You are on page 1of 42
Michael A. Walsh, P.E. VP Engineering WET FGD TYPES AND FUNDAMENTALS
Michael A. Walsh, P.E.
VP Engineering
WET FGD TYPES
AND FUNDAMENTALS
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 1. Overview of the WFGD Process 1.
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
1. Overview of the WFGD Process
1. Overview of the WFGD Process
2.
2. Basic
Basic Chemistry
Chemistry
3.
Typical FGD Processes
3.
Typical FGD Processes
4. Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
4. Dry FGD vs Wet FGD
5.
Summary
5. Summary
2
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 1. 1. Overview Overview of of the
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
1. 1. Overview Overview of of the the WFGD WFGD Process Process
3
Reagents Reagents Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved All require use of an
Reagents
Reagents
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
All require use of an alkaline chemical “reagent”
Limestone
Lime
Ammonia
Sodium
4
Byproducts Byproducts Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved All convert gaseous SO 2
Byproducts
Byproducts
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
All convert gaseous SO 2 to either liquid or solid
waste by-product
Throwaway process
Gypsum process
Regenerative process
Fertilizer product process
5
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 2. 2. Basic Basic Chemistry Chemistry 6
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
2. 2. Basic Basic Chemistry Chemistry
6
Limestone Limestone Systems Systems Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Reactions taking place
Limestone
Limestone Systems
Systems
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Reactions taking place in absorber & recycle tank:
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 + ½
O
CaSO
Oxidation
2
4
4.
CaSO 3 + ½
H
CaSO
+ ½ H 2 O
Crystallization
2 O
3
5.
CaSO 4 + 2H 2 O
CaSO 4 . 2H 2 O
Crystallization
7
Lime Lime Systems Systems Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Reactions taking place
Lime
Lime Systems
Systems
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Reactions taking place in abso rber & 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
8
Typical Typical Limestone Limestone FGD FGD Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 9
Typical
Typical Limestone
Limestone FGD
FGD
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
9
Typical Typical Limestone Limestone FGD FGD Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 10
Typical
Typical Limestone
Limestone FGD
FGD
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
10
Ammonia-Based Ammonia-Based WFGD WFGD System System Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 11
Ammonia-Based
Ammonia-Based WFGD
WFGD System
System
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
11
Ammonia Ammonia WFGD WFGD Process Process Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved SO
Ammonia
Ammonia WFGD
WFGD Process
Process
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
12
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 3. 3. Typical Typical FGD FGD Processes
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
3. 3. Typical Typical FGD FGD Processes Processes
13
Typical Typical WFGD WFGD Processes Processes Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 1.
Typical
Typical WFGD
WFGD Processes
Processes
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
1.
SO
Outlet Emissions
1.
SO
2
Outlet Emissions
2
2.
pH and Stoichiometry
2.
pH and Stoichiometry
3.
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
3.
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
4.
SO
Inlet Concentration
4.
SO
2
Inlet Concentration
2
5.
Residence Time
5.
Residence Time
6.
Mist Elimination
6.
Mist Elimination
14
SO SO Outlet Emissions Outlet Emissions 2 2 Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights
SO
SO
Outlet Emissions
Outlet Emissions
2
2
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
15
pHpH and and Stoichiometry Stoichiometry Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Slurry pH
pHpH and
and Stoichiometry
Stoichiometry
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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.
16
Liquid-to-Gas Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Ratio Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved L/G is the
Liquid-to-Gas
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Ratio
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
17
Liquid-to-Gas Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Ratio Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 100 Limestone Ammonia
Liquid-to-Gas
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Ratio
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
100
Limestone
Ammonia
3 Operating Spray Levels
Constant Coal Sulfur of 1.0 wt%
75
1
3
5
7
9
11
L/G Ratio [liters /cubic meter]
The maximum flue gas velocity sets the absorber vessel diameters
and impacts the ability of the mist eliminators to prevent droplet
carryover.
18
SO 2 Removal Efficiency [%]
SO SO Inlet Concentration Inlet Concentration 2 2 Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights
SO
SO
Inlet Concentration
Inlet Concentration
2
2
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
100
3 Operating Spray Levels
Constant L/G of 6.9 l/m3
Limestone
Ammonia
75
0123456
% Sulfur in the Fuel
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
19
SO 2 Removal Efficiency [ %]
Residence Residence Time Time Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Residence time –
Residence
Residence Time
Time
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
20
Mist Mist Elimination Elimination Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Important to remove
Mist
Mist Elimination
Elimination
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Important to remove entrained liqu id 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
21
Mist Mist Elimination Elimination Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 100 75 50
Mist
Mist Elimination
Elimination
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
100
75
50
25
0
234567
Mist Eliminator Gas Velocity [meters/sec]
22
Outlet Mist Carryover [mg/Nm3]
Mist Mist Elimination Elimination Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Major parameters to
Mist
Mist Elimination
Elimination
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Major parameters to be considered fo r proper mist eliminator washing
include:
-
Wash water rate
-
Water quality
-
Timing sequence
-
Washing area coverage
-
Nozzle pressure
-
Nozzle spray angle
23
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 4. 4. Major Major Components Components 24
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
4. 4. Major Major Components Components
24
Absorbers Absorbers –– Traditional Traditional Reagents Reagents Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved
Absorbers
Absorbers –– Traditional
Traditional Reagents
Reagents
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
5. Spray Dryers
5. Spray Dryers
6. Wulff Process
6. Wulff Process
25
Spray Spray Absorbers Absorbers Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Flue Gas Outlet
Spray
Spray Absorbers
Absorbers
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Flue Gas Outlet
Mist Eliminator Wash Sprays
Mist
Eliminators
Absorption Sprays
Flue Gas Inlet
Liquid Level
Sparger
Agitator
Recycle Pumps
(3 + 1)
26
Isometric Isometric of of “Open” “Open” Spray Spray Tower Tower Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies
Isometric
Isometric of
of “Open”
“Open” Spray
Spray Tower
Tower
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
27
Typical Typical Spray Spray Pattern Pattern Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 28
Typical
Typical Spray
Spray Pattern
Pattern
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
28
Tray Tray Towers Towers Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 29
Tray
Tray Towers
Towers
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
29
Packed Packed Towers Towers Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Gas enters the
Packed
Packed Towers
Towers
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
30
Jet Jet Bubbling Bubbling Reactor Reactor Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved In
Jet
Jet Bubbling
Bubbling Reactor
Reactor
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
In one vessel combines
concurrent chemical reactions of:
Limestone dissolution
SO 2 absorption
Neutralization
Sulfite oxidation
Gypsum precipitation
Gypsum crystal growth
31
Jet Jet Bubbling Bubbling Reactor Reactor Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Gas
Jet
Jet Bubbling
Bubbling Reactor
Reactor
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Gas Sparger Action
Cut-Away of JBR
32
Spray Spray Dryer Dryer Absorber Absorber Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved Atomizer
Spray
Spray Dryer
Dryer Absorber
Absorber
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Atomizer
Removal
Monorail
Penthouse
Rotary atomizer (shown) or dual
fluid atomization
Inlet Gas
Axial
Distributor
Entry
Vanes
Lime slurry or lime + recycle
reagent
Atomizer
~95% SO2 efficiency practical
limit due to stoichiometry
33
Graf Graf // Wulff Wulff Fluidized Fluidized Bed Bed Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All
Graf
Graf // Wulff
Wulff Fluidized
Fluidized Bed
Bed
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Reflux Circulating Fluid Bed Technology
34
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 4. 4. Dry Dry FGD FGD vs.
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
4.
4.
Dry Dry FGD FGD vs. vs. Wet Wet FGD FGD
35
Dry Dry FGD FGD vs vs Wet Wet FGD FGD Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies
Dry
Dry FGD
FGD vs
vs Wet
Wet FGD
FGD
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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 $'s
(Normalized)
Coal % Sulfur preference
Lower
Higher
> 2%
<2%
By-Product Usage
Possible
Rare
SO 3 Emissions
Yes
NIL
36
Dry Dry FGD FGD vs vs Wet Wet FGD FGD Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies
Dry
Dry FGD
FGD vs
vs Wet
Wet FGD
FGD
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Decision
Decision
% Sulfur in coal is the primary driver
Wet FGD can accommodate lower (than design) sulfur coal
Dry FGD faces performance limita tions with higher (than design)
sulfur coal
Decisions maybe influenced by site-specific:
− Permit requirements
− Delivered cost of reagents
− Disposition of by-product
SO 3 emission requirements may drive economics to dry FGD in some
cases
37
Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved 5. 5. Summary Summary 38
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
5. 5. Summary Summary
38
By-product By-product Values Values Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights reserved ($US/ton) ($US/ton) Gypsum
By-product
By-product Values
Values
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
($US/ton) ($US/ton)
Gypsum
Sulfuric Acid (100% basis)*
Elemental Sulfur*
Ammonium Sulfate*
-4 to +4
60 to 88
50 to 80
110 to 196
*Source: Green Markets
39
Lower Lower Colorado Colorado River River Authority Authority Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights
Lower
Lower Colorado
Colorado River
River Authority
Authority
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
2x600 MW, Units 1 &2
2x600 MW, Units 1 &2
Wet FGD retrofit awarded to MET in 2006
Fuel:
PRB Coal
% Sulfur:
0.8%
Inlet Gas Volume: (acfm)
Reagent:
2,548,000
Limestone
Absorber Type:
Spray Tower
SO 2 Removal Efficiency:
97%
Startup Date:
2010
Fayette Power Project, Units 1, 2 and 3
Texas
40
LCRA LCRA Fayette Fayette Units Units 1&2 1&2 Copyright © 2008 Marsulex Environmental Technologies All rights
LCRA
LCRA Fayette
Fayette Units
Units 1&2
1&2
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
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
41
US Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power US Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power
US Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power
US Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power
Plants & Combined Heat and Power Plants, 1994 through 2005
Plants & Combined Heat and Power Plants, 1994 through 2005
Copyright © 2008
Marsulex Environmental Technologies
All rights reserved
Carbon Dioxide
(CO 2 )
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO 2 )
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NO x )
FGD
Capacity
Installations
(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
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”
42