Limestone Scrubber Design was the Hot Topic, June 26, 2008

 

Europe and the U.S. are both ratcheting down the emission limits for SO2. This creates new demands on limestone scrubbers. Speakers from two continents reviewed the past and predicted the future. The biographies and pictures of the presenters are shown at bios and photos.  

 

Jan Middelkamp of Kema summarized 25 years of FGD experience in the Netherlands, where 4,000 MW of coal-fired power plants are equipped with scrubbers. The demand for higher efficiency has resulted in some units switching to chalk. Co-firing of up to 10 percent biomass is now typical. Elimination of gas-to-gas reheaters has improved efficiency (no leakage of air). The present LCPD/Bees is a limit of 200 mg/m3 (0.15 lbs/MMBtu, but if biomass is co-fired the limits are lower.

 

Wastewater discharge requirements are stringent with mercury limits of 3 mg/m3. Three new pulverized coal-fired and one IGCC system power projects are planned. Emissions of SO2 will be limited to 40 mg/m3. But carbon capture may dictate a combined maximum emission value of 10 ppm SO2 and SO3, so they are looking at advanced scrubbing plus WESPS.

 

Paul Croteau of Babcock Power showed a typical 600 MW FGD site. The absorber island is 120’ x 140’ and a common building for reagent size reduction and dewatering is 160’ x 80’. Limestone requirements are 35 t/h. Power requirements are 10-18 MW. Pressure drop across the system is 7-8 inches w.g.

 

Procurement is one of the biggest scheduling problems. It can take up to 18 months for delivery of ball mills and other critical components.  Engineering takes six months, construction nine months, and commissioning two months. Everything considered, the utility should think in terms of four years from project inception to startup.

 

Anne Minga of Kuttner provided details on both lime and sodium as FGD reagents for dry systems. Sodium has advantages particularly with capital cost, as you eliminate the spray drier. A number of dry systems with recirculation of reagent have been supplied for European waste-to-energy and other plants.

 

Limestone scrubber decisions are impacted by Hg, CO2, HCl and toxics capture plus implications of co-firing biomass. We are reporting elsewhere in this Alert the revised permit for Wise County which went from 3,300 tons of SO2 to just 603 tpy. The CO2 capture could lead to a requirement for greater than 99 percent SO2 removal where the plant wants to be “CO2 ready.”An analysis of tray, spray and sump scrubbers was provided by Bob McIlvaine and summarized below.

 

  

Parameter

Tray

Spray

Sump

Pump power

medium

High

low

Fan power

higher

lower

higher

Plugging potential

higher

lower

higher

Height

lower

higher

lower

Experience

2nd

1st

3rd

Suppliers

Babcock & Wilcox, Wheelabrator

Alstom

Babcock

Mitsubishi

Chiyoda

Alstom

Particulate removal

higher

lower

higher

Biggest concern

Tray pluggage

Nozzle pluggage

Level control

Efficiency increase

2nd tray

More spray banks

Higher level differential

 

 

Slides can be viewed in the FGD Decision Tree as follows:

 

Paul Croteau – Babcock Power

 

Start

Scrub

Physical

Systems

Calcium

Wet Calcium

Subsystems

SO2 Removal System

Absorber Tower

Spray Tower

Source

Babcock Power

Products

 

This is the Final FGD Decision Process For: Products


Limestone scrubber design presented by Paul Croteau. Hot Topic Hour June 26, 2008.
http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Paul Croteau Babcock Power.pdf

 

 

Jan Middelkamp - KEMA

Start

Scrub

Physical

Systems

Calcium

Wet Calcium

Overview

FGD Continuing Decision Process For: Overview

Presented by Jan Middelkamp - KEMA Hot Topic Hour June 26, 2008

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/FGD operation in the Netherlands.ppt
 

 

 

Ann Minga Neudorfer - Kuttner

Start

Scrub

Physical

Systems

Calcium

Dry Calcium

Dry Sorbent Injection

Sources

Kuttner

Products

 

FGD Continuing Decision Process For: Products

 

Dry Sorption CaOH2 vs. NaHCO3 062608.pdf Presented by Ann Minga Neudorfer Hot Topic Hour June 26, 2008.

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Kuttner presentation to McIlvaine dry sorption CaOH2 vs NaHCO3 062608.pdf