Applying a Recognized HWC MACT Technology for CO 2 Capture with Low Energy Consumption COAL-GEN 2011...
-
Upload
fredrick-newman -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Applying a Recognized HWC MACT Technology for CO 2 Capture with Low Energy Consumption COAL-GEN 2011...
Applying a Recognized HWC MACT Technology for CO2 Capture
with Low Energy Consumption
COAL-GEN ― 2011
Robert E. Tang — CEFCO Global Clean Energy, LLC
- 2 -
Outline of Presentation
• Current U.S. EPA’s MACT Compliance Issues and Carbon Capture’s Energy Consumption
• Conventional BACT vs. CEFCO MACT Technologies
• How the CEFCO Process Works
• Current Status of CEFCO Technology & Summary
- 3 -
The Issue
• Current BACT Technologies for Carbon Capture
• Need to achieve MACT standards to provide 10 ppm of SO2 and 5 ppm of NOX in Flue Gas for processing
• High Costs: Energy Penalty (33+% on Performance plus additional Parasitic Load)
• Current BACT users must combine multiple overlapping technologies to come close to meeting MACT requirements
• CEFCO’s modularized “segregated-capture Modules” customizable to retrofit Power Plants based on needs
- 4 -
CEFCO’s Innovative U.S. MACT Solution
• Use Ewan’s shockwave “free-jet collision scrubbing” to capture MACT multi-pollutants*
• Cooper Process to convert all “captured pollutants” into recovered, valuable End-Products for sale
• US Patent Office Issued on November 30, 2010 under: 7,842,264
• CEFCO Users benefit from:
• 1) Complying with announced EPA’s MACT and HAP Requirements
• 2) Producing valuable End-Products – no longer “cost-center”
+
=
- 5 -
Power Engineering:“Patent Rights Will Soon be Available for Novel Emission Control Process”August 2009
“Supersonic Emissions Control”January 2009
Modern Power Systems:“Sending Shockwaves Through the Multi-Pollutant Control Business”October 2010 issue
Power Engineering International:“Ewan and Cooper Processes Unite in ‘Paradigm Shifting’ Patent”November 2010 issue
Recent Major Industry Publications:
- 6 -
CEFCO Patent Title – Key Concepts
Title of the Patent: • “Process and Apparatus for Carbon Capture and Elimination of
Multi-Pollutants in Flue Gas from Hydrocarbon Fuel Sources and Recovery of Multiple By-Products”
Key Concepts:• Elimination of Multi-Pollutants (EPA’s MACT, or near “Zero
Emissions”)• Low “Energy Penalty” or “Parasitic Load”• Recovery of Commercially-Pure Sellable Products • Pollution Control becomes “profit-generator” instead of “cost-
center”• 4 Modules for separate capture of each of 4 major groups of
Pollutants
- 7 -
Supersonic “Free Jet Collision” Shockwave Effect (Intense Pressure and Energy)
Aerodynamic Recovery of ∆P and ∆T
Subsonic “Free Jet” EffectEwan’s Subatmospheric Reaction Zone(Adiabatic Conditions)
t = time in secondsP = PressureT = Temperature °F
(∆ T)(∆ P)
100°
t1 t2 tm0
X,000°
300°
200°
Ambient
tm = time in minutes
Conventional Thermodynamics and ChemistryReaction Zone for Target
Capture/Conversion by Reagent
Comparison of Parasitic Load or Energy Penalty
- 8 -
Seeing Shockwaves Being Formed
Image: Schlieren Photography – multiple shockwaves generated by shuttle craft at much higher Mach speeds
Image: Airplane beginning to cross sound barrier at Mach 1.0, showing first shockwave
- 9 -
Free-Jet Reaction Zone
Image: Schlieren Photography of Free-Jet Collision Zone inside adiabatic reaction chamber under CEFCO Technology
- 10 -
Shockwave-Induced Intimate Mixing
Image: Schlieren Photography showing shockwave-induced intimate inter-mixing and re-combination of two gas-phase molecules
Inter-mixing
Re-combination
Shockwave envelopment
- 11 -
CEFCO Process Uses Supersonic Shockwaves
CFD image: Accelerating steam to form a Shockwave
Image: Beginning to form supersonic shockwave at Mach 1.0
and will move into much higher Machs attacking the flue gas in the
CEFCO Reactors System
Conventional BACT Processes’ Speeds = 50 ft/sec to several hundred ft/sec
Reaching 1st Shockwave at Mach 1.0 ≥ 1,200 ft/sec
- 12 -
CEFCO’s Unique Reaction Mechanism
• All flue gas must pass downward through Shockwaves “no escape” from “free-jet collision” and capture effect
• Pollutants are first captured using Physics then converted into valuable end-products by using Chemistry
- 13 -
Technology Flow Diagram
- 14 -
SRS (SOX) Module for Sulfur Capture
• MACT Compliance — capturing over 99% of SO2 by using KOH as reagent
• KOH = reagent to make Potassium Sulfate Fertilizer, a very desirable Fertilizer
• Sodium will work, but Sodium Sulfate is not a desirable by-product salt
• Hess’s Law:
- 15 -
SRS (SOX) Module – Continued
Reactions inside the Aerodynamic System (Effect of Hess’s Law):
• SO2 + 2 KOH (reagent) → K2SO3 + 2 H2O (Reaction Product)
• SO2 + H2O → H2SO3 (Intermediate-Transient Product)
• H2SO3 + 2 KOH (reagent) → K2SO3 + 2 H2O (Final Reaction Product)
Conventional Oxidation Reactions Forming Final Stable Product:
• 2 K2SO3 + O2 (or + 2H2O2) → 2 K2SO4 (or + 2H2O) (Reaction Product)
- 16 -
NRS (NO, NOX) Module for NOX Capture
• MACT Compliance — capturing over 99% of NO2 by using KOH as reagent
• KOH = reagent to make Potassium Nitrate Fertilizer, which may become the replacement for Ammonium Nitrate
• Sodium will work, but Sodium Nitrate is not a desirable by-product salt
• Hess’s Law:
- 17 -
NRS (NO, NOX) Module – Continued
Reactions inside the Aerodynamic System (Effect of Hess’s Law):
• 2 NO2 + H2O → HNO2 + HNO3 (Intermediate-Transient Product)
• 2 NO2 + H2O2 (reagent) → 2 HNO3 (Intermediate-Transient Product)
• KOH (reagent) + HNO3 → KNO3 + H2O (Final Reaction Product)
Transient Reactions:
• KOH (reagent) + HNO2 → KNO2 + H2O
• KOH (reagent) + HNO2 + ½ O2 → KNO3 + H2O (Final Reaction Product)
• See: “Oxidation” and “Exothermic” Reactions
Conventional Oxidation Reactions after Forming Final Stable Product:
• KNO2 (if not fully-oxidized) + H2O2 (reagent) ( or + O2 ) → KNO3 + H2O (Reaction Product)
- 18 -
CRS (CO2) Module for Carbon Capture
Reactions inside the Aerodynamic System (Effect of Hess’s Law):
• CO2 + KOH (reagent) → KHCO3 (Carbon Capture)
• CO2 + K2CO3 (reagent) + H2O → 2 KHCO3 (Carbon Capture)
Transient Reactions (Effect of Hess’s Law):
• CO2 + H2O → H2CO3
• KOH (reagent) + H2CO3 → KHCO3 + H2O (Carbon Capture)
Conventional Decarbonation = Liberation of Carbon Dioxide Reaction:
• Heat + 2 KHCO3 → K2CO3 (regenerated) + CO2 (liberated gas) + H2O
Note: K2CO3 re-generation process liberates CO2 as gas and produces supply of recovered water for many subsequent uses
- 19 -
Pilot Plant in Wichita Falls, Texas: Jan. 2011
• Began Installation in Jan. 2011
• Completed and currently operated by Peerless Manufacturing Co.
- 20 -
CEFCO Aerodynamic Reactors and Aero-Coalescers: Feb 2011
• 3-10 tons/hr in Mass of Flue Gas
• 1-3 MW equivalent of Coal-Fired Flue Gas
• 4 x Separate and Distinct Modules
• Pictured: Chairman Don Degling and President Robert Tang
- 21 -
EPA and DOE Reports on Ewan Technology (1974 to 1986)
Date Reference No. Report Title Emissions Targets Description of Tests Performance ConclusionApril 1, 1974 EPA-650/2-74-028
(Dale L. Harmon, EPA-NERC-RTP)
Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning System Evaluation
0.03 micron to 5.0 micron (EPA Method 5)
Steam-Hydro Patent invented by T.K. Ewan sold and assigned to Lone Star
Steel (Div. of US Steel)
“90.0% at 0.01 micron . . . . 99.9% at 0.5 micron and 99.99%
at 1.0 micron”
Oct. 1976 NCASI ― SpecialRTP
Kraft Recovery of TRS Emissions
Total Reduced Sulfur, H2S, CO2
“. . . near instantaneous . . . tremendous surface area for gas-liquid contact . . .
50 x 10-3 sec.”
“TRS emissions were reduced to less than 2 ppm during total
run”, “quite successful . . . it is recommended to test for SO2
removal also”Sept. 1977 EPA- 600/2-77 -193 under
Dennis C. Drehmel, EPA, Research Triangle Park
EPA/600/13 Code Contract 68-02-2190: Particulates, H2S, SO2
“High performance with low energy requirement is achieved by the use of free-
jet . . .”
“ . . . well below the 0.0052 grains /SCF...effective removal of hydrophobic fumed silica having a near uniform particle diameter of 0.007 microns. This material rejects water. Analysis of the captured material shows the particulate not wetted, but
encapsulated in a film of water.”
Feb. 10, 1986 DCN 86-213-071-03 Radian Corp. Technical and Economic Evaluation for
MSW Incineration
MSW, PM, HCl, SO2, SO3 “proven below 0.02 grains/scf”, “achieved 99% HCl removal”. “using slaked
lime reagent . . . 95% SO2
removal”
“shows overall capital cost and total annual operating cost
advantage over spray scrubbing systems, using either ESP or FF particulate matter collection”
- 22 -
EPA and DOE Reports on Ewan Technology (1986 to 1996)
Date Reference No. Report Title Emissions Targets Description of Tests Performance ConclusionJuly, 1986 EPA- 600/S2-86 -011
[this is a head-to-head test vs. equipment and
technology provided by ETS, Inc. and Vulcan
Engineering]
EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Lab,
Cincinnati, OH
APCD, PM, HCl, SO2, SO3 “supersonic tandem nozzle . . .”, “most effective of the versions tested for control of submicron particulate
matter”
Page 2: “uranium hexafluoride and its hydrolysis products with
particulate removal efficiency consistently exceeding 99%”; Page 3: “chloride removal of
99% or better should be expected for any version of this
unit [vs. both competitors].”
Sept. 1992 DOE PNL-8281 DE-AC06-76RlO 1830 by Battelle Memorial Institute
Hanford Radioactive Waste Incineration
Performance per Office of Solid Waste Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive 9335.3-01
“ . . . cesium-137 was greater than 99.98%”; other metals,
acids and organics “greater than 99.99%”
August 1993 DE-AC01-EW300-30 DOE/MWIP-3 by SAIC PNL ― Idaho Labs undisclosed undisclosed1993 WSRC-TR-93-00623 Final Report: Consolidated
Incineration Facility by Westinghouse Savannah
River Corporation
CIF, POHCs (Principal Organics Hazardous
Constituents), Metals, TVOC, Chlorides, PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons)
CEMS measures: O2, CO2, NOx, CO, and SO2.
Continuous recording by strip charts. The CEMS
monitored both the PCC and SCC flue gases
Destruction “greater than 99.99998%”
Feb. 1996 EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0164
Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Vol. I
Page 3-17, Section 3.4.2.2, Page 3-58, Figure 3-14
- 23 -
EPA and DOE Reports on Ewan Technology (1997 to 2002)
Date Reference No. Report Title Emissions Targets Description of Tests Performance Conclusion1997 CERCLIS #: MOD980685226
EPA Remedial Project Manager: Robert W. Field U.S. EPA Region 7 Kansas
City, KS 66101
On-Site Incineration at the Times Beach Superfund
Site (Times Beach, Missouri)
Dioxins, TCDD (“Agent Orange”)
CEMS measures: O2, CO2, NOx, CO, and SO2. Acids,
metals and minerals. Continuous recording.
MACT Compliance. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): DRE of 99.9999% for TCDD. Stack gas monitoring was
conducted for oxygen and carbon monoxide in accordance with 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart
O.”
July 1998 DOE/ID-10651, Rev.1 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment
Technologies Handbook
PM, Hg, ROW (Radioactive Organic Waste), BRW (Blended Radioactive
Waste)
Consolidated Incineration under SVM (Semi-Volatile
Metals) + LVM (Low Volatile Metals) Standards
MACT Compliance, and Toxic Substances Control Act
Incinerator (TSCAI)
May 22, 2002 40 CFR §63.1209 (m) and §63.1209 (o)
A Guide to Phase I MACT Compliance ― May 22,
2002
PM, acids, HCl and Chlorine Gas
“hydrosonic, collision, or free-jet wet scrubber”
unspecified DOD/DOE docs controlled At National Labs Internal GOV official and formal EPA request
EPA published its “Guide to Phase I MACT Compliance” for Hazardous Waste Combustors MACT ― May 22, 2002
Ewan’s Technology was recognized and codified in 40 CFR §63.109 et al.
- 24 -
Technology Summary
• Transformative MACT technology for Multi-Pollutants and Carbon Capture
• Pollution Control as “profit-generator” instead of “cost-center”
• Low “Energy Penalty” or “Parasitic Load”• Eliminate plant shutdowns and reduce toxic landfills• Customizable Modular Design for retrofitting Power Plants
according to true MACT Compliance Needs• Environmental responsibility: near “Zero Emissions” MACT
can be achieved
Questions & Answers
Thank you very much for your attention.
Please Contact Us At:
For Robert Tang: [email protected]
Website: www.cefcoglobal.com