Skip to main content
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

An examination of bias in Method 2 measurements under controlled non-axial flow conditions

Conference ·
OSTI ID:617857
 [1]; ;  [2]
  1. RMB Consulting & Research, Inc., Raleigh, NC (United States)
  2. Fossil Energy Research Corp., Laguna Hills, CA (United States)
Since the installation of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) under the Acid Rain Rule (40 CFR Part 75), many utilities have found that CEMS are recording consistently higher heat input and SO{sub 2} emissions than conventional methods (input/output and output/loss). This discrepancy, which appears prevalent across the industry, is causing utilities to report greater heat input and SO{sub 2} and CO{sub 2} emissions than are believed to be justified. This paper describes {open_quotes}swirl tunnel{close_quotes} tests recently completed as part of an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) research project initiated to identify the cause(s) for high CEMS measurements. The testing was performed in a precision flow facility with custom fabricated swirl vanes for inducing different tangential flow components, variable speed fan control for flow rate adjustment and a venturi section for total flow measurement. Results are presented from tests designed to systematically assess the effect of non-axial flow components on EPA Methods 1 and 2, the relative suitability of alternative multidimensional pitot probes and the relative accuracy of pressure reading instrumentation.
OSTI ID:
617857
Report Number(s):
CONF-970145--
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English