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

Title: DOE/NETL's phase II mercury control technology field testing program: preliminary economic analysis of activated carbon injection

Abstract

Based on results of field testing conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL), this article provides preliminary costs for mercury control via conventional activated carbon injection (ACI), brominated ACI, and conventional ACI coupled with the application of a sorbent enhancement additive (SEA) to coal prior to combustion. The economic analyses are reported on a plant-specific basis in terms of the cost required to achieve low (50%), mid (70%), and high (90%) levels of mercury removal 'above and beyond' the baseline mercury removal achieved by existing emission control equipment. In other words, the levels of mercury control are directly attributable to ACI. Mercury control costs via ACI have been amortized on a current dollar basis. Using a 20-year book life, levelized costs for the incremental increase in cost of electricity (COE), expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour (mills/kWh), and the incremental cost of mercury control, expressed in dollars per pound of mercury removed ($/lb Hg removed), have been calculated for each level of ACI mercury control. For this analysis, the increase in COE varied from 0.14 mills/kWh to 3.92 mills/kWh. Meanwhile, the incremental cost of mercury control ranged from $3810/lb Hg removed to $166 000/lb Hg removed.more » 13 refs., 4 figs., 3 tabs.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20862368
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Environmental Science and Technology; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: Andrew.Jones@netl.doe.gov
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT; 20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS; MERCURY; AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; FIELD TESTS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ACTIVATED CARBON; SORBENT INJECTION PROCESSES; COST; REMOVAL; OPERATING COST; MAINTENANCE; PERFORMANCE; CAPITALIZED COST; POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT; ADDITIVES; COAL; FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS; USA; COAL RANK; FLUE GAS; SUBBITUMINOUS COAL; BITUMINOUS COAL; LIGNITE; BROMINE

Citation Formats

Andrew P. Jones, Jeffrey W. Hoffmann, Dennis N. Smith, Thomas J. Feeley III, and James T. Murphy. DOE/NETL's phase II mercury control technology field testing program: preliminary economic analysis of activated carbon injection. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1021/es0617340.
Andrew P. Jones, Jeffrey W. Hoffmann, Dennis N. Smith, Thomas J. Feeley III, & James T. Murphy. DOE/NETL's phase II mercury control technology field testing program: preliminary economic analysis of activated carbon injection. United States. doi:10.1021/es0617340.
Andrew P. Jones, Jeffrey W. Hoffmann, Dennis N. Smith, Thomas J. Feeley III, and James T. Murphy. Thu . "DOE/NETL's phase II mercury control technology field testing program: preliminary economic analysis of activated carbon injection". United States. doi:10.1021/es0617340.
@article{osti_20862368,
title = {DOE/NETL's phase II mercury control technology field testing program: preliminary economic analysis of activated carbon injection},
author = {Andrew P. Jones and Jeffrey W. Hoffmann and Dennis N. Smith and Thomas J. Feeley III and James T. Murphy},
abstractNote = {Based on results of field testing conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL), this article provides preliminary costs for mercury control via conventional activated carbon injection (ACI), brominated ACI, and conventional ACI coupled with the application of a sorbent enhancement additive (SEA) to coal prior to combustion. The economic analyses are reported on a plant-specific basis in terms of the cost required to achieve low (50%), mid (70%), and high (90%) levels of mercury removal 'above and beyond' the baseline mercury removal achieved by existing emission control equipment. In other words, the levels of mercury control are directly attributable to ACI. Mercury control costs via ACI have been amortized on a current dollar basis. Using a 20-year book life, levelized costs for the incremental increase in cost of electricity (COE), expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour (mills/kWh), and the incremental cost of mercury control, expressed in dollars per pound of mercury removed ($/lb Hg removed), have been calculated for each level of ACI mercury control. For this analysis, the increase in COE varied from 0.14 mills/kWh to 3.92 mills/kWh. Meanwhile, the incremental cost of mercury control ranged from $3810/lb Hg removed to $166 000/lb Hg removed. 13 refs., 4 figs., 3 tabs.},
doi = {10.1021/es0617340},
journal = {Environmental Science and Technology},
number = 4,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Feb 15 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Thu Feb 15 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • DOE/NETL initiated R & D programs on controlling mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants are discussed. 6 refs., 2 figs.
  • The U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL) is conducting a comprehensive research and development program directed at advancing the performance and economics of mercury control technologies for coal-fired power plants. This article presents results from ongoing full-scale and slipstream field tests of several mercury control technologies. 15 refs., 4 figs., 3 tabs.
  • Efforts are underway to provide more cost-effective options for coal-fired power plants to meet stringent emissions limits. Several recently completed DOE/NETL R & D projects were successful in achieving the short-term goal of controlling NOx emissions at 0.15 lb/MMBtu using in-furnace technologies. In anticipation of CAIR and possible congressional multi-pollutant legislation, DOE/NETL issued a solicitation in 2004 to continue R & D efforts to meet the 2007 goal and to initiate R & D targeting the 2010 goal of achieving 0.10 lb/MMBtu using in-furnace technologies in lieu of SCR. As a result, four new NOx R & D projects aremore » currently underway and will be completed over the next three years. The article outlines: ALSTOM's Project on developing an enhanced combustion, low NOx burner for tangentially-fired boilers; Babcock and Wilcox's demonstration of an advanced NOx control technology to achieve an emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu while burning bituminous coal for both wall- and cyclone-fired boilers; Reaction Engineering International's (REI) full-scale field testing of advanced layered technology application (ALTA) NOx control for cyclone fired boilers; and pilot-scale testing of ALTA NOx control of coal-fired boilers also by REI. DOE/NETL has begun an R & D effort to optimize performance of SCR controls to achieve the long term goal of 0.01 lb/MMBtu NOx emission rate by 2020. 1 fig.« less
  • The primary objective of the project was to evaluate the long-term feasibility of using activated carbon injection (ACI) options to effectively reduce mercury emissions from Texas electric generation plants in which a blend of lignite and subbituminous coal is fired. Field testing of ACI options was performed on one-quarter of Unit 2 at TXU's Big Brown Steam Electric Station. Unit 2 has a design output of 600 MW and burns a blend of 70% Texas Gulf Coast lignite and 30% subbituminous Powder River Basin coal. Big Brown employs a COHPAC configuration, i.e., high air-to-cloth baghouses following cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs),more » for particulate control. When sorbent injection is added between the ESP and the baghouse, the combined technology is referred to as TOXECON{trademark} and is patented by the Electric Power Research Institute in the United States. Key benefits of the TOXECON configuration include better mass transfer characteristics of a fabric filter compared to an ESP for mercury capture and contamination of only a small percentage of the fly ash with AC. The field testing consisted of a baseline sampling period, a parametric screening of three sorbent injection options, and a month long test with a single mercury control technology. During the baseline sampling, native mercury removal was observed to be less than 10%. Parametric testing was conducted for three sorbent injection options: injection of standard AC alone; injection of an EERC sorbent enhancement additive, SEA4, with ACI; and injection of an EERC enhanced AC. Injection rates were determined for all of the options to achieve the minimum target of 55% mercury removal as well as for higher removals approaching 90%. Some of the higher injection rates were not sustainable because of increased differential pressure across the test baghouse module. After completion of the parametric testing, a month long test was conducted using the enhanced AC at a nominal rate of 1.5 lb/Macf. During the time that enhanced AC was injected, the average mercury removal for the month long test was approximately 74% across the test baghouse module. ACI was interrupted frequently during the month long test because the test baghouse module was bypassed frequently to relieve differential pressure. The high air-to-cloth ratio of operations at this unit results in significant differential pressure, and thus there was little operating margin before encountering differential pressure limits, especially at high loads. This limited the use of sorbent injection as the added material contributes to the overall differential pressure. This finding limits sustainable injection of AC without appropriate modifications to the plant or its operations. Handling and storage issues were observed for the TOXECON ash-AC mixture. Malfunctioning equipment led to baghouse dust hopper plugging, and storage of the stagnant material at flue gas temperatures resulted in self-heating and ignition of the AC in the ash. In the hoppers that worked properly, no such problems were reported. Economics of mercury control at Big Brown were estimated for as-tested scenarios and scenarios incorporating changes to allow sustainable operation. This project was funded under the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory project entitled 'Large-Scale Mercury Control Technology Field Testing Program--Phase II'.« less
  • Activated carbon injection (ACI) is one technology being developed to absorb mercury from mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants. In 2003/04, the USDOE and NETL selected 14 projects to test and evaluate mercury control technologies. While field testing is still ongoing, DOE/NETL recently completed an economic analysis of mercury control for six test sites spanning three ACI variations - conventional powdered activated carbon (PAC), brominated PAC and conventional PAC combined with a sorbent enhancement additive (SEA) applied to the coal. To evaluate the progress of the field testing program and discern the performance of ACI, a data adjustment methodology wasmore » developed to account for baseline methane capture. This data were used to perform economic analyses to achieve low, mid and high levels of mercury control. The costs are given in the article. Full details are available on the DOE/NETL website, www.netl.doe.gov. 2 figs., 1 photo.« less