Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic Lime Presented by Carmeuse North...

Performance and Benefits Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic LimeUsing Thiosorbic Lime

Presented byCarmeuse North America

Carmeuse North America makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this document.

LIME 2

North America

BACKGROUND ON CARMEUSE

LIME 3

North America

Carmeuse North America• Part of the Carmeuse Group• Joint Venture of:

60% Carmeuse S.A. (Belgium) 40% Lafarge S. A. (France)

• Carmeuse $1 billion privately-held lime company founded

in 1860 60 plants in 14 countries

• Lafarge $11 billion publicly-held construction materials

company founded in 1833 Operations in 60 countries

- Background

LIME 4

North AmericaLime Plant Locations in U.S. and Canada

CarmeuseNorth Americaplant locations

While Carmeuse North America is the leading supplier, FGD lime is widely available

- Background

LIME 5

North America

Carmeuse Provides:• Thiosorbic® Lime for flue gas

desulfurization (FGD) in coal-fired plants• Access to Thiosorbic process technology

Carmeuse works in cooperation with major FGD equipment suppliers to provide the best system for the customers requirements

• Technical support for FGD users FGD start-up, operator training, and

operations support Over 25 years experience in FGD in coal-

fired power plants

- Background

LIME 6

North America

BENEFITS OF THETHIOSORBIC FGD PROCESS

- Thiosorbic® Process

LIME 7

North AmericaBenefits of Thiosorbic FGD process• Ultra-low SO2 emissions with high-sulfur fuel

99% SO2 removal with high-sulfur coal

• Lower FGD capital cost• Lower FGD power consumption• Valuable by-products: wallboard-quality

gypsum and magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH)2]

• 25 year record of reliability• 17,700 MW base of experience


LIME 8

North AmericaThiosorbic Wet FGD Applications 16 Stations – 34 Units – 17,700 MW

1 2

4115

6

13

78 9

10

12

OHIO RIVER

1

2

3

6

7

8

9

1011

12

15

16

5

4

LG&E (E.ON)G reen 1,2 - 487 M W

Henderson 1,2 - 365 M W

CinergyEast Bend 2 - 669 M WZim m er - 1400 M W

Allegheny Energy

Pleasants 1,2 - 1368 M W

First Energy

Arizona Public Service

Great River Energy

Harrison 1,2,3 - 2052 M W

Lowm an 2,3 - 516 M W

Spurlock 2 - 508 M W

Four C orners 1,2,3,4,5 - 2212 M W

Coal C reek 1,2 - 1012 M W

AESBeaver Valley - 125 M W

Reliant ResourcesElram a 1,2,3,4 - 510 M W

M itchell 3 - 300 M W

American Electric Power

Alabama Electric Coop

East Ky Power CoopG avin 1,2 - 2600 M WConesville 5,6 - 888 M W

Bruce M ansfie ld 1,2,32741 M W

16

1415

3

13

14

Byproduct gypsum Byproduct to landfill

Byproduct gypsum and m agnesium hydroxide

LIME 9

North AmericaThiosorbic FGD Process Description

• Wet FGD process• Uses lime reagent with 3-6 wt.% MgO

• Mg increases SO2 removal and allows low L/G 45 L/G (gpm/1000 acfm) for 99% removal

with high-sulfur fuel

• Low chemical scaling potential Liquid in absorber slurry only 10% gypsum-

saturated


LIME 10

North America

Thiosorbic FGD Process

GypsumByproductInerts to

DisposalCompressedAir

FlueGas

Stack

Hydroclone

AbsorberModule

HotWaterWash

Belt Filter

LimeSlurryTank

Slaker

Water

Cleaned Gasto Atmosphere

MagnesiumEnhanced

Lime Oxidizer(bubbletower)

15% solids


LIME 11

North AmericaFGD Process Comparison: Thiosorbic vs. Limestone Forced Oxidation (LSFO)• Higher SO2 removal

Up to 99% vs. 95% for LSFO

• Lower Power Consumption 1.4% versus 2.0% for LSFO for high-sulfur

coal

• Higher Reagent Utilization 99.9% vs. up to 97% for LSFO

• Better Gypsum Quality 98-99% pure, bright white vs. 95%, brown

or tan for limestone


LIME 12

North America - Thiosorbic® ProcessComparison of Gypsum from Thiosorbic Lime with LSFO Gypsum

LIME 13

North America

FGD Process Comparison: Thiosorbic vs. LSFO• Lower Capital Cost

8-12% lower capital cost Much smaller absorbers Fewer recycle pumps, fewer spray

headers, smaller recirculation tank

• Lower maintenance cost

• Generate more valuable SO2 allowances


LIME 14

North AmericaFGD Process Comparison: Absorber Size

55 ft16.8 m

125 ft38.1 m

LSFO

Thiosorbic

These absorbers were supplied by the same FGD equipment supplier at two different sites. The difference in height is due solely to FGD process type. LSFO requires more absorber spray headers, greater L/G, more recirculation pumps, and a larger hold time in the recirculation tank, leading to a substantially taller, more costly absorber.


LIME 15

North America

• Example of compact absorber

• Babcock & Wilcox design

• Only 54 ft high (grade to top tangent line)

• One operating recycle pump, one spare

• Design L/G is 21 gal/1000 acfm (3 l/m3) for 91% SO2 removal

• Achieved 96% SO2 removal in 1991 performance test on 3.5% sulfur coal

Thiosorbic Absorberat Zimmer Station

LIME 16

North America

• Example of compact absorber

• Wheelabrator design• Only 46 ft high (grade

to top tangent line)• One operating recycle

pump, one spare• Design L/G is 30

gal/1000 acfm (4 l/m3) for 95% SO2 removal

• Achieved 96% SO2 removal in 1994 performance test on 3% sulfur coal

Thiosorbic AbsorberAt HMPL Station #2

LIME 17

North America

BENEFITS OF BYPRODUCT MAGNESIUM HYDROXIDE FROM

THE THIOSORBIC PROCESS

- Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process

LIME 18

North AmericaThiosorbic FGD Process

with Byproduct Mg(OH)2 Production

MagnesiumHydroxide

for SO Control3

AdditionalGypsum

to Oxidizer

Treated FGDLiquid Effluent

GypsumByproduct

PrecipitationTank

Inerts toDisposalCompressed

Air

FlueGas

Stack

Hydroclone

Hydroclone

AbsorberModule

HotWaterWash

Belt Filter

LimeSlurryTank

Slaker

Water

Cleaned Gasto Atmosphere

MagnesiumEnhanced

Lime Oxidizer(bubbletower)

15% solids

ByproductMagnesiumHydroxide

System

LIME 19

North America

Benefits of Byproduct Magnesium Hydroxide• Thiosorbic process allows option for

on-site production of magnesium hydroxide

• Demonstrated for furnace injection and SO3 control in 800 MW and 1300 MW boilers

• Reduces furnace-generated SO3 emissions by 90%

• Substantially reduces visible plume opacity


LIME 20

North America

Mg(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control

Mg(OH)2 Injection Location

Furnace

Selective Catalytic

Reduction

ESPThiosorbic

FGD


LIME 21

North America

Furnace SO3 Removal vs. Mg:SO3 Ratio in 1300 MW Boiler

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mg:SO3 Ratio

Full-scale demonstration of SO3 control with Thiosorbic byproduct Mg(OH)2


Full-scale demonstration of SO3 control with Thiosorbic byproduct Mg(OH)2

LIME 22

North America

Reduction in Visible Opacity withBy-product Mg(OH)2 Treatment

Untreated Treated


LIME 23

North America

Benefits of Byproduct Magnesium Hydroxide• Increases melting point of boiler slag• Reduces strength of slag deposits;

increases friability and fracture for ease of removal

• Increases boiler efficiency Cleaner heat transfer surfaces Allows lower air heater outlet

temperature


LIME 24

North America

Benefits of Byproduct Magnesium Hydroxide• Provides FGD wastewater treatment: As,

Cd, Pb, Ni, Hg below detection limits• Reduces size and operating costs of

wastewater treatment system; no TSS removal and coagulation/lime precipitation steps required; no BOD (DBA) removal

• Eliminates disposal of (RCRA-unexcluded) wastewater treatment sludge; allows co-mangement via return to furnace and combination with flyash


LIME 25

North AmericaFull-scale Application of Byproduct Mg(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control

• A 1400 MW installation begins operation 1st quarter 2004


LIME 26

North America

Potential Cost Savings from Furnace Injection of Magnesium Hydroxide• Increase in plant efficiency due to

cleaner boiler tubes and low acid dew point: 1% increase per 35 F lower air heater exit temperature

• Coal savings due to use of lower temperature ash fusion coal


LIME 27

North AmericaFactors Used to Determine Cost Benefits of Boiler Injection of Byproduct Mg(OH)2

Cost factor Thiosorbic

LSFO

Coal cost reduction for lower ash fusion coal, $/ton

0.50

N/A

Increase in boiler availability to reduced slag build-up, fewer slag falls, air heater washing, unplanned outages, hrs/yr

48 N/A

Increased efficiency due to reduction in sulfuric acid dewpoint, cleaner boiler tubes, %

0.75 N/A


LIME 28

North AmericaLower Life Cycle Cost with Thiosorbic Process and Byproduct Mg(OH)2 Compared with LSFO


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

40 45 50 55 60 65 70Lime cost, $/ton

Lim

esto

ne

cost

, $/

ton

base case

Increased availability & furnace efficiency

Increased availability & furnace efficiency, reduced fuel cost

Increasing cost competitiveness of Thiosorbic process

Lower life cycle cost for Thiosorbic process in area

above each line

Based on 3% sulfur bituminous coal

LIME 29

North America

HYDRATED LIME INJECTIONFOR SO3 CONTROL

- Hydrated Lime for SO3 Control

LIME 30

North America

Ca(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control

• Hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2] has been demonstrated at 1300 MW for control of SO3 emissions after selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

• Hydrated lime powder can be injected into flue gas immediately after the air heater and before the particulate collector, or injected after the particulate collector and before the Thiosorbic FGD system


LIME 31

North America


Ca(OH)2 Injection

LocationsFurnace

Selective Catalytic

Reduction

ESPThiosorbic

FGD


LIME 32

North America


• Hydrated lime injected before the particulate collector (e.g. ESP) is removed with fly ash

• Hydrated lime injected before the Thiosorbic FGD system is removed by impingement with absorber spays Results in complete utilization of the hydrated

lime which substantially reduces reagent cost for SO3 control

• 90% removal of SCR-generated SO3 is possible at Ca:SO3 molar ratio of 8


LIME 33

North AmericaPerformance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic LimeConclusions:• The Thiosorbic process is a widely utilized FGD

process with a 25 record of successful operation• The Thiosorbic lime FGD process provides better

SO2 removal performance than the LSFO process

• The Thiosorbic process allows lower FGD capital cost, lower power consumption, and lower life cycle cost than the LSFO process

• Byproduct Mg(OH)2 provides efficient control of furnace SO3 emissions and additional operating benefits and cost savings

• Hydrated lime provides efficient, low-cost control of SO3 formed during SCR

Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic Lime Presented by Carmeuse North...

Documents

Transcript of Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic Lime Presented by Carmeuse North...