MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2128935494 · doi:10.2172/1004552

Full-Scale Testing of a Mercury Oxidation Catalyst Upstream of a Wet FGD System

2010· report· en· W2128935494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Blythe, Jennifer Paradis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Flue gasWaste managementFlue-gas desulfurizationBoiler (water heating)EngineeringEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document presents and discusses results from Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-06NT42778, 'Full-scale Testing of a Mercury Oxidation Catalyst Upstream of a Wet FGD System,' which was conducted over the time-period July 24, 2006 through June 30, 2010. The objective of the project was to demonstrate at full scale the use of solid honeycomb catalysts to promote the oxidation of elemental mercury in pulverized-coal-fired flue gas. Oxidized mercury is removed downstream in wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) absorbers and collected with the byproducts from the FGD system. The project was co-funded by EPRI, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), who also provided the host site, Great River Energy, Johnson Matthey, Southern Company, Salt River Project (SRP), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), NRG Energy, Ontario Power and Westar. URS Group was the prime contractor and also provided cofunding. The scope of this project included installing and testing a gold-based catalyst upstream of one full-scale wet FGD absorber module (about 200-MW scale) at LCRA's Fayette Power Project (FPP) Unit 3, which fires Powder River Basin coal. Installation of the catalyst involved modifying the ductwork upstream of one of three wet FGD absorbers on Unit 3, Absorber C. The FGD system uses limestone reagent, operates with forced sulfite oxidation, and normally runs with two FGD modules in service and one spare. The full-scale catalyst test was planned for 24 months to provide catalyst life data. Over the test period, data were collected on catalyst pressure drop, elemental mercury oxidation across the catalyst module, and mercury capture by the downstream wet FGD absorber. The demonstration period began on May 6, 2008 with plans for the catalyst to remain in service until May 5, 2010. However, because of continual increases in pressure drop across the catalyst and concerns that further increases would adversely affect Unit 3 operations, LCRA decided to end the demonstration early, during a planned unit outage. On October 2, 2009, Unit 3 was taken out of service for a fall outage and the catalyst upstream of Absorber C was removed. This ended the demonstration after approximately 17 months of the planned 24 months of operation. This report discusses reasons for the pressure drop increase and potential measures to mitigate such problems in any future application of this technology. Mercury oxidation and capture measurements were made on Unit 3 four times during the 17-month demonstration. Measurements were performed across the catalyst and Absorber C and 'baseline' measurements were performed across Absorber A or B, which did not have a catalyst upstream. Results are presented in the report from all four sets of measurements during the demonstration period. These results include elemental mercury oxidation across the catalyst, mercury capture across Absorber C downstream of the catalyst, baseline mercury capture across Absorber A or B, and mercury re-emissions across both absorbers in service. Also presented in the report are estimates of the average mercury control performance of the oxidation catalyst technology over the 17-month demonstration period and the resulting mercury control costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→