JV TASK 45-MERCURY CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES BURNING LIGNITE COAL, PHASE I BENCH-AND PILOT-SCALE TESTING
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Energy & Environmental Research Center has completed the first phase of a 3-year, two-phase consortium project to develop and demonstrate mercury control technologies for utilities that burn lignite coal. The overall project goal is to maintain the viability of lignite-based energy production by providing utilities with low-cost options for meeting future mercury regulations. Phase I objectives are to develop a better understanding of mercury interactions with flue gas constituents, test a range of sorbent-based technologies targeted at removing elemental mercury (Hg{sup o}) from flue gases, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the most promising technologies at the pilot scale. The Phase II objectives are to demonstrate and quantify sorbent technology effectiveness, performance, and cost at a sponsor-owned and operated power plant. Phase I results are presented in this report along with a brief overview of the Phase II plans. Bench-scale testing provided information on mercury interactions with flue gas constituents and relative performances of the various sorbents. Activated carbons were prepared from relatively high-sodium lignites by carbonization at 400 C (752 F), followed by steam activation at 750 C (1382 F) and 800 C (1472 F). Luscar char was also steam-activated at these conditions. These lignite-based activated carbons, along with commercially available DARCO FGD and an oxidized calcium silicate, were tested in a thin-film, fixed-bed, bench-scale reactor using a simulated lignitic flue gas consisting of 10 {micro}g/Nm{sup 3} Hg{sup 0}, 6% O{sub 2}, 12% CO{sub 2}, 15% H{sub 2}O, 580 ppm SO{sub 2}, 120 ppm NO, 6 ppm NO{sub 2}, and 1 ppm HCl in N{sub 2}. All of the lignite-based activated (750 C, 1382 F) carbons required a 30-45-minute conditioning period in the simulated lignite flue gas before they exhibited good mercury sorption capacities. The unactivated Luscar char and oxidized calcium silicate were ineffective in capturing mercury. Lignite-based activated (800 C, 1472 F) carbons required a shorter (15-minute) conditioning period in the simulated lignite flue gas and captured gaseous mercury more effectively than those activated at 750 C (1382 F). Subsequent tests with higher acid gas concentrations including 50 ppm HCl showed no early mercury breakthrough for either the activated (750 C, 1382 F) Bienfait carbon or the DARCO FGD. Although these high acid gas tests yielded better mercury capture initially, significant breakthrough of mercury ultimately occurred sooner than during the simulated lignite flue gas tests. The steam-activated char, provided by Luscar Ltd., and DARCO FGD, provided by NORIT Americas, were evaluated for mercury removal potential in a 580 MJ/hr (550,000-Btu/hr) pilot-scale coal combustion system equipped with four particulate control devices: (1) an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), (2) a fabric filter (FF), (3) the Advanced Hybrid{trademark} filter, and (4) an ESP and FF in series, an EPRI-patented TOXECON{trademark} technology. The Ontario Hydro method and continuous mercury monitors were used to measure mercury species concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the control technology devices with and without sorbent injection. Primarily Hg{sup o} was measured when lignite coals from the Poplar River Plant and Freedom Mine were combusted. The effects of activated Luscar char, DARCO FGD, injection rates, particle size, and gas temperature on mercury removal were evaluated for each of the four particulate control device options. Increasing injection rates and decreasing gas temperatures generally promoted mercury capture in all four control devices. Relative to data reported for bituminous and subbituminous coal combustion flue gases, higher sorbent injection rates were generally required for the lignite coal to effectively remove mercury. Documented results in this report provide the impacts of these and other parameters and provide the inputs needed to direct Phase II of the project.
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 | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».