FIELD TEST PROGRAM TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN, OPERATING, AND COST DATA FOR MERCURY CONTROL SYSTEMS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Brayton Point Unit 1 was successfully tested for applicability of activated carbon injection as a mercury control technology. Test results from this site have enabled a thorough evaluation of the impacts of future mercury regulations to Brayton Point Unit 1, including performance, estimated cost, and operation data. This unit has variable (29-75%) native mercury removal, thus it was important to understand the impacts of process variables and activated carbon on mercury capture. The team responsible for executing this program included: (1) Plant and PG&E National Energy Group corporate personnel; (2) Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); (3) United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL); (4) ADA-ES, Inc.; (5) NORIT Americas, Inc.; (6) Apogee Scientific, Inc.; (7) TRC Environmental Corporation; (8) URS Corporation; (9) Quinapoxet Solutions; (10) Energy and Environmental Strategies (EES); and (11) Reaction Engineering International (REI). The technical support of all of these entities came together to make this program achieve its goals. Overall, the objectives of this field test program were to determine the impact of activated carbon injection on mercury control and balance-of-plant processes on Brayton Point Unit 1. Brayton Point Unit 1 is a 250-MW unit that fires a low-sulfur eastern bituminous coal. Particulate control is achieved by two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) in series. The full-scale tests were conducted on one-half of the flue gas stream (nominally 125 MW). Mercury control sorbents were injected in between the two ESPs. The residence time from the injection grid to the second ESP was approximately 0.5 seconds. In preparation for the full-scale tests, 12 different sorbents were evaluated in a slipstream of flue gas via a packed-bed field test apparatus for mercury adsorption. Results from these tests were used to determine the five carbon-based sorbents that were tested at full-scale. Conditions of interest that were varied included SO{sub 3} conditioning on/off, injection concentrations, and distribution spray patterns. The original test plan called for parametric testing of NORIT FGD carbon at 1, 3, and 10 lbs/MMacf. These injection concentrations were estimated based on results from the Pleasant Prairie tests that showed no additional mercury removal when injection concentrations were increased above 10 lbs/MMacf. The Brayton Point parametric test data indicated that higher injection concentrations would achieve higher removal efficiencies and should be tested. The test plan was altered to include testing at 20 lbs/MMacf. The first test at this higher rate showed very high removal across the second ESP (>80%). Unlike the ''ceiling'' phenomenon witnessed at Pleasant Prairie, increasing sorbent injection concentration resulted in further capture of vapor-phase mercury. The final phase of field-testing was a 10-day period of continuous injection of NORIT FGD carbon. During the first five days, the injection concentration was held at 10 lbs/MMacf, followed by nominally five days of testing at an injection concentration of 20 lbs/MMacf. The mercury removal, as measured by the semi-continuous emission monitors (S-CEM), varied between 78% and 95% during the 10 lbs/MMacf period and increased to >97% when the injection concentration was increased to 20 lbs/MMacf. During the long-term testing period, mercury measurements following EPA's draft Ontario Hydro method were conducted by TRC Environmental Corporation at both 10 and 20 lbs/MMacf test conditions. The Ontario Hydro data showed that the particulate mercury removal was similar between the two conditions of 10 or 20 lbs/MMacf and removal efficiencies were greater than 99%. Elemental mercury was not detected in any samples, so no conclusions as to its removal can be drawn. Removal of oxidized mercury, on the other hand, increased from 68% to 93% with the higher injection concentration. These removal rates agreed well with the S-CEM results.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».