Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) is being considered more frequently as a cost effective means of mitigating emissions of acid gases (SO2, SO3, HCl), heavy metals (Hg), and toxic organic compounds (dioxins and furans) from coal-fired boilers. A variety of dry sorbents are being considered, including sodium based compounds such as trona and sodium bicarbonate, calcium based compounds such as hydrated lime, and various activated carbons. Many existing power plants are equipped with electrostatic precipitators for controlling particulate emissions. Electrostatic precipitators can be very sensitive to operating conditions such as flow rate, temperature and to the quantity and chemistry of the particulate matter entering the ESP. Injection of sorbents upstream of an existing ESP changes both the quantity and the chemistry of the particulate entering the collector. This can change the performance of the ESP. When deciding whether to employ Dry Sorbent Injection, operators need to know what effect it will have on their existing equipment. Can they meet the required particulate emissions with existing equipment or will they need to upgrade their ESPs or even replace them with fabric filters? This paper will review several case studies wherein a variety of dry sorbents are injected upstream of an existing ESP. As will be discussed, the effects vary, depending on the design of the existing collector and on the amount and type of sorbent injected. The paper will also discuss mitigation options to enhance the performance of ESPs with dry sorbent injection. Click Here For Complete Speaker Text
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Application Sequencing | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Company | Product | Process | Other Subjects | Event | Event Date | Location | Publication | Publication Date | Text Descriptor | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||