June 14, 2007

 

Mercury Control is Commercial Hot Topic Conclusion

 

Not only is mercury control commercial but we are starting to resolve the site specific problems which arise as any new technology becomes widely applied. In the Hot Topic Hour yesterday Steve Derenne of We Energies talked about the current status of the We  Energies Presque Isle TOXECON system. This system continues to achieve 90 percent mercury removal except for occasional maintenance problems. These problems occur in the ash handling system, are minor, and solutions are being implemented. Brominated carbons have been selected for summer operation. They provide higher efficiency than plain carbon when the temperature increases. The cost is higher but less carbon is needed so the total increase in cost is nominal.

 

A mercury monitor is now being supplied with nitrogen as a purge gas and this has resulted in very steady readings. Carbon cost is around $400/lb of mercury removed and total operating and maintenance is  around $1,600/lb. These numbers are dependent on mercury content in the coal. Recently the plant has used coal that is higher in mercury content, so this favorably influences the cost figures.

 

Chuck Miller of DOE provided a good overview of the status of various technologies. He displayed plant by plant listings which show that five percent of the utility capacity is already in the process of installing control systems. Work with a gold catalyst ahead of wet FGD systems will be performed on a pilot basis. In plants with high elemental mercury content it is anticipated that this combination will achieve 60 to 70 percent mercury removal. There is a focus on solving remaining problems which include the impact of carbon on flyash salability and mercury in the gypsum.

 

Dave Thompson of Praxair provided the current status of a system which uses oxygen to create carbon on site from the coal. A  wide variety of coals have been tested and found satisfactory. In general the carbon from the process is slightly superior to purchased carbon in terms of removal efficiency.

 

Jean Bustard of ADA-ES addressed some of the site specific problems and ways to resolve them. The problem of SO3 interference can be addressed by injecting carbon ahead of the air heater. This means that mercury and carbon are in contact prior to the SO3 conditioning system. Big improvements in mercury removal were achieved in tests at plants with SO3 conditioning by utilizing the upstream injection point. Little improvement was found with air heater injection if there was an SCR. This is because the SO3was already formed at the injection point.

 

Jean also addressed the carbon supply problem. ADA-ES is going through the permit process on six carbon production facilities. Each of these facilities could cost as much as $200 million. Since permitting can require several years, the strategy is to be able to build plants in as short a period as needed by removing the permitting delays.

 

Sid Nelson of Sorbent Technologies provided the results of the latest testing with good performance of a concrete friendly carbon. He also displayed graphs which show that the brominated carbons actually improve opacity whereas plain carbons tend to increase opacity. This is a serious issue due to a recent court decision that these opacity increases would trigger NSR. Sorbent Technologies imports carbons and then treats them. There are substantial Asian and European sources, so Sid is confident of the ability to meet demand.

 

The recording of the Hot Topic webinar can be viewed through the following link

 

Mercury Cost and Performance        87 minutes       

 

The individual power point presentations are in the Mercury Decision Tree and can be viewed through the links provided below. We are also providing pictures of the speakers. These were displayed during the webinar and partially eliminate the one disadvantage of the webinar which is the personal identification. The McIlvaine web cam was also utilized and we would hope in the future that more of the presenters would install web cams on their computers. The cost is nominal. The host can make any participant a presenter with just one click of the mouse. Therefore the webcam pictures on any material on the participants desk top can be displayed.

 

 

Ø      Steve Derenne – We Energies

 

Start

Remove

Physical

System Options

TOXECON

Continuing Decision Process For: TOXECON

TOXECON - 270 MW Demonstration – presented at Hot Topic Hour June 14, 2007 by Steve Derenne

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Derenne Steven - We Energies Mercury Control Hot Topic June 14 20070611 (2).htm


 

Ø      Chuck Miller – Department of Energy

 

 

 

Start

Remove

Physical

System Options

Continuing Decision Process For: System Options

Enhanced SCR

Other Technologies

Removal in Wet Scrubber

Sorbent Injection Prior to Particulate Device

TOXECON


U.S. DOE's Hg Control Technology RD&D Program – presented at Hot Topic Hour June 14, 2007 by Chuck Miller

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Chuck Miller - US DOE Hot Topic Hour June 14 - Mercury Control Cost and Performance.pdf
 

   

Ø      Jean Bustard – ADA-ES

 

Start

Remove

Physical

System Options

Sorbent Injection Prior to Particulate Device

Sources

ADA-ES

Products

Continuing Decision Process For: Products

Meeting the Challenges for Mercury Control for Coal-Fired Power Plants

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/McIlvaine Hot Topic June 14 2007 - ADA-ES.htm


 

Ø      Sid Nelson – Sorbent Technologies

 

Start

Remove

Physical

Consumables

Sorbents

Activated Carbon

Sources

Sorbent Technologies

Products

Continuing Decision Process For: Products

Commercial Update on B-Pac, C-Pac, H-Pac presented at Hot Topic Hour, June 14 by Sid Nelson

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Sorbent Technologies Update - McIlvaine.pdf
 

 

 

Ø      Dave Thompson – Praxair

 

Start

Remove

Physical

Consumables

Sorbents

Activated Carbon

Sources

Praxair

Products

Continuing Decision Process For: Products

 

On-site Production of Mercury Sorbents presented at Hot Topic Hour, June 14 by Dave Thompson

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Dave Thompson Praxair Hot Topic June 14.pdf
 

 

Lots of New Information Will be Revealed at Power-Gen Europe

 

We will be in Madrid at Power-Gen Europe in just 10 days from now. There is lots of unique and valuable European experience that the world needs to receive. Biomass co-firing, the problems biomass causes with SCR, the new FGD systems, and the new coal-fired boiler developments for reduced CO2, are among the subjects which will be addressed in the papers and at the stands.

 

We will be conducting a number of digital audio interviews and taking digital pictures as we have done at Electric Power and EUEC. We will also be reviewing the papers. Here are the ones which we selected for their high degree of interest.

 

SUBJECT  NAME AFFILIATION
Aging Coal-Fired Power Plant Becomes Clean and Efficient Upton, Mark Doosan Babcock Energy Ltd., UK
Aging Coal-Fired Power Plant Becomes Clean and Efficient McKenna, Martin Siemens Power Generation, UK
Edipower's Brindisi North Power Plant: Retrofit and Optimization of an Existing Coal-Fired 640 MW Plant Dotta, Umberto Edipower S.p.a., Italy
Flue Gas Cleaning Refurbishment of Maasvlakte Power Station Unit 1 & 2 Dreuscher, Helmut FISIA BABCOCK Environmental GmbH, Germany
The Effect of Co-Firing 10% of Secondary fuels on SCR Catalyst Vredenbregt, Leo KEMA Nederland B.V., The Netherlands
Mercury Oxidation and Removal Through the Gas-Cleaning System of Coal-Fired Power Plant La Marca, Dr. Christina ENEL SpA, Italy
Alstom Experiences of Mercury Collection on Coal-Fired Boilers Casier, Francois Alstom, Italy
Flowpac for the Elektrenai Power Plant - A Novel FGD Absorber Herlander, Bo Alstom, Sweden
Latest Developments in Europe and Japan in FGD Technology Based on Plants under Construction Vollmer, Bernd Hitachi  Power Europe GmbH, Germany
Latest Developments in Europe and Japan in FGD Technology Based on Plants under Construction Nosaka, Hiroyuki Babcock-Hitachi K.K., Japan
Identifying the Lowest-cost Performance Enhancements for Forgotten ESP Sanyal, Dr. Anupam International Environmental & Energy Consultants, Inc., USA
Creating Additional Value Through the Integration of Plant's Components Stamatelopoulos, Dr. Georg N. Alstom, Germany
State-of-the-Art USC Boilers for Bituminous Coal Based on Plants under Construction Hitachi Rep Hitachi  Power Europe GmbH, Germany
Coal-Fired Unit versus Natural Gas Combined Cycle: an Italian Case Dodero, Dr. Giorgio IPG Industrial Project Group Srl, Italy
Current Newbuild Projects and Technological Developments at RWE Kehr, Dr. Manfred RWE Power AG, Germany
Application of State-of-Art Process & Control Technology to Enel Clean Coal Power Plant Dionisi, Roberto Enel Produzione, Italy
I&C Modernization of a 465 MW PP (Coal with a Web based System) Kirsching, Frank-Peter EnBW Eneergie Baden-Wurttemberg AG, Germany
800 MW Supercritical boilers for the Next Bituminous Coal-Fired Plant Generation Schtz, Michael RWE Power AG, Germany
Low-Cost Technological Methods to Significantly Reduce NOx for Coal-Fired Boilers Russkikh, Eugeny JSC SibCOTES, Russia
Innovation Initiative to Enhance the Performance of Electrostatic Precipitators Riepe, Dr. Thomas Balcke-Duerr GmbH, Germany
Water Recovery from Flue Gas Heijboer, Rob KEMA BV, The Netherlands
Advanced Wear-Resistant Materials for Coal-Fired Power Plants Keegan, Bill Alstom Power Service, USA
Reliability and Maintenance Improvements in Latest Generation in Fluidized Bed Boilers Halikka, Eero Foster Wheeler Energia Oy, Finland
Advanced Biomass Co-Firing Techniques for Retrofit and New Build Projects Livingston, Dr. William Doosan Babcock, Scotland
Biomass Co-Firing: Cost effective Method of Reducing CO2 Emissions Boneham, Mark Alstom, UK
Large Scale Utilization of Biomass with Fossil Fuel Gjernes, Erik Burmeister & Wain Energy A/S, Denmark
Co-Firing Experiences of Biomass with Fossil Fuel Nickull, Stig Oy Alholmens Kraft Ab, Finland
Present and Future Use of Biomass and Other Renewable Fuel in ENEL Generation Assets Brozzi, Bruno ENEL GEM, Italy
Preliminary Results from Laser-Based Combustion Sensors and Novel DCS Technology for Control and Optimization of a Coal-Fired Power Plant Hofvander, Henrik Zolo Technologies, USA
Efficiency Improvements and Economization of FGD Operation with a Support of SO2 and Flue Gas Velocity Grid Measurements in Absorber Smolik, Adam Energopomiar Sp. z o. o. Power Researching & Testing Company. Poland