skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: OPTIMIZING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE MERCURY AND ACID GAS EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS

Abstract

Maps showing potential mercury, sulfur, chlorine, and moisture emissions for U.S. coal by county of origin were made from publicly available data (plates 1, 2, 3, and 4). Published equations that predict mercury capture by emission control technologies used at U.S. coal-fired utilities were applied to average coal quality values for 169 U.S. counties. The results were used to create five maps that show the influence of coal origin on mercury emissions from utility units with: (1) hot-side electrostatic precipitator (hESP), (2) cold-side electrostatic precipitator (cESP), (3) hot-side electrostatic precipitator with wet flue gas desulfurization (hESP/FGD), (4) cold-side electrostatic precipitator with wet flue gas desulfurization (cESP/FGD), and (5) spray-dry adsorption with fabric filter (SDA/FF) emission controls (plates 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Net (lower) coal heating values were calculated from measured coal Btu values, and estimated coal moisture and hydrogen values; the net heating values were used to derive mercury emission rates on an electric output basis (plate 10). Results indicate that selection of low-mercury coal is a good mercury control option for plants having hESP, cESP, or hESP/FGD emission controls. Chlorine content is more important for plants having cESP/FGD or SDA/FF controls; optimum mercury capture is indicated wheremore » chlorine is between 500 and 1000 ppm. Selection of low-sulfur coal should improve mercury capture where carbon in fly ash is used to reduce mercury emissions. Comparison of in-ground coal quality with the quality of commercially mined coal indicates that existing coal mining and coal washing practice results in a 25% reduction of mercury in U.S. coal before it is delivered to the power plant. Further pre-combustion mercury reductions may be possible, especially for coal from Texas, Ohio, parts of Pennsylvania and much of the western U.S.« less

Authors:
; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
The Utah Geological Survey
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
876545
DOE Contract Number:  
FG26-03NT41901
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT; 08 HYDROGEN; ADSORPTION; CARBON; CHLORINE; COAL; COAL MINING; DESULFURIZATION; ELECTRIC POWER; ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS; FABRIC FILTERS; FLUE GAS; FLY ASH; HEATING; HYDROGEN; MERCURY; MOISTURE; ORIGIN; POWER PLANTS; SULFUR; WASHING

Citation Formats

Quick, Jeffrey C, Tabet, David E, Wakefield, Sharon, and Bon, Roger L. OPTIMIZING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE MERCURY AND ACID GAS EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS. United States: N. p., 2005. Web. doi:10.2172/876545.
Quick, Jeffrey C, Tabet, David E, Wakefield, Sharon, & Bon, Roger L. OPTIMIZING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE MERCURY AND ACID GAS EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/876545
Quick, Jeffrey C, Tabet, David E, Wakefield, Sharon, and Bon, Roger L. 2005. "OPTIMIZING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE MERCURY AND ACID GAS EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS". United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/876545. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/876545.
@article{osti_876545,
title = {OPTIMIZING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE MERCURY AND ACID GAS EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS},
author = {Quick, Jeffrey C and Tabet, David E and Wakefield, Sharon and Bon, Roger L},
abstractNote = {Maps showing potential mercury, sulfur, chlorine, and moisture emissions for U.S. coal by county of origin were made from publicly available data (plates 1, 2, 3, and 4). Published equations that predict mercury capture by emission control technologies used at U.S. coal-fired utilities were applied to average coal quality values for 169 U.S. counties. The results were used to create five maps that show the influence of coal origin on mercury emissions from utility units with: (1) hot-side electrostatic precipitator (hESP), (2) cold-side electrostatic precipitator (cESP), (3) hot-side electrostatic precipitator with wet flue gas desulfurization (hESP/FGD), (4) cold-side electrostatic precipitator with wet flue gas desulfurization (cESP/FGD), and (5) spray-dry adsorption with fabric filter (SDA/FF) emission controls (plates 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Net (lower) coal heating values were calculated from measured coal Btu values, and estimated coal moisture and hydrogen values; the net heating values were used to derive mercury emission rates on an electric output basis (plate 10). Results indicate that selection of low-mercury coal is a good mercury control option for plants having hESP, cESP, or hESP/FGD emission controls. Chlorine content is more important for plants having cESP/FGD or SDA/FF controls; optimum mercury capture is indicated where chlorine is between 500 and 1000 ppm. Selection of low-sulfur coal should improve mercury capture where carbon in fly ash is used to reduce mercury emissions. Comparison of in-ground coal quality with the quality of commercially mined coal indicates that existing coal mining and coal washing practice results in a 25% reduction of mercury in U.S. coal before it is delivered to the power plant. Further pre-combustion mercury reductions may be possible, especially for coal from Texas, Ohio, parts of Pennsylvania and much of the western U.S.},
doi = {10.2172/876545},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/876545}, journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Oct 01 00:00:00 EDT 2005},
month = {Sat Oct 01 00:00:00 EDT 2005}
}