Fundamental mechanisms in flue gas conditioning. Quarterly report, April 1992--June 1992
SEM pictures of the three mixtures of sorbent and ash from the DITF and the base line ESP hopper ash from Muskingum are shown in Figures 1 through 4. The effects of sorbent addition on particle morphology are evident in Figures 2 through 4 by the presence of irregularly shaped particles and deposits on the surfaces of the spherical fly ash particles. In contrast, the base Ene ash particles have the characteristic relatively smooth, spherical morphology normally associated with pulverized-coal (PC) fly ashes. Resistivity determinations made on these four ashes in ascending and descending temperature modes. These data are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Sorbent injection processes performed at the DITF lowered the duct temperature to around 165{degrees}F from about 350{degrees}F for base line operation. Consequently, during collection in the ESP, the particulate matter from the sorbent injection processes had a significantly lower resitivity (approximately 4 {times} 10{sup 7} {Omega}-cm) than the base line ash (approximately 3 {times} 10{sup 11} {Omega}-cm at 350{degrees}F). Specific surface areas and true particle densities have been measured for the four samples obtained from the DOE/PETC Duct Injection Test Facility. These data are summarized in Table 4. The primary difference indicated by these initial analyses of these four samples is the significant increase in specific surface area due to sorbent addition. The specific surface areas of the three sorbent and ash mixtures from the DITF are quite similar.
- Research Organization:
- Southern Research Inst., Birmingham, AL (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC22-91PC90365
- OSTI ID:
- 10182241
- Report Number(s):
- DOE/PC/90365-T7; SRI-ENV-92-603-7375-Q4; ON: DE92040539
- Resource Relation:
- Other Information: PBD: 27 Jul 1992
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Scaleup tests and supporting research for the development of duct injection technology: Topical report No. 3, Task 3. 2: Scale-up testing; Topical report No. 4, Task 3. 3: Advanced configurations; Topical report No. 5, Task 3. 4: Process controls; Topical report No. 6, Task 3. 5: Failure modes; Task 3. 6: Waste characterization, Duct Injection Test Facility, Muskingum River Power Plant, Beverly, Ohio
Scaleup tests and supporting research for the development of duct injection technology: Topical report No. 3, Task 3.2: Scale-up testing; Topical report No. 4, Task 3.3: Advanced configurations; Topical report No. 5, Task 3.4: Process controls; Topical report No. 6, Task 3.5: Failure modes; Task 3.6: Waste characterization, Duct Injection Test Facility, Muskingum River Power Plant, Beverly, Ohio
Related Subjects
FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS
FLUE GAS
FLY ASH
ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY
PROGRESS REPORT
NUMERICAL DATA
SORBENT INJECTION PROCESSES
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE
SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
SILICON OXIDES
PARTICULATES
SURFACE AREA
MORPHOLOGY
200202
NOXIOUS GAS AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS