As the deadline for MATS compliance is just around the corner, your strategy for the control of mercury (Hg) emissions should be well underway. If activated carbon injection (ACI) is part of that compliance strategy, the large number of activated carbon (AC) offerings can make the procurement process challenging. This poster reviews the important characteristics of AC products (e.g. Iodine, particle size, ash, moisture), what they mean, and how they impact Hg removal success.
To view the poster by Erica Gonzaga, Regina Rodriguez, and David Mazyck, PhD, submit the Publication Request Form on the main Presentations & Publications page.
Abstract: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO) along with several published reports have identified mercury as a hazardous air pollutant leading to the EPA establishing Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) that take effect in 2015. Currently over 50% of the existing coal-fired EGUs based on capacity utilize wet flue gas desulfurization systems (WFGDs) to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. WFGDs represent existing air quality control devices (AQCDs) that as part of a mercury emissions control strategy, can facilitate EGU mercury compliance.
This white paper focuses on EGUs that contain WFGDs and their utilization as part of a MATS mercury compliance strategy. In particular, our focus is limited to wet-scrubbed units with highly oxidized mercury flue gas entering the WFGD that are not attaining or are only marginally attaining mercury emission limitations.”
Carbonxt R&D Director, Dr. Heather Byrne served on a speaker panel during the Mcilvaine “Hot Topic Hour” addressing the choices available for monitoring mercury. As more and more U.S. utilities transition to sorbent traps over mercury CEMS, questions such as these have been raised:
Should you use sorbent traps or mercury CEMS?
Should you use both? One for compliance and one for process control?
Does the sorbent trap also measure particulate mercury?
What about compliance aspects? If one approach gives higher measurements than another, why not choose the one with the lower emissions and play it safe?
For more information and to view Dr. Byrne’s presentation, contact our Carbonxt office for details.
Many in the electric generating industry see powdered activated carbon (PAC) for mercury control as a commodity product where in fact incorrect carbon selection could make a difference in your yearly activated carbon costs of several hundred thousands of dollars per year. PACs are different and where they are injected in your power plant can impact their effectiveness and thus yearly costs for compliance. Therefore PAC selection should be based on more than solely cost per pound. This discussion will be based on but not limited to your plant’s coal type, air pollution control devices (existing and planned installations to comply with EPA regulations), fly ash and other by-product salability, and your plant’s overall operations and disposal requirements. Furthermore, activated carbon manufacturing and its properties will be reviewed.
The EPA refers to activated carbon as “the most successfully demonstrated mercury-specific control technology” that also has minimal installation requirements. Within this industry, bromine and other halogens are typically applied to the activated carbon to enhance mercury oxidation and capture. However, the corrosive nature of these additives has the potential to cause larger issues for power plants with extended use. Carbonxt testing with carbon tailoring and alternative additives have shown to achieve the same or better performance results while maintaining the integrity of the plant. Recent full-scale tests have been conducted that include a span of coal and boiler types, injection location/particulate control configurations, injection rates, and concentration of SO3 (inherent and injected for flue-gas conditioning). This presentation will review the mercury control performance and operational impacts, including particle emissions and fly ash utilization, of these recent test events.
With the introduction of the first national standards for mercury pollution from power plants in December of 2011, many facilities will turn to activated carbon injection to meet the regulatory demands. Activated carbon injection is a mature technology that is widely available and proven for achieving mercury removal greater than 90%. In anticipation of the need, Carbonxt has developed powdered activated carbon for mercury removal from coal-fired power plant flue gas. This product stands apart from most available mercury control sorbents in that is it non-halogenated. The Carbonxt product has been tested using full-scale activated carbon injection studies under various conditions. The testing includes a span of coal and boiler types, injection location/particulate control configurations, injection rates, and concentration of SO3 (inherent and injected for flue-gas conditioning). This presentation will review the mercury control performance and operational impacts, including particle emissions and fly ash utilization, of these recent test events.
Activated carbon injection (ACI) for the control of mercury (Hg) from Coal-Fired Power Plant (CFPP) flue-gas is an established pollution control technique. Carbonxt has developed a line of non-halogenated activated carbons that have demonstrated high performance mercury removal. Typically, ACI tests are completed in a sequential fashion whereby each carbon vendor demonstrates the performance of their product over a few to several day period. When comparing brominated ACs to other brominated ACs this approach is valid. Carbonxt designs their non-halogenated ACs for Hg capture, and have decreased AC usage for a coal-fired power plant by 50% using an engineered approach. This presentation focuses on the benefits of this engineered approach, and further considerations for power plants as MATS compliance draws closer
Carbonxt MATS-PAC™ is a non-halogenated activated carbon specifically designed for flue gas mercury capture at coal-fired power plant stations. The product has been verified through an intense and dynamic testing program at multiple sites utilizing various fuel types, boiler sizes, and environmental control systems. This sorbent has demonstrated effectiveness at reduced injection rates providing utilities increased flexibility in meeting MATS compliance. Results will be presented from recent injection trials at utility and industrial boiler applications.
Activated carbon injection for the control of mercury (Hg) from Coal-Fired Power Plant (CFPP) flue-gas is an established pollution control technique. Carbonxt has developed a non-halogenated activated carbon that has demonstrated high performance mercury removal. This presentation includes testing at the Gulf Power Mercury Research Center (MRC), a unique testing facility used for evaluating pollution-control technologies under actual CFPP flue-gas conditions. Carbonxt has tested a number of products under various conditions (injection location/particulate control configurations, injection rate, presence of SO3). The results varied according to the parameters adjusted but reached a maximum adsorption of 97% Hg removal.