Wet FGD Types and Fundamentals 8-08

Michael A. Walsh, P.E.
VP Engineering
WET FGD TYPES
AND FUNDAMENTALS
Copyright 2008
MarsulexEnvironmentalTechnologies
Allrightsreserved
2
1. Overview of the WFGD Process
2. Basic Chemistry
2. Basic Chemistry
3. Typical FGD Processes
4. Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
4. Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
5. Summary
5. Summary
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
3
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
4
Reagents
Reagents
All require use of an alkaline chemical reagent
Limestone
Lime
Ammonia
Sodium
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
5
Byproducts
Byproducts
All convert gaseous SO
2
to either liquid or solid
waste by-product
Throwaway process
Gypsum process
Regenerative process
Fertilizer product process
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
6
2. Basic Chemistry
2. Basic Chemistry
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
7
Limestone Systems
Limestone Systems
1. SO
2
+ H
2
O H
2
SO
3
Absorption
2. CaCO
3
+ H
2
SO
3
CaSO
3
+ CO
2
+ H
2
O Neutralization
3. CaSO
3
+ O
2
CaSO
4
Oxidation
4. CaSO
3
+ H
2
O CaSO
3
+ H
2
O Crystallization
5. CaSO
4
+ 2H
2
O CaSO
4
.
2H
2
O Crystallization
Reactions taking place in absorber & recycle tank:
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
8
Lime Systems
Lime Systems
Reactions taking place in absorber & recycle tank are very
similar to those in the limestone system. The main chemical
differences are:
(2) CaO + H
2
O Ca(OH)
2
Slaking
(3) H
2
SO
3
+ Ca(OH)
2
CaSO
3
+ 2H
2
O Neutralization
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
9
Typical Limestone FGD
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
10
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
11
Ammonia-Based WFGD System
Ammonia-Based WFGD System
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
12
Ammonia WFGD Process
Ammonia WFGD Process
SO
2
+ 2NH
3
+ H
2
O (NH
4
)
2
SO
3
(1)
(NH
4
)
2
SO
3
+ 1/2 O
2
(NH
4
)
2
SO
4
(2)
For every pound of SO
2
removed:
Need one-half pound Ammonia
Produces two pounds of Ammonium
Sulfate
One pound of Ammonia generates four pounds
Ammonium Sulfate
4:1 product / feed ratio generates
favorable economic leverage
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
13
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
14
Typical WFGD Processes
Typical WFGD Processes
1. SO
2
Outlet Emissions
1. SO
2
Outlet Emissions
2. pH and Stoichiometry
2. pH and Stoichiometry
3. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
3. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
4. SO
2
Inlet Concentration
4. SO
2
Inlet Concentration
5. Residence Time
5. Residence Time
6. Mist Elimination
6. Mist Elimination
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
15
SO
2
Outlet Emissions
SO
2
Outlet Emissions
Allowable SO
2
outlet emissions are based on either maximum
outlet level or on overall system SO
2
removal efficiency
Requirements dictated by environmental regulations
Depending on requirements, absorbers may be designed to
treat all or only a portion of flue gas
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
16
pH and Stoichiometry
pH and Stoichiometry
Slurry pH is likely the most important control variable for
absorber operation
pH determines amount of reagent used
pH is related to reagent stoichiometry the number of mols
of reagent added per mol of SO
2
removed.
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
17
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
L/G is the ratio of recycle slurry (in l/hr) to absorber outlet
gas flow (m
3
/hr, actual)
The amount of surface system available for reaction with SO
2
is determined by L/G
L/G ratio can be changed by altering either recycle flow rate
or flue gas flow rate
Liquid flow is typically varied by changing the number of
operating recycle pumps
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
18
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
The maximum flue gas velocity sets the absorber vessel diameters
and impacts the ability of the mist eliminators to prevent droplet
carryover.
75
100
1 3 5 7 9 11
L/G Rati o [l i ters /cubi c meter]
S
O
2

R
e
m
o
v
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
Limest one
Ammonia
3 Oper at ing Spr ay Levels
Const ant Coal Sulf ur of 1.0 wt %
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
19
SO
2
Inlet Concentration
SO
2
Inlet Concentration
At constant operating conditions, increasing the concentration of SO
2
(increasing the sulfur content of the fuel) will decrease SO
2
removal
Increased SO
2
concentration causes an increased depletion of liquid
phase alkalinity
75
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% Sul fur i n the Fuel
S
O
2

R
e
m
o
v
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[

%
]
Limestone
Ammonia
3 Oper at ing Spr ay Levels
Const ant L/G of 6.9 l/m3
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
20
Residence Time
Residence Time
Residence time the time that slurry spends in the reaction
tank before being recycled for further SO
2
absorption
Residence time allows the liquid to desupersaturate and
avoid scaling in lime/limestone systems
Typically, for limestone systems, a residence time of 3-5
minutes is provided
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
21
Mist Elimination
Mist Elimination
Important to remove entrained liquid droplets in order to avoid
carryover of the liquid into downstream ducts and stack.
Good performance of mist eliminators depends on:
- Operation of absorber at flue gas velocities below critical
velocity at which re-entrainment of mist occurs
- Proper washing techniques
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
22
Mist Elimination
Mist Elimination
0
25
50
75
100
2 3 4 5 6 7
Mist Eliminator Gas Velocity [meters/sec]
O
u
t
l
e
t

M
i
s
t

C
a
r
r
y
o
v
e
r

[
m
g
/
N
m
3
]
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
23
Mist Elimination
Mist Elimination
Major parameters to be considered for proper mist eliminator washing
include:
- Wash water rate
- Water quality
- Timing sequence
- Washing area coverage
- Nozzle pressure
- Nozzle spray angle
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
24
4. Major Components
4. Major Components
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
25
Absorbers Traditional Reagents
Absorbers Traditional Reagents
1. Spray Absorbers Open Tower
1. Spray Absorbers Open Tower
2. Tray Towers
2. Tray Towers
3. Packed Towers
3. Packed Towers
4. Jet Bubbling Reactors
4. Jet Bubbling Reactors
6. Wulff Process
6. Wulff Process
5. Spray Dryers
5. Spray Dryers
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
26
Spray Absorbers
Spray Absorbers
Mist
Eliminators
Flue Gas Inlet
Flue Gas Outlet
Mist Eliminator Wash Sprays
Absorption Sprays
Liquid Level
Sparger
Agitator
Recycle Pumps
(3 + 1)
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
27
Isometric of Open Spray Tower
Isometric of Open Spray Tower
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
28
Typical Spray Pattern
Typical Spray Pattern
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
29
Tray Towers
Tray Towers
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
30
Packed Towers
Packed Towers
Gas enters the base of the tower and passes
up through the packing countercurrent to the
scrubbing liquor which is introduced at the
top of the tower
The liquid is dispersed by means of inert,
stationary or molded packings of various
shapes and configurations designed to add
surface area and thus promote maximum
vapor-liquid contact
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
31
J et Bubbling Reactor
In one vessel combines
concurrent chemical reactions of:
Limestone dissolution
SO
2
absorption
Neutralization
Sulfite oxidation
Gypsum precipitation
Gypsum crystal growth
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
32
Cut-Away of JBR
Gas Sparger Action
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
33
Spray Dryer Absorber
Spray Dryer Absorber
Rotary atomizer (shown) or dual
fluid atomization
Lime slurry or lime + recycle
reagent
~95% SO2 efficiency practical
limit due to stoichiometry
Atomizer
Removal
Monorail
Penthouse
Inlet Gas
Distributor
Axial
Entry
Vanes
Atomizer
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
34
Graf / Wulff Fluidized Bed
Graf / Wulff Fluidized Bed
Reflux Circulating Fluid Bed Technology
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
35
4. Dry FGD vs. Wet FGD
4. Dry FGD vs. Wet FGD
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
36
Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
WET DRY
Capital Cost Higher Lower
Reagent Cost Lower Higher
% SO2 Efficiency High 90's
Mid 90's
(Spray Dryer Stoichiometry Limits)
High-90's (CDS)
Water Usage Higher
Lower
(Approx 40% less)
Overall Operating $'s
(Normalized)
Lower Higher
Coal % Sulfur preference >2% <2%
By-Product Usage Possible Rare
SO
3
Emissions Yes NIL
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
37
Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
Decision
Decision
% Sulfur in coal is the primary driver
Wet FGD can accommodate lower (than design) sulfur coal
Dry FGD faces performance limitations with higher (than design)
sulfur coal
Decisions maybe influenced by site-specific:
Permit requirements
Delivered cost of reagents
Disposition of by-product
SO
3
emission requirements may drive economics to dry FGD in some
cases
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
38
5. Summary
5. Summary
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
39
By-product Values
By-product Values
($US/ton) ($US/ton)
Gypsum -4 to +4
Sulfuric Acid (100% basis)* 60 to 88
Elemental Sulfur* 50 to 80
Ammonium Sulfate* 110 to 196
*Source: Green Markets
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
40
Lower Colorado River Authority
Lower Colorado River Authority
Fayette Power Project, Units 1, 2 and 3
Texas
Fuel: PRB Coal
% Sulfur: 0.8%
Inlet Gas Volume: (acfm) 2,548,000
Reagent: Limestone
Absorber Type: Spray Tower
SO
2
Removal Efficiency: 97%
Startup Date: 2010
Wet FGD retrofit awarded to MET in 2006
2x600 MW, Units 1 &2
2x600 MW, Units 1 &2
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
41
LCRA Fayette Units 1&2
LCRA Fayette Units 1&2
Wet Limestone FGD for low-sulfur PRB Coal
Rules of Thumb do not always dictate decision
Site-specifics
- Permit % SO
2
efficiency
- Existing Wet FGD plant on Unit 3
- By-product disposal issues
- Reagent costs
can trump the % sulfur in coal in the decision to go Wet
Copyright 2008
Allrightsreserved
42
US Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power
Plants & Combined Heat and Power Plants, 1994 through 2005
US Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power
Plants & Combined Heat and Power Plants, 1994 through 2005
Note: These data are for plants with a fossil-fueled steam-electric capacity of 100MW or more. Beginning in 2001, data
for plants with combustible renewable steam-electric capacity of 10 MW or more were also included. Data for
Independent Power Producers and Combined Heat and Power Plants are included beginning with 2001 data. Totals may
not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.
Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-767, Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report
Carbon Dioxide
(CO
2
)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO
2
)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NO
x
)
FGD
Installations
Capacity
(MW)
2005 2,513,609 10,340 3,961 248 101,648
2004 2,456,934 10,309 4,143 248 101,492
2003 2,415,680 10,646 4,532 246 99,567
2002 2,395,048 10,881 5,194 243 98,673
2001 2,389,745 11,174 5,290 236 97,988
2000 2,429,394 11,297 5,380 192 89,675
1999 2,326,559 12,444 5,732 192 89,666
1998 2,313,008 12,509 6,237 186 87,783
1997 2,223,348 13,520 6,324 183 86,605
1996 2,155,452 12,906 6,282 182 85,842
1995 2,079,761 11,896 7,885 178 84,677
1994 2,063,788 14,472 7,801 168 80,617

Wet FGD Types and Fundamentals 8-08

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wet FGD Types and Fundamentals 8-08

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael A. Walsh, P.E.

You might also like