Application of sorbents for mercury control for utilities burning lignite coal

Pavlish, John H.; Holmes, Michael J.; Benson, Steven A.; Crocker, Charlene R.; Galbreath, Kevin C.

doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2003.11.022

Cited by 83 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the high cost, large area and potential poisoning of catalysts have made SCR processes less attractive for industrial use in China [7]. For mercury control, activated carbon injection upstream of the ESP or FF is considered as the most promised as a mercury control technology [8,9], whereas, the rather high cost of the sorbent, activated carbon's poor utilization/selectivity for mercury have made this technology less attractive for industrial use in China [10,11]. Since the single-pollutant control technologies result in expensive investment and operating cost, researchers focused on developing new technology for simultaneous removal of NO, SO 2 and mercury from flue gas, including ozone injection [5], pulsed corona discharge, [6] absorption process [12][13][14] etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea + KMnO4 solution

Fang¹,

Cen²,

Wang³

et al. 2013

Fuel Processing Technology

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea + KMnO4 solution

Fang¹,

Cen²,

Wang³

et al. 2013

Fuel Processing Technology

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It occurs in three forms namely (Hg o ), (Hg 2+ ) and (HgP) and possesses high toxicity, volatility. Mercury bioaccumulates in the environment and creates neurological health impact [1]. Moreover, it appeared as a critical and chronic problem because it can easily be transformed into methyl mercury, an organic form, by bacteria in bottom level sediments which is taken up by organisms more rapidly and is much more toxic and stable than inorganic form [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mercury Removal from Aqueous Solution by Mixed Mineral Systems I. Reactivity and Removal Kinetics

Egirani¹

2013

IOSR-JESTFT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Carbon-to-mercury weight ratios of 3000-18,000 (lb carbon injected/lb Hg in flue gas) have been estimated to achieve 90% Hg total removal from a coal combustion flue gas containing 10 µg/Nm 3 of Hg total (7). For subbituminous and lignite coals, >90% Hg control is not achievable with standard, nonchemically treated AC alone in power plants configured with an ESP only.…”

Section: +mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing

Kay¹,

Jones²,

Benson³

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was asked by PPL Montana LLC (PPL) to provide assistance and develop an approach to identify cost-effective options for mercury control at its coal-fired power plants. The work conducted focused on baseline mercury level and speciation measurement, short-term parametric testing, and weeklong testing of mercury control technology at Colstrip Unit 3. Three techniques and various combinations of these techniques were identified as viable options for mercury control. The options included oxidizing agents or sorbent enhancement additives (SEAs) such as chlorine-based SEA1 and an EERC proprietary SEA2 with and without activated carbon injection.Baseline mercury emissions from Colstrip Unit 3 are comparatively low relative to other Powder River Basin (PRB) coal-fired systems and were found to range from 5 to 6.5 µg/Nm 3 (2.9 to 3.8 lb/TBtu), with a rough value of approximately 80% being elemental upstream of the scrubber and higher than 95% being elemental at the outlet. Levels in the stack were also greater than 95% elemental. Baseline mercury removal across the scrubber is fairly variable but generally tends to be about 5% to 10%.Parametric results of carbon injection alone yielded minimal reduction in Hg emissions. SEA1 injection resulted in 20% additional reduction over baseline with the maximum rate of 400 ppm (3 gal/min). Weeklong testing was conducted with the combination of SEA2 and carbon, with injection rates of 75 ppm (10.3 lb/hr) and 1.5 lb/MMacf (40 lb/hr), respectively. Reduction was found to be an additional 30% and, overall during the testing period, was measured to be 38% across the scrubber.The novel additive injection method, known as novel SEA2, is several orders of magnitude safer and less expensive than current SEA2 injection methods. However, used in conjunction with this plant configuration, the technology did not demonstrate a significant level of mercury reduction. Near-future use of this technique at Colstrip is not seen.All the additives injected resulted in some reduction in mercury emissions. However, the target reduction of 55% was not achieved. The primary reason for the lower removal rates is because of the lower levels of mercury in the flue gas stream and the lower capture level of fine particles by the scrubbers (relative to that for larger particles). The reaction and interaction of the SEA materials is with the finer fraction of the fly ash, because the SEA materials are vaporized during the combustion or reaction process and condense on the surfaces of entrained particles or form very small particles. Mercury will have a tendency to react and interact with the finer fraction of entrained ash and sorbent as a result of the higher surface areas of the finer particles. The ability to capture the finer fraction of fly ash is the key to controlling mercury.Cost estimates for mercury removal based on the performance of each sorbent during this project are projected to be extremely high. When viewed on a dollar-per-pound-of-mercur...

show abstract

Application of sorbents for mercury control for utilities burning lignite coal

Cited by 83 publications

References 2 publications

Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea + KMnO4 solution

Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea + KMnO4 solution

Mercury Removal from Aqueous Solution by Mixed Mineral Systems I. Reactivity and Removal Kinetics

Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About