Internal Data Search by Event Calendar

Sorbent Traps vs. Mercury CEMS Webinar - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

The Hot Topic Hour yesterday included an extensive and friendly debate over the results of sorbent traps and mercury CEMS. The differences of opinion were about gaseous mercury measurement.

Revision Date:  5/8/2014

Tags:  221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Durag, Ohio Lumex, Cooper Environmental, Andover Technology Partners, Carbonxt, Sorbent Trap, Multi-metal, CEMS, Mercury

CEMS has advantages by reducing Activated Carbon Expenditures by Heather Bryne, Carbonxt - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

Heather Bryne of Carbonxt explained the complexities in controlling the amount of sorbent needed at any point in time. Fuel and process variations make it highly desirable to continuously measure mercury rather than rely on the delayed information obtained with sorbent traps.

Revision Date:  5/8/2014

Tags:  221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Carbonxt, CEMS, Mercury

Durag Mercury CEMS proven in the rugged Cement Applications and have advantages for Coal-fired Power Plants by Rich Hovan, Durag - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

Rich Hovan, Durag, cited the benefits of their extractive system using dual beam photometer and said they are the first to use certified bottled Hg calibration gas bottles.

Revision Date:  5/8/2014

Tags:  221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Durag, CEMS, Mercury

Multi Metals Analyzer can measure Mercury and the Other Toxic Metals by Krag Petterson, Cooper Environmental - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

Krag Petterson, Cooper Environmental showed data demonstrating that the multi-metals analyzer does provide accurate mercury measurements. But it also can measure the other toxic metals. So it is an alternative to the low PM2.5 surrogate option. For a utility with a precipitator which can meet the requirements otherwise this is an attractive option.

Revision Date:  5/8/2014

Tags:  221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Cooper Environmental, Mercury, Multi-metal

Mercury CEMS and Sorbent Traps Measurements vary because of Particulate Mercury by Jim Staudt of Andover Technology Partners - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

Jim provided the following comparison between CEMS and Sorbent Traps - Method 30B includes HgP, which results in overestimation of gaseous Hg that may be significant at MATS Hg levels but not enough to impact RATA pass or fail  Differences in HgT up to about 0.50µg/Nm3 (typically less, but sometimes more) may be explained by HgP when controlling Hg with ACI and/or Br. Will vary somewhat by coal Hg levels, PM emissions, ACI injection, etc.  Bromine “interference” should not be a concern except possibly under extremely high furnace Br injection rates and is not a concern for brominated activated carbon.

Revision Date:  5/8/2014

Tags:  221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Andover Technology Partners, Sorbent Trap, Mercury CEMS