDs are typically designed to achieve 98% or more SO2 removal with high sulfur
coal. Limestone is commonly used as the reagent for wet FGD. For most high sulfur
applications, a limestone wet FGD has an overall lower cost than other processes for SO2
removal. However, wet FGD systems can be designed for a variety of reagents including lime,
magnesium-enriched lime, seawater and soda ash. Limestone-based systems can also use an
organic acid additive to enhance SO2 removal. Additionally, wet FGDs have been successfully
used for a complete range of coal types including anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous, lignite
and brown coals. Wet FGD is also installed on systems that use heavy oil and oil emulsions for
fuel.
In a wet FGD, the SO2 removal process begins as hot flue gas enters the absorber tower
where it is cooled and saturated by a slurry. The flue gas flows upward through the absorber
spray zone, where the slurry is sprayed countercurrent to the flue gas flow, completing the SO2
removal process. Typically, the SO2 removal process includes an in situ forced oxidation system
which converts calcium sulfite (CaSO3 H2O) formed by the SO2 removal process to calcium
sulfate (CaSO4 2H2O) or gypsum. Limestone forced oxidation systems have achieved SO2
removal efficiencies as high as approximately 98% in many power plants firing a variety of
fuels, depending upon specific conditions of the application. See Figure 5 for a typical wet FGD
system.
Dry FGD is an alternative to wet FGD for SO2 control on
utility boilers. The process is also called semi-dry to distinguish
it from injection of a dry solid reagent into the flue gas. Dry
FGD systems, either SDA or CDS, also achieve high levels of
removal of acid gases and toxics. When coupled with the fabric
filter, dry FGD systems also achieve very low particulate
emissions. The first dry FGD systems that were widely
available in the 1980s were of the spray dryer absorber (SDA)
type. These SDA systems were used for lower SO2 removal
requirements, typically 70 to 85%, on lower sulfur coals. Today,
with better understanding of SDA technology and advanced
control systems, SDA systems can reliably achieve greater than
96% SO2 removal on lower sulfur fuels.
In an SDA system, lime slurry (typical) is atomized and
sprayed into the hot flue gas to absorb the SO2 and other acid
gases. The resulting dry material, which includes reaction
products and flyash, is collected in a downstream particulate
control device, typically a fabric filter, but sometimes an ESP.
Figure 5 Wet FGD
A portion of the dry material is recycled back into the lime
slurry mixture as a means to minimize lime usage by taking advantage of the alkalinity in the ash.
An advantage of SDA technology compared to conventional wet FGD technology is that
the SDA is coupled with the fabric filter, which is a very efficient dust collector. With this
configuration, the fabric filter is the last environmental system component in the flue gas
cleaning train before the stack. The SDA cools the flue gas to about 65 to 75 C (149 to 167 F)
before the gas passes through the fabric filter. As a result, any metals which have a vapor
pressure at elevated flue gas temperatures tend to be present in the solid state and are therefore
easier to capture in the fabric filter. Extremely low particulate emissions are thus possible,
5

provided the fabric filter is properly designed and the correct bag material is selected. SO2
removal of up to approximately 96% can be achieved with this technology.
SDA technology is typically used on lower sulfur fuels (<2%). Further advantages of dry
compared to wet FGD include: 1) less costly construction, 2) fewer process operations, 3)
simplicity of control and operation, 4) lower water consumption, 5) lower auxiliary power
consumption, 6) ability to use alkalinity in the flyash for SO2 absorption, 7) efficient reduction of
SO3 emissions, and 8) production of dry solid byproducts without the need for dewatering. See
Figure 6 for an illustration of a typical dry FGD SDA.
In addition to the SDA type of dry FGD,
circulating fluid bed FGD systems, commonly referred
to as circulating dry scrubbers (CDS), are now widely
being implemented, primarily on units less than 400
Slurry
MW. CDS technology is capable of up to 96 to 98%
SO2 removal efficiency on medium and higher sulfur
fuels; however, a CDS dry FGD system typically uses
up to 20% more lime than an SDA system for the
same inlet SO2 loading and SO2 removal.
This technology uses a fluidized bed for
contacting the reagent with the SO2 in the flue gas.
The reagent is typically hydrated lime. The intensive
gas-solid mixing that occurs in the reactor promotes
the reaction of SO2 in the flue gas with the dry lime
particles. The mixture of reaction products (calcium
Figure 6 SDA
sulfite/sulfate), unreacted lime, and flyash is carried to a
downstream particulate collector, typically a fabric filter,
and is separated from the gas stream. Part of the dry waste product
is removed for disposal, but most of the waste product is mixed with
fresh calcium hydroxide for use in the reactor. Water spray is
introduced into the fluidized bed separately from the dry reagent to
enhance performance (for maximum SO2 capture with minimum
lime utilization) by optimizing the surface moisture content of the
lime. Circulating dry scrubbers can provide removal efficiencies up
to approximately 98% depending on specific conditions of the
application. Compared to wet FGD systems, capital costs are lower
for CDS systems and similar to an SDA, and there is the potential
for higher SO3 reduction and lower PM emissions with use of an
integral pulse jet fabric filter. The CDS also creates a dry solid
byproduct and does not require a wastewater treatment facility. See
Figure 7 for a diagram of a typical CDS.
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) can also be used for SO2 control.
For controlling SO2 emissions, DSI is the lowest cost solution.
These systems involve the injection of a dry sorbent (typically trona,
Figure 7 CDS
sodium bicarbonate or lime) into the flues following the boiler.
SO2 reacts directly with the dry sorbent, and the dry product is
collected in a downstream particulate control device. Because a separate absorber vessel is not
needed, capital costs are minimized. Low capital costs are partially offset by lower reagent

utilization, which results in higher operating costs for equivalent SO2 removal rates. Dry
injection systems are generally applied when lower removal efficiencies are required, or on small
plants where the capital cost for other scrubber types may not be justified. Dry injection systems
can typically achieve removal efficiencies ranging from 50 to 70% depending on the specific
conditions of the application. To achieve 70% SO2 removal, a stoichiometric ratio of 1.5 is
typically needed for the most reactive of the sodium reagents (milled trona), and the cost of the
sodium reagents is high. The sodium compounds are also soluble and have a high pH, so in the
resulting ash containing these soluble sodium compounds, the high pH is known to increase the
solubility of heavy metals from the ash. Thus, the leaching of the soluble sodium compounds
and heavy metals from the ash is an issue that must be considered in ash disposal systems.

SO3/H2SO4 Control
There are two primary solutions to mitigate SO3. A chemical solution, where a sorbent is
injected into the flues, or a hardware solution, such as a wet ESP, located after a wet FGD.
Sorbent Injection
There are several sorbents that can be utilized to reduce the SO3 generated from a
combustion source. These sorbent control methods include injecting chemicals into either the
fuel or into the flue gas. The sorbents react in the flue gas to form a solid compound that can be
removed in the particulate collection device such as an ESP or fabric filter.
Sorbent injection technologies for the mitigation of SO3 typically utilize alkaline-based reagents
that contain calcium, magnesium, sodium or ammonia. SO3 and HCl control using DSI
frequently utilizes hydrated lime as the reagent.
Depending on the reagent used, these reagents can be injected dry or wet, and either in
aqueous or slurry form. Dry injection typically uses pneumatic conveying equipment to
transport dry solids from a storage silo to the flue gas. Injection of solutions and slurries has
some disadvantages when compared to dry injection. Wet injection generally requires longer
residence times since the reaction typically occurs after evaporation. Also, poor atomization can
result in agglomeration of ash on internal supports or other equipment depending on injection
location.
Several chemicals have been proven successful at reducing SO3 concentrations when
added downstream of the boiler (upstream or downstream of the air heater), SCR, ESP or FGD
scrubber. These chemicals include magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide, sodium bisulfate,
ammonia, and sodium sesquicarbonate (trona). Each of these chemicals is effective in reducing
SO3 emissions, but extreme care must be exercised in selecting the proper additive for a specific
site. Consideration should be given to: temperature distribution across flues, characteristics of
the additives and resulting salt formation, available residence time, amount and availability of
additives, physical limitations of the flues, internal structural supports, particle size of additives,
flow distribution in the flues, and potential impacts on flyash sales as well as reagent cost.
Sorbents that are injected downstream of the SCR have an advantage because the sorbent
removes the SO3 generated from both the boiler and SCR. Sorbents injected in the furnace can
reduce SO3 before the SCR, but there could still be a visible sulfuric acid plume because of the
SO3 generated when SO2 is oxidized by the SCR catalyst.
In addition to the need to reduce sulfuric acid mist to control the visible blue stack plume,
SO3 control is also utilized upstream of activated carbon injection. The SO3 can poison activated
7

carbon by taking up the active sites on the activated carbon that otherwise would be available to
remove mercury.
Wet ESP
The wet ESP is also an effective device to remove SO3, especially when ultra-low outlet
concentrations are required. Wet ESP systems have been serving the needs of industrial
applications for nearly 100 years to control sulfuric acid and particulate emissions. Wet ESP
technology can be used in coal-fired plants after the wet FGD as a final polishing stage to
remove very fine particulate, sulfuric acid and any other mist. Fine particulates are removed
more effectively in a wet ESP because of the humidity in the flue gas stream. Humidity reduces
the resistivity of the particle. Wet ESPs follow the wet FGD system, therefore the gas passing
through the wet ESP is saturated with water. The collecting surfaces of a wet ESP are washed
with water to dislodge the collected particulate matter.
While wet ESPs are effective, similar overall system
efficiencies for the pollutants of interest can be
obtained at a potentially lower life cycle cost with
SDA/CDS and PJFF, or DSI/PJFF/wet FGD system
configurations.
Site-specific constraints will need to be
evaluated to determine the optimal wet ESP type and
configuration (vertical downflow, vertical integrated,
or horizontal stand-alone). Despite the higher initial
capital costs, wet ESPs can be economical to own and
operate. The additional benefits of keeping solid
Figure 8 Horizontal WESP
particulate emissions at very low levels, and the
possible benefits in mercury and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) control, may make wet ESPs a
desirable choice when considering the available options for SO3 control. They are suitable for
high sulfur fuel applications, and are typically used when sorbents will not achieve the desired
results or when very fine particulate emissions are required. See Figure 8 for an example of a
horizontal wet ESP configuration.

Mercury Control
Within the flue gas of a coal-fired power plant, mercury exists in both elemental and
oxidized forms. The concentration of oxidized mercury is higher when more halogen or other
oxidizers are present. There may be a sufficient level of chlorine within the coal that more
oxidized mercury is present in the flue gas than elemental mercury. Oxidized mercury is more
readily absorbed in both wet and dry FGD systems. Elemental mercury is also absorbed in a wet
FGD system, but to a lesser degree. SCR systems provide the added benefit of enhanced
mercury oxidation to aid in this capture in the FGD system. Therefore, SCR systems are
expected to become an integral part of mercury compliance strategy moving forward, and
mercury compliance may play as much of a part in catalyst management strategy as NOx
compliance.
For low chlorine coals, chlorine or bromine are sometimes added in small amounts to
oxidize the mercury. Chlorine or bromine injection can also be used to promote mercury
8

oxidation with either a wet or dry FGD system. However, this may cause soluble bromine
compounds to accumulate in a wet FGD system, and the soluble bromine compounds may
appear in the wet FGD wastewater. Sulfides in some form are sometimes injected into a wet
FGD system to turn the captured oxidized and elemental mercury into highly insoluble and stable
mercuric sulfides that are removed with the solids.
Mercury control can be achieved by a number of technologies. Activated carbon
injection is one technology that is frequently used. However, mercury control can also be
achieved by optimizing the other AQCS equipment so that as much mercury as possible is
removed. Then, activated carbon injection is used only as a trim, if it is needed at all.
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) injected into the flue gas can provide up to
approximately 95% mercury capture for coals with high chorine content. By adsorbing onto the
surface of the PAC, the oxidized mercury and particulate-bound mercury are removed in
particulate control devices (ESP or fabric filter). Chemical modification of the PAC, such as by
halogenation, can improve the ability to capture mercury, but can also increase material costs.
PAC is useful in mercury removal because it is comprised of carbon particles which have
been treated to have a large surface area. The sorbent activity varies with respect to each
chemical species, with oxidized mercury having a greater rate of adsorption by PAC than
elemental mercury. Standard PAC is only effective for mercury control at flue gas temperatures
below about 165 C (329 F) for bituminous coal having higher chlorine content. Total mercury
removal of over 90% may be attained for such bituminous coal using standard PAC when an
SCR is part of the AQCS, but only about 60% removal can be expected for a coal with low
chlorine using standard PAC injection.
However, over 90% total mercury
removal has been achieved when
burning low chlorine sub-bitumuous
coal while using halogenated PAC. A
typical PAC injection system consists
of several components. A storage silo,
as shown in Figure 9, is used for onsite PAC storage. Screw feeders then
transport the PAC into a drop tube,
from which it is fed to the eductor inlet
below the feeder discharge where it is
pneumatically conveyed to the flue.
The carbon-in-air mixture is metered
into the flue gas flue with an array of
injection lances.
Figure 9 Storage Silo
As previously discussed, by
halogenating the PAC, mercury capture may be increased. Therefore, lower sorbent injection
rates are required to achieve the same level of mercury capture. Halogenated PAC is provided
by suppliers who use proprietary methods to impregnate the carbon with the halogen species. In
addition, the halogenation process alters the PAC properties such that halogenated sorbents may
be effective at flue gas temperatures up to approximately 200 C (392 F), while standard PAC
typically decreases in usefulness as flue gas temperatures exceed 175 C (347 F) when burning
a low chlorine coal. Brominated PAC is the most commonly used carbon for mercury control
because bromine is far more reactive than chlorine. Unlike standard PAC, injection of

brominated PAC alone may provide adequate mercury removal rates for many plants. As an
example, for applications with either an ESP or a PJFF, total mercury removals would be
anticipated to improve from baseline rates of 10 to 50% to removal rates of 50 to 90% with
brominated PAC injection.
Another unique challenge is PAC poisoning by SO3. When burning medium to high
sulfur coal, SO2 to SO3 conversion (up to 2%) occurs in the boiler and across the SCR system.
PAC consumption increases as SO3 concentration increases above 5 ppm. At greater than 15
ppm, the PAC is much less effective in removing mercury. To reduce this SO3 impact, sorbent
injection systems utilizing lime or trona can be installed to remove SO3 before the point of PAC
injection.
Additional methods that can be used to improve mercury removal in the AQCS of the
plant include use of a pre-combustion halogen-based fuel additive to help form more oxidized
mercury (B&W PGGs MercPlus system, for example), and a wet scrubber slurry additive
(B&W PGGs Absorption Plus (Hg) system, for example) designed to inhibit the reduction of
captured oxidized mercury into elemental mercury and subsequent re-emission. Wet FGDs are
effective for removing oxidized mercury. These additives enable effective removal of oxidized
mercury in the wet FGD, and may be used in combination or separately, as each is implemented
at a different point in the process.

O&M Considerations
AQCS system selection must also carefully consider the operation and maintenance
(O&M) impact of the equipment, as well as the impact on other systems throughout the life of
the plant. The number of personnel that are required to operate and maintain new systems is a
critical consideration. For SCR systems or fabric filters, the impact on staffing is relatively
minor and is typically covered by existing operations personnel. But for an FGD, this can be a
significant additional cost for the plant.
O&M costs for wet FGD systems are higher than dry FGD systems because there are
more moving parts, more wear parts, and process chemistry to monitor. On the other hand, wet
FGD systems accommodate fuels of any sulfur level, adjust to varying boiler loads, and use an
inexpensive reagent. Concerns over waste water treatment and disposal, and solid byproduct
disposal, have raised concerns about the future of this technology. Nonetheless, for plants that
wish to maintain a high sulfur fuel in their fuel mix, wet FGD is still a viable alternative. Recent
advances in system design to make the wet FGD system closed-loop from a water balance
standpoint reduce concerns about plant waste water treatment and disposal, and disposal costs for
gypsum are no more than that produced from dry FGD systems.
Although inherent differences are believed to exist in the reagent required for the various
dry systems, pebble lime or hydrated lime can be used for both SDA and CDS systems. For an
SDA using pebble lime, a slaker is used on-site. Hydrated lime used for an SDA or CDS system
can be delivered to the site or made on site from pebble lime with a hydrator system. Therefore,
the choice of pebble lime or hydrated lime should be based only on consumption rates and
equipment capital costs.
Power and water consumption will also affect technology choice. Power consumption
for wet FGD systems is typically higher than for dry FGD systems. Power consumption is
comparable for the various dry FGD systems at full load, but lower for an SDA than a CDS at
reduced boiler loads.
10

The number of operators required for each system varies. Wet FGD systems require a
fair amount of attention. Dry FGD systems require much less attention, with both SDA and CDS
systems typically requiring one control room and one area operator, and a share of other plant
resources like mechanics and IC&E technicians. However, CDS systems typically require a
lesser share of mechanics and IC&E technicians than SDA systems, unless a CDS system
includes an on-site hydrator system, which tends to equalize the resources needed.
Maintenance costs extend beyond the number of people required to control and maintain
the system. These costs include the cost and frequency of repairs and wear parts, including the
effects on other AQCS equipment. An example of this is the quantity and frequency of fabric
filter bag changes associated with SDA and CDS systems, where there are fewer bags with a
longer expected life with SDA systems. Bag life expectancies can also affect the maximum
length of time between planned boiler outages.
Water treatment and byproduct disposal concerns will factor into future equipment
selections as effluent and disposal guidelines continue to tighten. Wet FGD systems can be
made to be closed loop systems to lessen the impact of water treatment concerns. Dry FGD
systems can utilize waste water from other sources, making them ideal where water usage is an
issue. Byproduct disposal for all solid wastes from FGD processes is similar, but ash disposal or
re-use potential can be impacted by other upstream processes. For example, activated carbon
injection often results in too high of a carbon content to permit flyash sale. The use of SNCR
results in higher residual ammonia in the flyash than with an SCR, which could also impact
flyash sales.

AQCS Equipment Choice Criteria: Looking to the Future


Into the foreseeable future, many of the criteria that are factors in AQCS equipment
selection today will continue to be the drivers. These include items such as proven experience
for the intended application, multi-pollutant control, operational flexibility and O&M
considerations
As previously discussed, there are several technologies that are suitable for SO2,
particulate, NOx, and mercury control. However, more stringent emissions regulations, as well
as other considerations, may limit the viable technologies. For example, both SDA and CDS dry
FGD systems have been proven successful at achieving required SO2 reductions on lower sulfur
fuels. And while CDS has proven successful on medium and some higher sulfur coals, reagent
costs have not generally made it an economical choice for higher sulfur fuel applications where
wet FGD dominates. Also, although a particular technology may demonstrate effective
emissions reductions on a particular fuel, consistent results are necessary to maintain its viability
on a long-term basis when considering changes in fuel blends, market conditions and regulatory
requirements.
In addition to fuel considerations, unit size is a factor when evaluating a technology.
What works well on a smaller unit where a single reactor or module can be utilized may not
translate to larger units where multiple modules would be required. There are also emerging
technologies that have not been proven in a utility application. Utilities must therefore continue
to carefully evaluate use of new technologies to determine if the plant is willing to accept the
potential risk involved with unproven technologies.
Utility coal-fired plants face many challenges to remain viable, so it is critical to evaluate
the plant as a whole to take advantage of synergies that exist between equipment and to improve
11

plant efficiency. AQCS technology was previously often selected specifically for the pollutant to
be controlled, such as FGD for SO2, SCR for NOx, and ESP for particulate matter. Many of
these systems are also capable of controlling other pollutants, and the capability of a particular
technology to control multiple pollutants will continue to be a driver in the selection of a
complete AQCS.
In addition to the ability of a technology to directly control other pollutants, its impact on
the ability of other AQCS equipment to control its targeted pollutant(s) must also be considered.
For example, a side reaction of an SCR includes the ability of the catalyst to oxidize mercury,
which makes it more readily captured in an FGD system. However, an SCR also oxidizes SO2 to
SO3, which evades capture in a wet FGD system, but not in a dry FGD system.
In FGD systems, both SDA and CDS designs are well-known for their ability to control
other acid gases, while wet FGD systems often require the addition of DSI systems. The
particulate control devices also play an integral role in mercury and acid gas control, with fabric
filters permitting much higher removals of these pollutants than ESPs alone. Fabric filters are
also integral to SO2 removal with dry FGD systems, which is a key factor when evaluating an
AQCS system as a whole.
Table 1 illustrates other interactions between the various AQCS components and the
interrelationship between pollutants. An effective multi-pollutant control strategy will carefully
consider these interrelationships.
Table 1
Post-Combustion Emission Control Technology for Multi-Pollutants
Air
Emissions

Wet
FGD

Dry
FGD

DSI

Acid gases

NOx

SCR

Mercury

Particulate
matter

SNCR

ACI

FF

ESP

This technology directly captures this pollutant or, in the case of NOx, converts it into
nitrogen and water
This technology captures a gas or an ultra-fine particulate on a readily filterable sorbent
This technology filters or precipitates previously injected sorbent laden with the pollutant
from the flue gas

Source: Adapted from IHS CERAs Post-combustion emission control technology cheat sheet

Equipment selection must accommodate changing requirements with minimal new


equipment or modifications in order for the facility to remain competitive. One aspect of this is
fuel flexibility. Switching to lower sulfur fuels has permitted some existing facilities to achieve
compliance with the installation of less expensive systems such as low NOx burners and DSI
rather than installing more expensive systems like SCR and FGD. However, fuel choice is most
often driven by cost to improve plant economics. The flexibility of a system to accommodate
varying fuels is therefore critical to the continued operation of the plant.

12

In addition, emissions limits are likely to become even more stringent. One can view this
as a continuation of the need for fuel flexibility. For example, if a dry FGD system is designed
for a specified emission when burning a coal with 2% Sulfur, but the plant is required to burn a
coal with 2.5% Sulfur, the emissions control system must perform to a higher standard to remove
more sulfur. If the possibility of changes in future fuel sources exists, a utility would be best
served to install a system that has the capability of meeting more stringent future emissions
levels with these other fuels than one that is only designed for the fuel being used at the time of
installation.
This point is also illustrated by the use of ESPs. This technology served the industry well
in the past, and many ESPs will stay in service achieving emissions requirements. However,
ESPs are much more sensitive to changing flue gas conditions, flyash composition, and injected
sorbents such as activated carbon and lime, than fabric filters, and are not capable of costeffectively achieving the very low emissions levels required for a new unit. These facts, coupled
with the expectation of decreased particulate limits and the multi-pollutant capability of fabric
filters, make fabric filters the clear path for new installations.
As demand on coal-fired units continues to be more susceptible to cycling, primarily due
to the variability of wind and other renewables, coal-fired units will be required to swing from
minimum to full load on a regular basis. The ability of the selected technology to follow these
load swings with minimal negative impacts will be critical. The efficiency of the equipment at
reduced loads and the potential negative impacts to overall system operations must be considered.
For example, SDA system turndown is approximately 5:1, and CDS system turndown is
approximately 2:1 with no flue gas recirculation. With flue gas recirculation, greater turndown
of CDS systems is achievable, but the range varies for each unit. With SDA systems, the
conditions match the unit load; that is, pressure drop and power consumption decrease with load.
To accommodate reduced load with a CDS, either modules are taken offline, or gas recirculation
is utilized, requiring proportionately more power. Low flue gas temperatures impact the ability
of both technologies to achieve proper drying.
As another example, the design of an SCR system must account for the swings in fuel
and boiler load. The primary concern is flue gas temperature as the catalyst cannot typically
handle all economizer outlet temperatures throughout the load range. Changes to the convection
pass design can regulate the temperature to the SCR. Also of importance with load following is
the concern for ash deposition, which can be exacerbated by swings in load. This is another area
where the SCR operations cannot typically be adjusted to accommodate these swings, but the
system design can take this into account from the start by evaluating ash flow distribution
throughout the load range.

Conclusions
Current and pending environmental regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent
and intricate, encompassing more air emissions than ever before. Environmental equipment and
systems utilized in a flue gas cleaning arrangement have typically been associated with the
treatment of one particular pollutant. However, as emissions regulations become more stringent
and utilities consider the use of a wide range of fuel types, as is currently happening in Asia, the
interrelated effects of each component or system in the arrangement on other pollutants must be
recognized. Some of these effects are positive and some may be negative. For example, it is
known that an SCR oxidizes elemental mercury into ionic mercury. Oxidized mercury is much

13

easier to remove in an FGD system. Thus, making the SCR larger will increase mercury removal
in the FGD downstream. However, an SCR also oxidizes SO2 to SO3, which can become
sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid forms a very fine mist which is very difficult for a wet FGD to
remove. Filterable (solid) particulate is removed in the wet scrubber. The wet scrubber tends to
remove 40 to 90% of the flyash entering the scrubber, depending upon the ash inlet loading and
the type and configuration of wet scrubber. However, further particulate control is needed to
collect this material and to limit its release to the atmosphere. AQCS equipment selection will
continue to be very complex, requiring considerable analyses by utilities, architect-engineers,
and system suppliers working together. The operation of a coal-fired power plant cannot be
neatly segmented into packages that discretely control various air pollutants. The plant
operations as a whole must be evaluated holistically to arrive at the most economical means of
achieving not only air emissions requirements, but also to evaluate the impact on water and
solids treatment and disposal requirements.

References
1. Cooper, C. David, and Alley, F.C., Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach, Waveland
Press, Inc., Long Grove, Illinois, USA, 2011.
2. Erickson, Clayton A., and Jambhekar, Rajaram, Current work on the impacts and control of
SO3 emissions from Selective Catalytic Reduction systems, 2002 Conference on SCR and
SNCR for NOx Control, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 2002.
3. Jankura, Bryan, Wygen 1 2006 Mercury Control Project: Background, Equipment and Test
Results, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 5 April 2007.
4. Moretti A., and Triscori R., The Babcock & Wilcox Company, Ritzenthaler, D., American
Electric Power, A System Approach to SO3 Mitigation, presented to EPRI-DOE-EPAAWMA Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, Baltimore,
Maryland, August 28-31, 2006.
5. Kitto, J.B., and Stultz, S.C., eds., Steam/its generation and use, 41st ed., The Babcock &
Wilcox Company, Barberton, Ohio, USA, 2005.
6. White, Harry J., Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Massachusetts, 1963.
7. Bielawski, Gregory T., Schmeida, Melanie J., and White, Nicholas T., Air Quality Control
System Choices for U.S. Utility Power Plants, presented at Power-Gen International,
Orlando, Florida, November 12-14, 2013.
8. Moretti, Albert L., and Jones, Christopher S., Advanced Emissions Control Technologies
for Coal-Fired Power Plants, presented at PowerGen Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, October 3-5,
2012.

14

Copyright 2014 by Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.


All rights reserved.
No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or
incorporated into any information retrieval system, without the written permission of the copyright
holder. Permission requests should be addressed to: Marketing Communications, Babcock & Wilcox
Power Generation Group, P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351. Or, contact us from our
website at www.babcock.com.
Disclaimer
Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with
the understanding that Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (B&W PGG) and the authors
and contributors to this work are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or
provide engineering or professional services. Neither B&W PGG nor any of its employees make any
warranty, guarantee or representation, whether expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of any information, product, process, method or apparatus discussed in this
work, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular or intended purpose. Neither
B&W PGG nor any of its officers, directors or employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with
respect to or resulting from the use of, or the inability to use, any information, product, process, method
or apparatus discussed in this work.

15

Вам также может понравиться