Mercury Emissions Control Technology DOE S R D Program

Mercury Emissions Control Technology– DOE’s R&D Program American Chemical Society/American Institute of Chemical Engineers Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Pittsburgh, PA Thomas J. Feeley, III thomas.feeley@netl.doe.gov National Energy Technology Laboratory Outline • Background • DOE’s RD&D program • Future plans ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Global Mercury Pool Global Hg Pool Contribution to Global Pool 24 tons Contribution to Global Pool Contribution to Global Pool Global Contribution Wet & Dry Deposition Anthropogenic Emissions Natural Emissions Hg Cycle Sources: United Nations Environment Programme. Global Mercury Assessment. Switzerland: December 2002. ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 U.S. Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions* 120 Tons per Year Utility Coal Boilers 48 Tons per Year 29% 40% Other 29% Medical, Municipal, Hazardous Waste Incinerators Cement & Paper Production 12% 10% 5% 3% Chlorine Production *Estimated 1999 Industrial Boilers & Heaters Source: Personal communication with U.S. EPA 7/16/03 1999 NEI Version 3.0 ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Global Mercury Emissions Emissions from Natural Sources (Volcanoes, Forest Fires, etc.) U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants Re-Emission of Prior Anthropogenic Emissions New Anthropogenic Emissions* 1540 tons 48 tons 440 tons 2820 tons *Note: Does not include U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions FACT: It is estimated that U.S. coal-fired power plants emit approximately 1% of annual global mercury emissions Source: UNEP Global Mercury Assessment, December 2002 ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Will Reductions in Power Plant Mercury Emissions Solve The Problem? According to the U.S. EPA, “40% of mercury deposition in the continental United States is attributable to foreign sources.” Additionally, “even if all feasible controls for Hg are implemented in the U.S., external sources will prevent attainment of water quality standards.” Source: Terry Keating, U.S. EPA, Clean Air Report, 6/19/2003 ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Mercury Regulation or Legislation? Regulation: • EPA proposal issued 12/15/03 • Several alternatives for control offered for comment • Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) − Plant-by-plant – no trading − Approx. 29% reduction by 2007/08 • Cap & Trade − FGD/SCR co-benefit (29% reduction) by 2010 − 15 ton cap (69% reduction) by 2018 Legislation: • Clear Skies Act of 2003 − Cap & trade − 34 ton cap (29% reduction) by 2010 − 15 ton cap (69% reduction) by 2018 President Bush Announcing Clear Skies Initiative February 14, 2002 ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 History of Mercury R&D 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 • Emission characterization/ • Field testing • Lab/bench• Plume chemistry scale R&D • Monitors • Pilot-scale R&D • Commercial • Byproduct demonstrations characterization Development of Regulations 1990 CAA Amendments Final Hg Regulations ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Capturing Mercury Challenging! A Hypothetical Example • RCA Dome filled with 30 billion ping-pong balls • 30 black mercury balls • Find and remove 27 RCA Dome black balls for 90% Hg capture ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 DOE Spent Over $50 Million on Mercury R&D Over Past Seven Years 15 Million Dollars 10 5 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Fiscal Year Funding for Mercury R&D ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Power Plant Mercury Control Current Emissions Hg Specific Control 75 ton/yr 48 ton/yr out Sorbent Oxidizing Hg in coal stack Systems Injection Hg Cleaning Boiler SCR Baghouse or ESP FGD Stack Hg Hg Co-Benefit Control 27 ton/yr Hg Hg Based on EERC ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 DOE Mercury Control RD&D Portfolio Boiler • Combustion modification • Chemistry modification FGD Enhancements • Oxidation catalysts • Reagent addition • Ultraviolet radiation • Electro catalytic oxidation • SCR oxidation Coal Combustion Byproduct Characterization Polishing Technology • MerCAP™ Plume Chemistry • Transport/ speciation Sorbent Injection • Activated carbon • Amended silicates • Halogenated AC • Ca-based sorbents • Chemically treated sorbents • COHPAC/Toxecon™ • Thief sorbents TJ Feeley_Scotland_May 2004 Mercury Field Testing Program Objectives • Have technologies ready for • Reduce emissions 50-70% • Reduce cost by 25-50% compared to baseline cost estimates Cost 2000 commercial demonstration • by 2005 for bituminous coal • by 2007 for low-rank coal Year Baseline Costs: $50,000 - $70,000 / lb Hg Removed ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Phase I Field Testing 2001-2003 Summary • Activated carbon injection (ADA-ES) −4 power plant sites • • 2 particulate collection systems --ESPs (3) and COHPAC (1) 2 coal types – PRB (1) and bituminous (3) • Scrubber enhancement (McDermott/B&W) −2 power plant sites • • Both burned high-S bituminous coal 1 limestone wet FGD, 1 magnesium-enhanced wet FGD ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 ADA-ES Phase I Field Test Results Activated Carbon Injection 100 Gaston: Bituminous coal, ESP + fabric filter Salem Harbor: Bituminous coal, ESP (gas temp. at 280-290 °F) Pleasant Prairie: Subbituminous coal, ESP Brayton Point: Bituminous coal, ESP Mercury Removal (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0 Injection Concentration (lb / MMacf) 5 10 15 20 25 30 ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Long-term Testing at Gaston Station 100 25 90 80 20 • Mercury Concentration (µg/m ) 3 Average Hg Removal Mercury Removal (%) 70 60 15 − 86 % • 50 40 30 10 Average Inlet Concentration − 14 µg/m3 • 20 10 0 7/20/03 5 0 8/3/03 8/17/03 8/31/03 9/14/03 9/28/03 10/12/03 10/26/03 11/9/03 Average Outlet Concentration Date Mercury Removal (%) Inlet Mercury Concentration Outlet Mercury Concentration − 2 µg/m3 Average Weekly Data from S-CEM Measurements ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Observations From Phase I Field Tests • Moderate to high mercury capture possible with ACI: − Performance depends on: • Particulate system – FF or ESP • Coal rank • Flue gas temperature • Scrubber enhancers show modest improvement in capture effectiveness ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Observations From Phase I Field Tests • However, uncertainties remain: − Performance over longer periods of operation − Effectiveness of chemically modified sorbents − Effectiveness of SCR and Hg-specific catalysts − Capture effectiveness with low-rank coals and coal blends − Sorbent feed rate and costs − Effectiveness with small SCA ESPs − Impact on ESP performance and bag life − FGD Hg reduction/re-emission − By-product use and disposal − Need for fabric filter for units equipped with ESP ACS Monthly Meeting November 4, 2004 Phase II Mercury Control Field Test Projects • Fourteen new projects selected • Longer-term (1-6 months @ optimum conditions), large-scale field testing • Broad range of coal-rank and air pollution control device configurations; focus on lowrank coals • Sorbent injection & mercury oxidation control technologies TJ Feeley_Scotland_May 2004 Phase II Hg Field Testing Program Hg Control Approach Host Sites 13 1 2 4 2 3 1 2 5 Coal Types Downstream Control Equipment FF, ESP, ESP w/ NH3/SO3 injection ESP ESP, ESP/wet FGD ESP, FF/SDA ESP/wet FGD Wet FGD ESP FF/SDA, ESP/wet FGD HSESP, ESP Activated carbon injection (ACI) Amended silicates Oxidation catalyst Chemical inject. w/ ACI, chem. mod. ACI Chlorine injection FGD enhancement Combustion modification Fixed structure gold sorbent Halogenated ACI PRB, Bit., PRB/Bit. blend Bituminous TX lignite, bituminous ND lignite ND lignite, TX lignite Lignite, HS & LS bituminous Bituminous ND lignite, bituminous Bit., bit/PRB blend TJ Feeley_Scotland_May 2004 DOE/NETL Phase I and II Mercury Field Sites TJ Feeley_Scotland_May 2004 Full-Scale Demonstration of Toxecon™ Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control • Demonstrate: − Multi-pollutant control with PRB coal • • • 90% Hg reduction 70% SO2 reduction 30% NOx reduction We Energies Presque Isle Power Plant − Hg recovery from sorbent − Hg CEM performance TJ Feeley_Scotland_May 2004 TOXECON™ Configuration TOXECON™ Sorbent Injection PJFF Coal Electrostatic Precipitator N Fly Ash (99%) Fly Ash (1%) + PAC TJ Feeley_Scotland_May 2004 Challenges to Increased CUB Utilization • Future air pollution regulations, Mercury e.g., Hg MACT/Cap-and-Trade − Increase volume of coal utilization by-products − Change characteristics (i.e., quality) of by-products • Fly Ash FGD Byproduct Future solid waste regulations under RCRA? − Limit use applications − Regulate coal utilization by-products as hazardous • Public perception • NETL sponsoring research to assess fate of Hg and other trace elements in byproducts from Hg field testing projects Hazardous Waste Designation of All By-products Could Cost $11 Billion / Year TJ Feeley Feb. 2004 Summary • Significant advances made in research and development of technology for capturing mercury from coal-fired power plants • Sorbent (e.g., activated carbon) injection and oxidation technologies (coupled with scrubbers) are leading approaches for coal-fired power plant mercury control commercial coal-fired boilers as part of Innovations for Existing Plants Program carried out under DOE’s Clean Coal Demonstration Program performance uncertainties • DOE currently field testing mercury control technologies on • First-of-a-kind full-scale commercial demonstration of ACI being • Further RD&D needed to fully address technical and EPA Administrator July 20, 2004 Future Plans • Continue Phase II field testing of technology capable of achieving 50-70% Hg removal through FY06 +90% Hg capture starting in FY06-07 • Carry out field testing of technologies capable of achieving • Commercially demonstrate promising Hg technologies selected under DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative • Continue characterization of byproducts from Hg field testing projects • Assess economics of Hg control technologies based on results of field testing • Evaluate promising pre-combustion Hg removal technology EPA Administrator July 20, 2004 DOE/NETL Environmental and Water Resources (Innovations for Existing Plants Program) To find out more about DOE-NETL’s Hg R&D activities visit us at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/E&WR/index.html EPA Administrator July 20, 2004