New Webinars for PacifiCorp on Front End Optimization and Back End NOx
Reduction Are Slated for The End of the Month
The next article summarizes the conclusions at the end of the PacifiCorp webinar
on August 2. Since that time there have been further discussions and the
tentative conclusion that raising the air heater exit temperature and adding
Sorbacal ahead of the baghouse will result in an installation to cost
effectively remove NOx. The other requirement is initial NOx
reduction in the furnace through optimization and SNCR. Two more webinars
will be held on the project. On September 1, there will be a discussion of
the back end options. On September 8, the front end options will be
discussed. In each case, participants will be advised to view new
information added to Power Plant Air Quality Decisions (PPAQD).
There is the belief that NOx leaving the furnace can be reduced to as
low as 0.l lb./MMBtu. On the other hand, maybe the exit quantity would be
0.22 lbs./MMBtu. Since .07 lbs./MMBtu is the exhaust limit, the removal
efficiency for the catalytic filter will have to be 30-70 percent. Doosan,
Siemens, Emersion and GE have all made presentations relative to reducing NOx
leaving the boiler to as low as 0.1 lbs./MMBtu. In order to further
determine the likelihood of this reduction, we have asked for case histories and
white papers. We have already posted additional sever papers from Emerson
and one from GE. Siemens is supplying several papers. We may make
some phone calls to find out the current status of these installations. We
are soliciting names of people and locations so we can make these calls.
Results of the calls will be posted. In some cases, where confidentiality
is desired, we will just provide a generic plant name such as a “large plant in
the Midwest.”
Relative to the back end and urea/ammonia/H202 injection we need recommendations
on where and which chemical should be injected. If both SNCR and catalytic
filters are used, there will be ammonia slip from the SNCR. Where should
the additional reagent be injected? Where should the Sorbacal be injected?
Is there any reason to consider SBS instead of hydrated lime? Bob Crynack
believes the addition of H202 along with the urea will increase removal
efficiency. This needs to be further pursued. More information on
the projected temperature vs. efficiency on the catalytic filters will be
provided by FLS.
There may be other options that have been missed in the three previous webinars.
If you believe there are other technologies which should be considered, please
send your information to Bob McIlvaine at
rmcilvaine@mcilvainecompany.com.
Lots of Options but No Clear Winner for PacifiCorp NOx Control
Program
Catalytic Filters
– Last Thursday most of the attendees including McIlvaine heard information
which was being released for the first time relative to the performance of
catalytic filters on NOx removal. Some insights on use of H202 as a
reducing agent were also new to almost all the listeners.
The previous sessions had established that optimization along with SNCR,
combustion modifications and possibly reburn would achieve front end emissions
of 0.22 to 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. McIlvaine was optimistic that this session would
demonstrate that all that would be required on the back end would be to insert
catalytic bags to replace the existing sets. F.L. Smidth,
W.L Gore and others raised a serious obstacle when we found out that the
maximum temperature at the baghouse entrance would be 275°F. This raises
maintenance as well as efficiency concerns.
The maintenance concern is that at 275°F, there will be formation of ammonium
bisulfate and plugging of the bags. Unfortunately, URS sodium
bisulfite proponents were not on the call but presentations at previous webinars
have shown that bag plugging can be reduced with the injection of SBS at the
inlet to the air heater. The primary role is keeping the air heater clean but
the injection seemed to reduce downstream bag plugging.
This brings up a point relative to alternatives. SNCR is likely to play a key
role under any combination of technologies. This means that the bags will be
subjected to ABS under any scheme. Would it be worse when the catalytic bags are
used as compared to the FLS bags already in place. Ken Johnson
of Pentair was on the call and indicated his willingness to pursue
these issues. Bag cleaning will be a challenge under all the scenarios. Pentair
has solved problems with their pulsing systems at other plants, so their input
will be welcome.
Lime injection ahead of the bag filters would also very likely solve the
problem. Lhoist, Mississippi Lime and others can
provide insights on this. A radical option would be to remove both NOx
and acid gases in the bag filter and eliminate the downstream lime scrubbers.
But then the question of solid waste disposal would have to be addressed.
The second concern is efficiency. At 275°F, a three layer FLS bag might only
have a 50 percent NOx removal efficiency or maybe even lower.
Nadia Jorgensen, sales manager for catalytic filters for FLS, promised to
review the efficiency curves and respond with some predictions for removal at
275°F. An alternative would be to raise the gas temperature. The plants which
have opted for tail-end SCR have justified a very large increase in gas
temperature. Here the need may be only for a 275°F rise. PacifiCorp indicated
this would not be easy but would be doable.
One thing to check is air heater leakage. Is the 275°F a function of 10 percent
air in leakage into the air heater? If so, then the temperature can be raised
with air heater modifications. Air volume to the baghouse would be reduced and
the catalytic filter would be a great choice. We will check with Arvos
and Howden for their opinions on the air heater in leakage. Both
were in a previous PacifiCorp webinar. We will also check with
Howden on fan implications (volume is a function of temperature).
It would all be a matter of economics. Raising the gas temperature entering the
baghouse means less transfer of heat in the air pre heater and a fractional
percent decrease in plant efficiency. On the other hand, an SCR would add 8-10
in. pressure drop to the system and also reduce plant efficiency. The capital
cost of the SCR would be far greater than the catalytic bag filter replacement
and some minor air heater modifications. If the solution is reducing air heater
leakage, then the economics for the catalytic filter are even more attractive.
H202 and Ozone
- Bob Crynack cited his considerable experience with FMC to
conclude that H202 to oxidize the NOx to a soluble NO2 and
downstream capture in the lime scrubbers was not very promising, but that
injection in the furnace along with urea would substantially enhance SNCR. He
believes this could be a cost effective route for PacifiCorp. FMC has sold the
division involved in this. We will contact the new owners and gather more
information.
DuPont
indicated that their Lotox system which adds ozone ahead of the scrubbers would
likely be a good solution. They make this observation based on a number of
refinery and industrial installations, so we will seek more information from
them and also from Linde who is the licensor.
In-Duct SCR
- Fuel Tech submitted additional slides to validate the
performance of a small layer of catalyst. Combined with SNCR this approach
should yield sufficiently high NOx removal. More input on this
approach will be sought.
In-furnace Reduction
- The Castle Light presentation focused on replacing the burners
with entrained gasifiers. The NOx reduction is substantial. The
negative would be a significant capital investment. One question we will pursue
with Keith Moore is whether the use of calcium sulfite as a catalyst for
NOx reduction in the burners can be implemented without the whole
entrained gasifier installation.
Where do we go from here?
McIlvaine will continue to pursue the in-furnace and back-end options. Future
webinars are planned. Coordination with PacifiCorp will be pursued. Smaller
groups to pursue individual options will be encouraged. Optimization is an
example.
Siemens,
Doosan, Emerson, and GE all
recommended in furnace approaches. Each has a different approach. The next step
will be to understand the differences. On a broad basis there seems to be a
difference in whether to rely on changing parameters to affect the results or
changing the results empirically, which in turn changes the parameters. With
neural networks which can learn from various damper settings, the settings can
be optimized. This has the same result of centering the fire ball which is
alternatively done with tunable diode laser measuring tools and then burner air
damper adjustments.
How do each of the suppliers characterize their reliance on actual on line
instrumentation, OFA, EGR, reburn, models, and learning systems. This first step
can be followed by more insights on actual experience in similar boiler designs
with similar coals.
The recording of this session and the power point presentations are available in
44I Power
Plant Air Quality Decisions (Power
Plant Decisions Orchard). This is free of charge to utilities. Since you are
receiving this Alert you are undoubtedly a subscriber to the 42EI Utility
Upgrade Tracking System. If so, the 44I is only $800/yr plus $80/yr for
additional users.
COAL – US
Coal-fired Power Plants Must Make Many Tough Decisions
Old coal-fired power plants in Europe and the U.S. must invest in technology to
meet new emission standards, but must do so with a modest investment. New
coal-fired power plants being built in Asia and certain other countries are
tasked with obtaining high conversion efficiencies which are achieved with
operation at high temperatures and pressures. The result is that coal-fired
power plants, whether they are new or old, have difficult decisions to make.
44I Power Plant Air Quality Decisions (PPAQD) which includes information on
all coal-fired power plant products and services provides power plants and their
suppliers with Decision Guides to include the latest developments presented in a
format so that the benefits of each option are compared.
PPAQD provides a powerful new tool both for the plant operators and suppliers.
For example, in the last three weeks there has been a specific analysis of NOx
control options for a utility which is facing a $700 million investment to
comply with regional haze rules. The major options are to install SCR or to
initiate a series of projects which in combination will achieve the needed NOx
reduction. The combination options include:
A: In Furnace:
• Catalytic burners
• Combustion optimization systems
• Reburn
• SNCR
B: Back End:
• Catalytic filters
• Ozone injection
• Hydrogen peroxide
• Catalytic baskets in the air preheater
• In-duct SCR
These options have been reviewed in webinars with a large number of utility
people in attendance to hear presentations by GE, Siemens,
Emerson, Fuel Tech, FLS, AECOM
and others.
For more information on 44I Power Plant Air Quality Decisions (Power Plant
Decisions Orchard), click on:
http://home.mcilvainecompany.com/index.php/other/2-uncategorised/86-44i
Xcel Energy reduces NOx with Neuco system
Sherco Unit 1 is a 750 MW unit with overfired air and low NOx
burners. A NOx control program was initiated in 2014. The goal was to
reduce and maintain NOx emissions from a shared stack to below 0.15
lb/MMBtu over a 30 day rolling average starting January, 2015. At the start of
the project, the goal was not being met. The penalty is that if the NOx
is not maintained below the 0.15 lb/MMBtu average, the units must be derated to
achieve the goal. Emissions are measured in a shared stack from two 730 MW
T-fired units with no SCRs. CO constraint is that CO emissions must be
maintained below 400 ppm.
Some of the problems centered around poor coal fineness and distribution. All
seven mills were retrofitted with Loesche dynamic classifiers with
the goal of achieving 75 percent through 200 mesh and 99.9 percent through 50
mesh. The company also installed a Neuco Combustion Opt system
which provides closed loop optimization of fuel and air biases in the boiler as
frequently as very minute. The result was a 10 percent NOx reduction
and achievement of the goals.
Mercury Removal from Exhaust Stacks and Process Gas is a
Shifting $Billion/yr. Market
New technologies, geographies and regulations are creating an ever changing
market for mercury removal from exhaust stacks and process gases. This is the
conclusion of the McIlvaine Company in N056
Mercury Air Reduction Market.
The largest application is coal-fired boilers. Natural gas purification, sewage
sludge incinerators, waste-to-energy plants and other facilities are significant
purchasers. There are continuing geographic shifts. Tough rules for
waste-to-energy plants have been adopted worldwide. Regulations for coal-fired
power plants in the U.S. are stringent. The rest of the world is moving to
emulate the U.S. Since China has five times as many coal-fired boilers as the
U.S., it presently represents the largest geographic growth potential.
Many new developments are likely to change the mix of systems and products which
are purchased. Activated carbon in powder or granular form is the most commonly
applied technology. Improvements in carbon are creating more cost effective
solutions. When carbon is injected into the scrubber recycle slurry, it serves
to separate the mercury in the slurry.
Ionic liquids are being applied to pellets and promise advantages over carbon
beds for natural gas purification. There is now investigation into using ionic
liquids in dedicated wet scrubbers.
Wet scrubbers are used for acid gas removal in most applications involving
mercury. Chemicals to improve mercury capture make scrubbers a primary
technology for mercury removal. Waste-to-energy plants in Europe use scrubbing
technology not only to capture mercury but also to recover hydrochloric acid and
valuable metals. McIlvaine has suggested that a variation of this technology is
likely to provide the cheapest source of rare earths. Coal-fired power plants
could generate significant revenues and eliminate air and solid waste pollution
with this process.
For more information on
Mercury Air Reduction Markets,
click on:
http://home.mcilvainecompany.com/index.php/markets/2-uncategorised/85-n056
Here are some Headlines from the Utility E-Alert – August 5, 2016
UTILITY E-ALERT
#1284 – August 5, 2016
COAL – US
and Equipment
COAL – WORLD
The
41F
Utility E-Alert
is issued weekly and covers the coal-fired projects, regulations and other
information important to the suppliers. It is $950/yr. but is included in the
$3020
42EI
Utility Tracking System
which has data on every plant and project plus networking directories and
many other features.
7,000 Utility Coal-fired Power Plants are Continuing to Upgrade and Replace
Controls and Equipment
The market to upgrade and replace components in the existing 7,000 coal-fired
power plants is larger than the new equipment market for wind, solar, or gas
turbines. The upgrades and replacements are tracked in the
Utility Tracking System published by
the McIlvaine Company.
Many of the power plants in the U.S. are more than 40 years old but are expected
to operate another 20 years. Optimization systems can improve efficiency, reduce
greenhouse gases and save fuel. The payback is often measured in months and not
years or decades. So, even if the expected remaining life is 10 years or less,
investment is warranted.
In many instances, the remaining life is determined by the upgrade investment
costs. McIlvaine has been conducting three webinars for a large utility to
determine whether optimization systems can reduce NOx sufficiently to
meet new regional haze requirements. The alternative is expensive selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. Siemens, GE and Emerson have made
presentations showing how substantial NOx reductions can be
maintained by combining predictive models, advanced instrumentation and results
based tuning.
The Utility Tracking System also tracks upgrades of utility water systems. Power
plants in the U.S. must make adjustments to limit harm to aquatic life at water
intakes. These same power plants must also now meet new wastewater emission
standards. Many power plants around the world are opting for zero liquid
discharge (ZLD) systems. This requires major investments in evaporators,
crystallizers, membrane separators and mechanical vapor recompression.
The drought in India and water shortages in many countries are resulting in the
use of treated municipal wastewater. Most power plants are within 70 miles of a
municipal wastewater plant. The treatment costs to make this water usable by the
utility are modest. So, if water is valued, the investment can be justified.
The average power plant is only 40 percent efficient. The steam plume visible
from the stack and cooling tower are testimony to the large quantity of wasted
heat. Sorbent injection and air preheater extension investment can be justified
with payback within a year or two.
Air pollution regulations are not static. There is a new round of regulations at
least once a decade. New pollutants such as mercury now have to be reduced as
well as the traditional acid gases and particulate. The Utility Tracking System
tracks all the upgrades in a database with details on each plant. A weekly 10 to
20-page alert covers new developments. For more information, click on
42EI Utility
Tracking System.
Improving the Right-to-Win Ability for High Performance Flow Control and
Treatment Products
The right-to-win for high performance flow control and treatment products can be
enhanced by leveling the playing field and changing the scoring method.
Right-to-win is the ability to engage in any competitive market with a
better-than-even chance of success.
Four strategies have been used to improve the right-to-win ability. They are
position, execution, adaptation and concentration.
In flow control and treatment there are two types of products and services: high
performance and general performance. The right-to-win strategies for them differ
significantly.
The challenge of large U.S. and European based suppliers of high performance
flow control and treatment products is to not only improve the right-to-win
ability in the existing market, but to be pro-active in changing the rules of
the game to level the playing field and even the scoring method in developing
countries. Most of these large companies have not achieved the sales and profits
in the fast growing developing market. McIlvaine, therefore, proposes that
“creation” be considered a fifth right-to-win strategy. The importance of each
strategy has been ranked from very important to irrelevant.
Right-to-Win Strategies for High
Performance
and General Performance Products
(5 is very important and 1 is
irrelevant) |
||
Right-to-Win Strategy |
High Performance |
General Performance |
Position |
3 |
5 |
Execution |
3 |
5 |
Adaptation |
5 |
3 |
Concentration |
3 |
4 |
Creation
|
5 |
2 |
The creation strategy changes the playing field by making it easier for
purchasers to buy the best rather than the lowest cost product. This entails
finding an easier way to determine the lowest total cost of ownership (LTCO).
Arcelor Mittal is doing this by global sourcing and then providing LTCO analyses
for its 200 plants around the world. McIlvaine is accomplishing this in certain
industries with free Decision Guides for end users.
Changing the scoring method is another game changer. Most flow control and
treatment products contribute to increased life quality today at some penalty to
future generations (e.g. greenhouse gases or resource depletion). The
perspective is quite different for a wealthy individual who wants to set up
annuities for his grandchildren and the starving parent who cannot even ensure
the survival of his children. McIlvaine has created a metric to help developing
countries make the best choice for their citizens.
For more information on right-to-win strategies in flow control and treatment
contact Bob McIlvaine 847-784-0012 ext. 112
rmcilvaine@mcilvainecompany.com.
For more information on the markets see N064
Air/Gas/Water/Fluid Treatment and Control: World Market.
Bob McIlvaine
President
847-784-0012 ext. 112
rmcilvaine@mcilvainecompany.com
www.mcilvainecompany.com