June 14, 2007

Mercury Control is Commercial Hot Topic Conclusion

Not only is mercury control commercial but we are starting to resolve the site specific problems which arise as any new technology becomes widely applied. In the Hot Topic Hour yesterday Steve Derenne of We Energies talked about the current status of the We  Energies Presque Isle TOXECON system. This system continues to achieve 90 percent mercury removal except for occasional maintenance problems. These problems occur in the ash handling system, are minor, and solutions are being implemented. Brominated carbons have been selected for summer operation. They provide higher efficiency than plain carbon when the temperature increases. The cost is higher but less carbon is needed so the total increase in cost is nominal.

A mercury monitor is now being supplied with nitrogen as a purge gas and this has resulted in very steady readings. Carbon cost is around $400/lb of mercury removed and total operating and maintenance is  around $1,600/lb. These numbers are dependent on mercury content in the coal. Recently the plant has used coal that is higher in mercury content, so this favorably influences the cost figures.

Chuck Miller of DOE provided a good overview of the status of various technologies. He displayed plant by plant listings which show that five percent of the utility capacity is already in the process of installing control systems. Work with a gold catalyst ahead of wet FGD systems will be performed on a pilot basis. In plants with high elemental mercury content it is anticipated that this combination will achieve 60 to 70 percent mercury removal. There is a focus on solving remaining problems which include the impact of carbon on flyash salability and mercury in the gypsum.

Dave Thompson of Praxair provided the current status of a system which uses oxygen to create carbon on site from the coal. A  wide variety of coals have been tested and found satisfactory. In general the carbon from the process is slightly superior to purchased carbon in terms of removal efficiency.

Jean Bustard of ADA-ES addressed some of the site specific problems and ways to resolve them. The problem of SO₃ interference can be addressed by injecting carbon ahead of the air heater. This means that mercury and carbon are in contact prior to the SO₃ conditioning system. Big improvements in mercury removal were achieved in tests at plants with SO₃ conditioning by utilizing the upstream injection point. Little improvement was found with air heater injection if there was an SCR. This is because the SO₃was already formed at the injection point.

Jean also addressed the carbon supply problem. ADA-ES is going through the permit process on six carbon production facilities. Each of these facilities could cost as much as $200 million. Since permitting can require several years, the strategy is to be able to build plants in as short a period as needed by removing the permitting delays.

Sid Nelson of Sorbent Technologies provided the results of the latest testing with good performance of a concrete friendly carbon. He also displayed graphs which show that the brominated carbons actually improve opacity whereas plain carbons tend to increase opacity. This is a serious issue due to a recent court decision that these opacity increases would trigger NSR. Sorbent Technologies imports carbons and then treats them. There are substantial Asian and European sources, so Sid is confident of the ability to meet demand.

The recording of the Hot Topic webinar can be viewed through the following link

Mercury Cost and Performance        87 minutes       

The individual power point presentations are in the Mercury Decision Tree and can be viewed through the links provided below. We are also providing pictures of the speakers. These were displayed during the webinar and partially eliminate the one disadvantage of the webinar which is the personal identification. The McIlvaine web cam was also utilized and we would hope in the future that more of the presenters would install web cams on their computers. The cost is nominal. The host can make any participant a presenter with just one click of the mouse. Therefore the webcam pictures on any material on the participants desk top can be displayed.

Ø      Steve Derenne – We Energies

Continuing Decision Process For: TOXECON

TOXECON - 270 MW Demonstration – presented at Hot Topic Hour June 14, 2007 by Steve Derenne

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Derenne Steven - We Energies Mercury Control Hot Topic June 14 20070611 (2).htm

Ø      Chuck Miller – Department of Energy

Continuing Decision Process For: System Options

U.S. DOE's Hg Control Technology RD&D Program – presented at Hot Topic Hour June 14, 2007 by Chuck Miller

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Chuck Miller - US DOE Hot Topic Hour June 14 - Mercury Control Cost and Performance.pdf
 

Ø      Jean Bustard – ADA-ES

Continuing Decision Process For: Products

Meeting the Challenges for Mercury Control for Coal-Fired Power Plants

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/McIlvaine Hot Topic June 14 2007 - ADA-ES.htm

Ø      Sid Nelson – Sorbent Technologies

Continuing Decision Process For: Products

Commercial Update on B-Pac, C-Pac, H-Pac presented at Hot Topic Hour, June 14 by Sid Nelson

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Sorbent Technologies Update - McIlvaine.pdf
 

Ø      Dave Thompson – Praxair

Continuing Decision Process For: Products

On-site Production of Mercury Sorbents presented at Hot Topic Hour, June 14 by Dave Thompson

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Mercury_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Dave Thompson Praxair Hot Topic June 14.pdf
 

Lots of New Information Will be Revealed at Power-Gen Europe

We will be in Madrid at Power-Gen Europe in just 10 days from now. There is lots of unique and valuable European experience that the world needs to receive. Biomass co-firing, the problems biomass causes with SCR, the new FGD systems, and the new coal-fired boiler developments for reduced CO₂, are among the subjects which will be addressed in the papers and at the stands.

We will be conducting a number of digital audio interviews and taking digital pictures as we have done at Electric Power and EUEC. We will also be reviewing the papers. Here are the ones which we selected for their high degree of interest.