“Coal Selection and the Impact on Power Plant Emissions and Operations” was Hot Topic Hour February 26

The composition (sulfur, mercury, chlorine, ash, nitrogen) of the coal burned in a boiler can have a very significant impact on both the stack emissions and the control equipment utilized to meet regulatory requirements. Four experts provided insights on this subject in the Hot Topic Hour yesterday.

The speakers were:

Jeff Quick, geologist at the Utah Geological Survey, described the correlations between coal types from different geographic areas and emissions. He showed that CO₂ emissions vary more within rank classes than between ranks. On the average bituminous coal has lower CO₂ emissions than subbituminous or lignite but some bituminous coals have higher emissions. He displayed some very informative graphs indicating mercury, arsenic, and selenium content by location.

Craig Vogel, Project Manager at CH2M Hill, convinced the participants of the substantial effect of coal quality on power plant stack emissions. He pointed out that a high proportion of the NO_x is fuel bound. In fact, selection of some coals is being made more on the nitrogen content than on the sulfur.

Richard McCartney, Senior Material Handling Engineer at Roberts and Schaefer Company, thoroughly covered the options for coal blending and the equipment needed for small retrofits as well as large new plants. This is based on five current and three future blending projects.

Kevin Gordon, Coal Analyzer Applications Manager for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Process Instrument Division, described instruments for analyzing the components in coal including chlorine. The fire retardant added to PRB contains enough chlorine to cause inaccuracy in the measurement of sulfur and other properties. But this generated the question as to whether the addition of chlorine to oxidize mercury could be combined with the fire retardant need. In any case the instrument and the accompanying software could be used to help vary chlorine addition to coal to provide maximum mercury oxidation.

Bios, Photos and Abstracts can be accessed at February 26, 2009, Bios, Abstracts.htm

The individual power points are in the FGD Decision Tree and can be viewed as follows:

Jeff Quick - Utah Geological Survey

Craig Vogel – CH2M Hill

FGD Continuing Decision Process For: Coal/Combustion Variables

Geographic Variation of USA Coal Quality: Environmental Significance, presented by Jeff Quick, geologist, Utah Geological Survey. Hot Topic Hour February 26, 2009.

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Jeff Quick - Utah Geological.pdf
 

Coal Selection and Impact on Emissions, presented by Craig Vogel, CH2M Hill. Hot Topic Hour February 26, 2009.

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Craig Vogel - CH2MHill.pdf

 Richard McCartney – Roberts & Schaefer

FGD Continuing Decision Process For: Products

Power Plant Fuel Blending with PRB Coal, presented by Richard McCartney, Roberts & Schaefer, Hot Topic Hour February 26, 2009.

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Richard McCartney - Roberts & Schaefer 2-26-09.pdf

Kevin Gordon – ThermoFisher Scientific

FGD Continuing Decision Process For: Products

Online Coal Analyzers in the US Utility Industry, presented by Kevin Gordon, ThermoFisher Scientific. Hot Topic Hour February 26, 2009.
http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/FGD_Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/Kevin Gordon - Thermo Fisher Scientific.pdf