BIOS, ABSTRACTS, PHOTOS

HOT TOPIC HOUR NOVEMBER 21, 2013

“Wet vs. Dry ESP”

STEVE JAASUND - LUNDBERG

BIO:  Steven A. Jaasund is Manager, Geoenergy Products for Lundberg in Bellevue, Washington.  Mr. Jaasund has a BS in Chemical Engineering from Lafayette College, an MS in Engineering (Air Resources) from the University of Washington and is a registered professional engineer in Arizona.  He has over 40 years of professional experience in the field of emission control technology with a primary emphasis on wet ESPs and related technologies.

ABSTRACT: “Wet ESPs for Improved Particulate Control”

Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 there has been an unmistakable trend toward more restrictive emission control regulations.  The present PM_2.5 ambient air quality standards are just a stop along the way.  More requirements are to be expected.  Until now dry emission collection technologies has sufficed.  However, the capability and the economic advantage of dry systems is reaching limits and, in many cases, wet control technology may prove to be the better choice. This presentation will outline the advantages wet control technology from both a performance and economic point of view.

JAMES “BUZZ” REYNOLDS – SIEMENS

 

BIO: James "Buzz" Reynolds is Vice-President of Wet ESP Technology at Siemens Environmental Systems and Service in Pittsburgh, PA. He is on the Board of Directors of the World Pollution Control Association and was formerly President and CEO of Croll-Reynolds Clean Air Technologies for 10 years, an industrial air pollution control supplier. He has authored articles on the WESP technology and is a co-owner of several patents. Most recently he has been involved with three of the newest coal-fired power plants in the USA that have installed WESP technology as a part of their overall Air Quality Control Solution to meet stringent emissions limits for new plants.

ABSTRACT: "While wet and dry ESPs retain similar high voltage and collection systems and share similar physical characteristics, many differences exist; attributable mainly to the inherent design of the technology to address various size particles.  Dry ESPs are used to capture coarse, filterable particulate matter (PM₁₀) such as flyash. Wet ESPs capture sub-micron particulate matter, condensables and water mist commonly referred to as PM_2.5. Where flyash characteristics play a large role in the sizing of dry ESPs, this is not the case with wet ESPs as they are not dependent upon particulate resistivity. This presentation compares the two technologies and Siemens’ experience with the technologies."

PAUL LEANZA – POLLUTION CONTROL SERVICES

BIO: Paul is the Senior Technical Engineer for Post Combustion Control Equipment, with Pollution Control Services, Inc.  PCS was started in 1998 to provide experienced on-site consultant services for Wet-FGD Scrubbers, WESP, ESP, Baghouse, SCR and Dry Injection Systems.  Paul started with Forry, Inc in 1988, which was a major supplier of precipitator automatic voltage and rapper controls.  Paul also worked for Southern Environmental, Inc and TRK Engineering prior to joining PCS in 2001.

ABSTRACT: This presentation will focus on evaluating existing precipitators’ ability to meet the 0.030lb/MMBtu regulations.  The majority of existing ESP’s are not operating under their original design basis.  Many existing ESPs have not been upgraded with modern operating philosophies or equipment.  Taking a holistic approach in evaluating the precipitator in its current operating parameters permit a viable plan forward as the operating parameters have been modified as additional post combustion control equipment like SO₃, NO_x, and Hg control have been incorporated over the last few years.