Transcript CARMEUSE NORTH AMERICA GROUP

Performance and Benefits of
Flue Gas Treatment
Using Thiosorbic Lime
Presented by
Carmeuse North America
Carmeuse North America makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, and
assumes no liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any
information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this document.
North America
BACKGROUND ON CARMEUSE
LIME
2
North America - Background
Carmeuse North America
• Part of the Carmeuse Group
• Joint Venture of:
 60% Carmeuse S.A. (Belgium)
 40% Lafarge S. A. (France)
• Carmeuse
 $1 billion privately-held lime company founded in
1860
 60 plants in 14 countries
• Lafarge
 $11 billion publicly-held construction materials
company founded in 1833
 Operations in 60 countries
LIME
3
North America - Background
Lime Plant Locations in U.S. and Canada
While Carmeuse North
America is the leading
supplier, FGD lime is widely
available
LIME
Carmeuse
North America
plant locations
4
North America - Background
Carmeuse Provides:
• Thiosorbic® Lime for flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) in coal-fired plants
• Access to Thiosorbic process technology
 Carmeuse works in cooperation with major FGD
equipment suppliers to provide the best system for
the customers requirements
• Technical support for FGD users
 FGD start-up, operator training, and operations
support
 Over 25 years experience in FGD in coal-fired
power plants
LIME
5
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
BENEFITS OF THE
THIOSORBIC FGD PROCESS
LIME
6
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
Benefits of Thiosorbic FGD process
• Ultra-low SO2 emissions with high-sulfur fuel
•
•
•
•
•
LIME
 99% SO2 removal with high-sulfur coal
Lower FGD capital cost
Lower FGD power consumption
Valuable by-products: wallboard-quality
gypsum and magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH)2]
25 year record of reliability
17,700 MW base of experience
7
North America
Thiosorbic
Wet FGD Applications
16 Stations – 34 Units – 17,700 MW
LG&E (E.ON)
1 Green 1,2 - 487 MW
2 Henderson 1,2 - 365 MW
Cinergy
3 East Bend 2 - 669 MW
4 Zimmer - 1400 MW
Reliant Resources
9 Elrama 1,2,3,4 - 510 MW
Allegheny Energy
10 Mitchell 3 - 300 MW
11 Pleasants 1,2 - 1368 MW
12 Harrison 1,2,3 - 2052 MW
15
American Electric Power
East Ky Power Coop
5 Gavin 1,2 - 2600 MW
13 Spurlock 2 - 508 MW
6 Conesville 5,6 - 888 MW
Alabama Electric Coop
14 Lowman 2,3 - 516 MW
First Energy
7 Bruce Mansfield 1,2,3
Arizona Public Service
2741 MW
15 Four Corners 1,2,3,4,5 - 2212 MW
AES
8 Beaver Valley - 125 MW
Great River Energy
16 Coal Creek 1,2 - 1012 MW
3
Byproduct to landfill
Byproduct gypsum
1 2
Byproduct gypsum and magnesium hydroxide
LIME
16
14
8
6
7
9
10
11 12
5
4 13
OHIO RIVER
8
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
Thiosorbic FGD Process Description
• Wet FGD process
• Uses lime reagent with 3-6 wt.% MgO
• Mg increases SO2 removal and allows low L/G
 45 L/G (gpm/1000 acfm) for 99% removal with
high-sulfur fuel
• Low chemical scaling potential
 Liquid in absorber slurry only 10% gypsumsaturated
LIME
9
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
Thiosorbic FGD Process
Cleaned Gas
to Atmosphere
Hydroclone
Magnesium
Enhanced
Absorber
Lime
Module
Water
Flue
Gas
Slaker
Lime
Slurry
Tank
LIME
Stack
Hot
Water
Wash
Oxidizer
(bubble
tower)
Belt Filter
15% solids
Compressed
Air
Inerts to
Disposal
Gypsum
Byproduct
10
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
FGD Process Comparison: Thiosorbic
vs. Limestone Forced Oxidation (LSFO)
• Higher SO2 removal
 Up to 99% vs. 95% for LSFO
• Lower Power Consumption
 1.4% versus 2.0% for LSFO for high-sulfur coal
• Higher Reagent Utilization
 99.9% vs. up to 97% for LSFO
• Better Gypsum Quality
 98-99% pure, bright white vs. 95%, brown or
tan for limestone
LIME
11
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
Comparison of Gypsum from
Thiosorbic Lime with LSFO Gypsum
LIME
12
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
FGD Process Comparison:
Thiosorbic vs. LSFO
• Lower Capital Cost
 8-12% lower capital cost
 Much smaller absorbers
 Fewer recycle pumps, fewer spray headers,
smaller recirculation tank
• Lower maintenance cost
• Generate more valuable SO2 allowances
LIME
13
North America - Thiosorbic® Process
FGD Process Comparison: Absorber Size
LSFO
125 ft
38.1 m
These absorbers were supplied by the
same FGD equipment supplier at two
different sites. The difference in height is
due solely to FGD process type. LSFO
requires more absorber spray headers,
greater L/G, more recirculation pumps, and
a larger hold time in the recirculation tank,
leading to a substantially taller, more costly
absorber.
Thiosorbic
55 ft
16.8 m
LIME
14
North America
Thiosorbic Absorber
at Zimmer Station
• Example of compact
•
•
•
•
•
LIME
absorber
Babcock & Wilcox design
Only 54 ft high (grade to
top tangent line)
One operating recycle
pump, one spare
Design L/G is 21 gal/1000
acfm (3 l/m3) for 91% SO2
removal
Achieved 96% SO2
removal in 1991
performance test on 3.5%
sulfur coal
15
North America
Thiosorbic Absorber
At HMPL Station #2
• Example of compact
•
•
•
•
•
LIME
absorber
Wheelabrator design
Only 46 ft high (grade to
top tangent line)
One operating recycle
pump, one spare
Design L/G is 30 gal/1000
acfm (4 l/m3) for 95% SO2
removal
Achieved 96% SO2
removal in 1994
performance test on 3%
sulfur coal
16
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
BENEFITS OF BYPRODUCT
MAGNESIUM HYDROXIDE FROM
THE THIOSORBIC PROCESS
LIME
17
Thiosorbic FGD Process
with Byproduct Mg(OH)2 Production
North America
Cleaned Gas
to Atmosphere
Hydroclone
Magnesium
Enhanced
Absorber
Lime
Module
Water
Stack
Flue
Gas
Slaker
Lime
Slurry
Tank
Oxidizer
(bubble
tower)
Belt Filter
15% solids
Inerts to
Disposal
Compressed
Air
Hydroclone
Byproduct
Magnesium
Hydroxide Precipitation
Tank
System
LIME
Hot
Water
Wash
Additional
Gypsum
to Oxidizer
Gypsum
Byproduct
Treated FGD
Liquid Effluent
Magnesium
Hydroxide
for SO3 Control
18
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Benefits of Byproduct Magnesium
Hydroxide
• Thiosorbic process allows option for on-site
production of magnesium hydroxide
• Demonstrated for furnace injection and
SO3 control in 800 MW and 1300 MW
boilers
• Reduces furnace-generated SO3 emissions
by 90%
• Substantially reduces visible plume opacity
LIME
19
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Mg(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control
Furnace
Mg(OH)2
Injection
Location
LIME
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
ESP
Thiosorbic
FGD
20
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Furnace SO3 Removal vs. Mg:SO3
Ratio in 1300 MW Boiler
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Full-scale
Full-scale
demonstration
demonstration of
of SO
SO33
control
control with
with Thiosorbic
Thiosorbic
byproduct
byproduct Mg(OH)
Mg(OH)22
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mg:SO3 Ratio
LIME
21
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Reduction in Visible Opacity with
By-product Mg(OH)2 Treatment
Untreated
LIME
Treated
22
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Benefits of Byproduct Magnesium
Hydroxide
• Increases melting point of boiler slag
• Reduces strength of slag deposits;
increases friability and fracture for ease of
removal
• Increases boiler efficiency
 Cleaner heat transfer surfaces
 Allows lower air heater outlet temperature
LIME
23
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Benefits of Byproduct Magnesium
Hydroxide
• Provides FGD wastewater treatment: As, Cd, Pb,
Ni, Hg below detection limits
• Reduces size and operating costs of wastewater
treatment system; no TSS removal and
coagulation/lime precipitation steps required; no
BOD (DBA) removal
• Eliminates disposal of (RCRA-unexcluded)
wastewater treatment sludge; allows comangement via return to furnace and combination
with flyash
LIME
24
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Full-scale Application of Byproduct
Mg(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control
• A 1400 MW installation begins operation 1st
quarter 2004
LIME
25
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Potential Cost Savings from
Furnace Injection of Magnesium
Hydroxide
• Increase in plant efficiency due to cleaner
boiler tubes and low acid dew point: 1%
increase per 35 F lower air heater exit
temperature
• Coal savings due to use of lower temperature
ash fusion coal
LIME
26
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
Factors Used to Determine Cost Benefits
of Boiler Injection of Byproduct Mg(OH)2
Cost factor
LIME
Thiosorbic
LSFO
Coal cost reduction for lower ash
fusion coal, $/ton
0.50
N/A
Increase in boiler availability to
reduced slag build-up, fewer slag
falls, air heater washing,
unplanned outages, hrs/yr
Increased efficiency due to
reduction in sulfuric acid
dewpoint, cleaner boiler tubes, %
48
N/A
0.75
N/A
27
North America - Byproduct Mg(OH)2 from the Thiosorbic® Process
40
Lower Life Cycle Cost with Thiosorbic Process
and Byproduct Mg(OH)2 Compared with LSFO
base case
Limestone cost, $/ton
35
Increased availability & furnace efficiency
Increased availability & furnace efficiency, reduced fuel cost
30
Lower life cycle cost for
Thiosorbic process in area
above each line
25
20
Increasing cost
competitiveness of
Thiosorbic process
15
10
Based on 3% sulfur
bituminous coal
5
0
40
LIME
45
50
55
Lime cost, $/ton
60
65
70
28
North America - Hydrated Lime for SO3 Control
HYDRATED LIME INJECTION
FOR SO3 CONTROL
LIME
29
North America - Hydrated Lime for SO3 Control
Ca(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control
• Hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2] has been
demonstrated at 1300 MW for control of SO3
emissions after selective catalytic reduction
(SCR)
• Hydrated lime powder can be injected into
flue gas immediately after the air heater and
before the particulate collector, or injected
after the particulate collector and before the
Thiosorbic FGD system
LIME
30
North America - Hydrated Lime for SO3 Control
Ca(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control
Furnace
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
Ca(OH)2
Injection
Locations
ESP
Thiosorbic
FGD
LIME
31
North America - Hydrated Lime for SO3 Control
Ca(OH)2 Injection for SO3 Control
• Hydrated lime injected before the particulate
collector (e.g. ESP) is removed with fly ash
• Hydrated lime injected before the Thiosorbic
FGD system is removed by impingement with
absorber spays
 Results in complete utilization of the hydrated lime
which substantially reduces reagent cost for SO3
control
• 90% removal of SCR-generated SO3 is
possible at Ca:SO3 molar ratio of 8
LIME
32
North America
Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas
Treatment Using Thiosorbic Lime
Conclusions:
• The Thiosorbic process is a widely utilized FGD process
•
•
•
•
LIME
with a 25 record of successful operation
The Thiosorbic lime FGD process provides better SO2
removal performance than the LSFO process
The Thiosorbic process allows lower FGD capital cost,
lower power consumption, and lower life cycle cost than
the LSFO process
Byproduct Mg(OH)2 provides efficient control of furnace
SO3 emissions and additional operating benefits and cost
savings
Hydrated lime provides efficient, low-cost control of SO3
formed during SCR
33