COMPARISON OF FABRIC FILTERS AND

ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS FOR

COAL-FIRED THERMAL PLANTS TO
ACHIEVE STRINGENT PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS LIMITS

Pratik Mehta
Black & Veatch Consulting Private Ltd.
India
Utility companies burning low sulfur coal face the challenge of effectively capturing
particulate matter from boiler flue gas. Both electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and fabric filter
particulate control technologies are now commercially available. Because of the current design
of existing ESPs, replacing previously installed particulate control systems with more efficient
and effective particulate control systems may be required to consistently meet new, more
stringent particulate emissions limits.
Many existing ESPs have undergone upgrades to increase collection efficiency and
reliability, including the addition of flue gas conditioning systems, plant management systems,
improved controllers and distribution screens. However, many existing ESP systems are not
sized to meet future emissions limitations of 50 milligrams per normal cubic meter (mg/Nm3).
This paper provides an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of ESP and fabric
filter particulate control technologies and examines future pollutant control impacts.

1
INTRODUCTION
Historically, ESPs have been the primary means of particulate emissions control in the
utility industry. However as particulate emissions limits have become increasingly stringent,
ESPs have become larger and more expensive. In addition, the use of low sulfur and high ash
coal produces high resistivity fly ash, which results in increased ESP sizing and costs. Fly ash
with a high electrical resistivity is difficult to charge and to precipitate from the flue gas, thus
requiring larger precipitators to maintain collection efficiency, in conjunction with flue gas
conditioning to reduce ash resistivity for effective collection.
Fabric filters are a potential alternative to ESPs because they offer high collection
efficiency while remaining relatively independent of the type of coal burned. The relative
indifference of a fabric filter to fuel characteristics allows for more variation in fuel
characteristics, while still meeting particulate emissions limitations. Unlike ESPs, fabric filter
design and performance is not dependent on any physical or chemical properties of the fly ash.

HISTORICAL OPERATION REVIEW

Many older, coal-fired power stations are equipped with ESPs to control particulate
emissions. With the aging of the power plant systems and high ash content in the coal, the
ability of the existing ESPs to effectively collect the particulates and maintain consistent
particulate emissions from the stack has degraded.
Many of the existing ESPs have undergone upgrades to increase their collection
efficiency and reliability, including the addition of flue gas conditioning systems to aid in
collection efficiency. Flue gas conditioning, the injection of sulfur trioxide (SO3) or ammonia,
helps modify the ash characteristics by decreasing ash resistivity and/or increasing the
cohesiveness of the ash to agglomerate fine particulate. However, many ESPs have been
incapable of limiting the particulate emissions to less than 100 mg/Nm3 on a consistent basis,
raising the concern of their ability to maintain the future emissions limitations to a maximum of
50 mg/Nm3.
While newer ESPs can be built and sized to achieve higher particulate removal, the size
and cost of these ESPs increase. Recent utility industry trends worldwide have taken advantage
of the ability of fabric filters to provide improved collection efficiency and reduce outlet
emissions on a consistent basis. Installing fabric filters on new-build power stations may be

2
required because of their demonstrated capability to reduce particulate emissions to meet or
exceed the requirements of current and future particulate emissions regulations; however, an
economic analysis is required to determine a cost-effective approach for particulate control.

ESP TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

ESPs have long been the predominant particulate collection device used on coal-fired
power plants.
ESPs remove particulate by first charging fly ash particles and then collecting the
charged particulate on oppositely charged surfaces. A utility ESP is essentially a large enclosure
placed in the ductwork between the air heater and induced draft fans. A series of parallel steel
plates (called collecting plates) spaced approximately 300 to 400 millimeters (mm) apart are
located within the ESP. Discharge electrodes made of rigid steel pipelike shapes or stretched
wires are located between and parallel to the collecting plates. Power supplies (transformer-
rectifiers or switch mode power supplies) negatively charge the discharge electrodes and
positively charge the collecting plates to create a voltage differential. As particulate-laden flue
gas passes between the plates and wires, ash particles become negatively charged. The particles
then migrate to the positively charged plate where ash accumulates. Periodic rapping of the
collecting plates is used to impart shearing forces on the ash particles causing the accumulated
ash to fall from the plate into the hopper below for temporary storage until the ash handling
system can remove ash for disposal. Some of the dust, however, is re-entrained back into the
flue gas stream and carried to the next ESP collection field or out to the stack.
ESP collection efficiency is dependent on ESP size and the characteristics of the fly ash.
The ease with which an ESP can collect fly ash is a function of the particulate physical, chemical
and electrical properties (such as particle size, composition and resistivity), and flue gas
properties (such as flue gas temperature and flue gas composition). Factors such as these, along
with flue gas flow rate and particulate loading, determine the specific collection area (SCA) or
physical size of an ESP.
ESP operation also depends on the accurate alignment of discharge electrodes and
collecting plates, the uniformity and smoothness of gas flow through the ESP, the frequency and
intensity of rapping of the plates, and the size and electrical stability of the transformer-rectifier
sets.

3
 One of the most important fly ash properties that significantly affect the ESP operation is
ash resistivity. Resistivity is a measure of how easily the particulate acquires an electric charge.
Fly ash resistivity varies with the moisture content, chemical composition and temperature of the
ash in the flue gas. The higher the ash resistivity, the more difficult it is to charge and remove
the ash from the flue gas with an ESP. The major coal property affecting fly ash resistivity for
ESPs is coal sulfur content. SO3 formed by the combustion of the sulfur in the coal coats the fly
ash particles and lowers surface resistivity. Thus, lower sulfur fuels, which tend to form only
small amounts of SO3, produce particulates that are more difficult to collect in an ESP.
The chemical composition also strongly affects the resistivity of the ash. The presence of
sodium, lithium and iron oxides in the ash reduces the bulk resistivity of the ash. Similarly, the
presence of silicon and aluminum oxides in the ash increases the resistivity of the ash. In
general, the lower ability of an ESP to precipitate high resistivity fly ash requires a larger
collection area to achieve compliance.
Another ash property that significantly affects the sizing of the ESP is ash particle size.
Particle size directly affects the migration velocity of fly ash particles. As the particle size
decreases, migration velocity decreases, reducing the capability of an ESP to collect the smaller
particles. Smaller ash particles are also prone to re-entrainment during rapping, with rapping
forces tending to move the fine particles back to the flue gas stream.
Flue gas conditioning has been used successfully to improve performance by
agglomerating the ash particles with additional cohesiveness. However, depending on the design
of the ESP and the dust characteristics, flue gas conditioning may not be sufficient to achieve
new standards. Therefore, in those cases, it may be necessary to install a new particulate control
device.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ESP TECHNOLOGY

ESPs have several advantages over fabric filters, including lower draft loss and lower
maintenance cost, and they are not easily damaged by high temperatures. The lower draft loss
reduces the induced draft fan size and fan power consumption compared to a fabric filter but is
partially offset by the higher direct auxiliary power use of an ESP, as discussed later.
The steel construction of the ESP limits the amount of maintenance that is typically
required. An ESP inspection and minor repair of rappers, plates and controls are typically

4
completed every couple of years. Major maintenance is not typically required prior to 10 years
of service, and rebuilds are not required prior to 20 to 30 years of service if routine periodic
maintenance is completed and proper unit operating conditions are maintained. While high
temperature excursions can damage some parts of an ESP, the damage is typically limited to
instruments and some warping of steel that can be repaired. Extended operation at low
temperatures or with casing leaks can cause acid condensation that can result in extensive
corrosion.
There are several disadvantages of ESPs compared to fabric filters: higher direct
auxiliary power consumption (excluding the induced draft fan power consumption), lower ash
collection efficiency during startup, lower collection efficiency of fine particulate and less
flexibility in fuel and operating conditions. The higher direct auxiliary power consumption by
the ESP is for the transformer-rectifier set operating power, but it is offset by the higher induced
draft fan power and cleaning air equipment power required by a fabric filter.
Reduced collection efficiency during startup operations is due to low flue gas
temperatures during startup, which affect the ash resistivity. The ESPs are also not as efficient in
collecting particles in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 microgram, the particles that can cause the most
health issues.
Finally, changes in the fuel, pulverizer grind, combustion efficiency or other operating
conditions are much more likely to cause a degradation of ESP performance compared to a fabric
filter. This can require retuning of controls or the addition of a flue gas conditioning system to
improve the ash characteristics.

FABRIC FILTER TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

A fabric filter is a particulate collection device based upon the principle of filtration,
which is a reliable, efficient and economical method for removing particulate matter from the
boiler flue gases. Fabric filter technology utilizes a fabric filter media to collect the particulate in
the flue gas. This fabric filter media is in the form of long, cylindrical bags. Thousands of these
bags exist in a typical utility-size fabric filter. Proper application of fabric filter technology
typically results in clear stacks, with opacity continuously below 5 percent for the full range of
operation (except startup of the plant with oil, if not operated in bypass mode). Startup can be a
challenge with fabric filters, especially for units that use oil as a startup fuel due to the sticky oil

5
soot blinding the bags. Therefore, fabric filters are often equipped with bypasses or lime
injection systems for startup to avoid the possibility of blinding the bags.
A fabric filter is typically split into separate, isolatable compartments to allow removal of
individual compartments from service. This allows for inspection and maintenance of part of the
bags without affecting steady-state operations when the fabric filter is designed for a spare
compartment (N+1) configuration. Each compartment holds hundreds of bags. Dampers
provide the ability to isolate each compartment from the others, thus allowing maintenance to
take place in a single compartment while the rest of the fabric filter maintains normal operation
of the unit. The design of fabric filters can provide for the isolation of compartments either
manually or automatically, depending on the type of process control and the type of fabric filter
selected. With negative pressure operation in the fabric filter, these isolated compartments can
be designed to allow entry by maintenance staff. To allow for removal of a compartment from
service, provision of sufficient cloth area ensures that fabric filter performance remains within
particulate emissions limits when any one of the compartments is isolated.
Collected particulate from the flue gas builds an ash cake layer over the filter bags that
further aids in preventing passage of the particulate through the bags. If the ash layer is not
periodically removed from the bag surface, the pressure drop would increase substantially above
the desired limits. To avoid this, the filter bags are periodically cleaned when the pressure
differential across the fabric filter reaches a designated setpoint or when a set period of time
passes. Typically, an online cleaning method is employed while the filter bags are filtering the
flue gas, with provisions to allow offline cleaning when special conditions warrant; however,
some designs and applications require offline cleaning.
The most critical parameter in the design of a fabric filter is the relative system size
characterized by the term “air-to-cloth ratio,” which determines the gas velocity through the
filter-rectifier. The appropriate air-to-cloth ratio is determined based on the dust loading and bag
cleaning method. The cleaning method determines the typical dust cake depth on the bags and in
turn affects the resistance to gas flow (pressure drop), which in turn determines the draft loss.
The filter bag life is determined by the ash composition, duty cycle of the fabric filter,
cleaning method and frequency, and the care taken in handling the filter bags by service or
maintenance personnel.

6
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FABRIC FILTER TECHNOLOGY
Fabric filters provide several advantages over an ESP-based particulate collection system:
increased fuel flexibility, higher efficiency (especially on particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
[PM2.5]), performance that is less susceptible to power plant operating conditions and that can
work well during startups and partial load conditions, higher reliability in operation by
compartmentalizing and the potential for multi-pollutant control technology.
Fabric filters will typically have greater flexibility in meeting changing unit operating
conditions or coal composition. Unlike ESPs, the performance of fabric filters does not rely on
any physical properties of the fly ash. Operational factors that normally affect an ESP (changing
the dust loading, temperature, unburned carbon, particle size, etc.) do not significantly affect
fabric filters. The operational factors could include such parameters as oxygen levels, soot
blowing, pulverizer performance, combustion performance, flue gas temperature changes and
load changes.
Fabric filters are extremely effective in meeting low particulate emissions requirements.
Fabric filters are also effective at limiting the emission of particulate matter that is sized less than
2.5 microns. This is an important consideration on the basis of research regarding PM2.5 that
indicates that this fine particulate constitutes the highest risk to human health and the largest
contribution to regional haze. ESPs are generally less effective at the removal of particles less
than 2.5 microns.
A fabric filter does have several disadvantages that include susceptibility to bag damage
at high temperatures, higher maintenance, higher draft loss and the potential for blinding bags
especially if the startup fuel is oil. Very high temperature excursions will affect a fabric filter
more than an ESP. Failure of an air heater or any other condition that causes the flue gas
temperature to increase can potentially cause extensive damage to the bag fabric material, which
could require replacement of all the bags. While the exact temperature that will cause damage
depends on the fabric material selected and the duration of the temperature excursion, for
commonly used bag material, temperatures as low as 205° C (400° F) can lead to rapid bag life
loss. High dust loadings also require more frequent cleaning, which can affect bag life. Bag
replacement is very expensive and takes a significant outage time. The periodic required
replacement of filter bags because of their limited life (approximately three years) requires
coordination with outage planning and results in higher maintenance costs than for an ESP.

7
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ESP AND FABRIC FILTERS
Table 1 summarizes the design criteria difference between an ESP and a fabric filter.

Table 1. Design Criteria Difference Between an ESP and a Fabric Filter

Parameter ESP Fabric Filter

Fuel Flexibility Low High
Operational Capability with High Medium
Startup Fuel Oil (low temperatures affect (requires sacrificial bags)
resistivity)
Impact of Flue Gas Flow Rate High Medium
(reduces residence time (shorter bag life and
and increases re- increased pressure drop)
entrainment)
Impact of Flue Gas Temperature Medium - High Low - High
(ash resistivity) (potential for bag material
damage)
Impact of Ash Characteristics and High Low
Resistivity
Impact of Ash Loading Rate High Low - Medium
(affects sizing of ESP)
Impact of Ash Particle Size High Low
Distribution and Migration (fine particles difficult
Velocity to collect)
Capability to Collect Particle Size Low High
Below 2.5 Microns
Draft Loss Low High
Maintenance Frequency Low High
(routine check every (bag and cage replacement
four years) every three years; pulse
valve replacement)
Operations and Maintenance Low High
(O&M) Costs
Fire Hazard Low Low
(except for special cases,
such as biomass)
Multi-Pollutant Capability Varies Good

8
CASE STUDY OF ESP AND FABRIC FILTER TECHNOLOGY ON COAL-FIRED
POWER PLANT
As presented in this paper, there are advantages and disadvantages to both types of
particulate control technologies. Technology selection therefore often becomes a question of
economics.
The following is an example of an economic analysis that should be performed during the
development stage of the project to identify the best economic solution. It should be noted that
each project is different, and in each case, economics can result in a different technology
selection. Therefore, this case study is provided for illustrative purposes. A conceptual design
basis for a new 660 megawatt (MW) boiler was developed. The design basis was established for
three coal cases: 100 percent Indian coal, 100 percent Indonesian coal and 100 percent South
African coal. Table 2 provides information for the three different types of coal considered for
this case study and the estimated flow rates and properties of the flue gas leaving the air heater of
the steam generator for each of these fuels.

Table 2. Design Basis for Typical 660 MW Boiler

100%
100% Indonesian 100% South
Parameters Units Indian Coal Coal African Coal
Ultimate Analysis
Carbon % 38.5 56.8 49.4
Hydrogen % 2.8 4.05 2.6
Sulfur % 0.5 0.5 0.8
Nitrogen % 0.87 1.5 1.0
Oxygen % 7.33 13.65 5.2
Ash % 40 8.5 38
Moisture % 10 15 3
Total % 100 100 100
Gross Calorific Value kcal/kg 3,800 5,410 4,536
Lower Calorific Value kcal/kg 3,587 5,099 4,280

9
 100%
100% Indonesian 100% South
Parameters Units Indian Coal Coal African Coal
Design Parameters
Flue Gas Volume (dry) Nm³/s 569.14 573.37 715.20
Flue Gas Volume (wet) Nm³/s 633.51 638.86 773.55
Flue Gas Temperature °C 150 150 150
Actual Quantity of Flue Gas m³/s 993.19 1,001.59 1,273.10
Fuel Fired kg/h 376,693 263,043 297,468
Fly Ash to Dust Collection % 90 90 90
Inlet Dust Concentration g/m³ 66.19 9.75 39.51

Performance calculations were based on the established design basis parameters that are
also the basis for estimating capital and annual O&M costs. Several technical and economic
assumptions were made in order to develop technical calculations and cost estimates. Table 3
lists the major economic factors used to obtain annual O&M costs.

Table 3. Major Economic Factors

Parameters Units Values

Plant Life Years 30
Capacity Factor % 90
Cost of Auxiliary Power USD/kW 0.04
Cost of Ammonia USD/kg 1
Cost of Sulfur USD/kg 0.25
Cost of Bag USD/bag 90
Cost of Cage USD/cage 12
Maintenance Material Costs for ESP Percent of direct costs 1.5
Life of Fabric Filter Bags Hours 20,000
Interest Rate % 10
Capital Recovery Factor % 10.61
Note: USD = United States Dollar.

10
 High-level conceptual designs for ESP and fabric filter technology were developed by
taking into consideration current and possible future emissions limits for particulate matter.
Conceptual designs for the ESP and fabric filter were developed for three different fuels listed in
Table 2 and for three different levels of particulate emissions: 50 mg/Nm3, 30 mg/Nm3 and
15 mg/Nm3. Table 4 lists the conceptual designs for the ESP and fabric filter.

Table 4. Conceptual Design for ESP and Fabric Filter

Parameters 100% Indian Coal 100% Indonesian Coal 100% South African Coal
Outlet Dust,
mg/Nm3 50 30 15 50 30 15 50 30 15
ESP Design
No. of
Chambers 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
No. of Fields 8 9 10 6 7 8 8 9 10
SCA, m2/m3/s 283.67 319.13 354.59 180.14 210.16 240.18 204.28 229.82 255.35
ID Fan Power
Consumption,
kW 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375
Auxiliary
Power Con-
sumption, kW 1,972 2,219 2,465 1,624 1,894 2,165 1,820 2,048 2,276
Total Power
Consumption,
kW 2,347 2,594 2,840 1,999 2,269 2,540 2,195 2,423 2,651
Fabric Filter
Design
No. of Casings 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
No. of
Compartments
per Casing 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total No. of
Bags/Cages 28,224 30,576 35,280 25,632 27,768 32,040 27,000 29,250 33,750
Gross Air-to-
Cloth Ratio,
m3/m2/s 0.01085 0.01002 0.00868 0.01205 0.01113 0.00964 0.01454 0.01342 0.01163
Net Air-to-
Cloth Ratio,
m3/m2/s 0.01133 0.01045 0.00906 0.01258 0.01161 0.01006 0.01518 0.01401 0.01214

11
 Parameters 100% Indian Coal 100% Indonesian Coal 100% South African Coal
Net-Net Air-
to-Cloth Ratio,
m3/m2/s 0.01184 0.01093 0.00947 0.01315 0.01214 0.01052 0.01587 0.01465 0.01269
ID Fan Power
Consumption,
kW 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Auxiliary
Power Con-
sumption, kW 330 358 413 300 325 375 320 347 400
Total Power
Consumption,
kW 2,730 2,758 2,813 2,700 2,725 2,775 2,720 2,747 2,800
Note: ESP and fabric filter conceptual design are based on previous project experience and engineering
judgment.

To develop capital and operating costs for the ESP, it was assumed that for achieving
50 mg/Nm3 of particulate outlet emissions on a continuous basis, flue gas conditioning may not
be required. However, achieving any particulate emissions from an ESP lower than 50 mg/Nm3
on a continuous basis may require a flue gas conditioning system. The use of a flue gas
conditioning system may offset the saleability of fly ash thus requiring disposal of fly ash. The
ash disposal costs are not included in the operating cost estimates because ash disposal costs are
site specific. Induced draft fan costs for the ESP and fabric filter are included in the cost
estimates.
Table 5 lists capital, operation and levelized annual costs for all the different alternatives
for the ESP and fabric filter.
Capital and operating cost data should be considered high-level conceptual design
estimates and are typically order of magnitude cost estimates only. All high-level costs
developed for this case study consider standard marketplace and labor conditions in India. No
site-specific cost adjustments are included in this case study.
In this case study, ESPs were the economic choice for achieving 50 mg/Nm3 of
particulate outlet emissions on a continuous basis for Indian, Indonesian and South African
coals. However, economics is just one of the many aspects, and the ESP may still struggle with
changing inlet flue gas conditions which may affect the long-term performance of the ESP. For
achieving stringent particulate emissions limits of 30 mg/Nm3 and 15 mg/Nm3 on a continuous

12
 Table 5. Capital, Operation and Levelized Annual Costs for ESP and Fabric Filter

Parameters 100% Indian Coal 100% Indonesian Coal 100% South African Coal
Outlet Dust,
mg/Nm3 50 30 15 50 30 15 50 30 15
Capital Cost
ESP Capital
Costs, USD
millions 21.72 26.70 29.18 16.62 21.57 24.03 20.89 25.77 28.14
Fabric Filter
Capital Costs,
USD millions 15.21 16.27 18.39 14.36 15.35 17.33 14.81 15.84 17.89
O&M Cost
ESP O&M
Costs, USD
millions/year 1.01 1.28 1.48 0.83 1.11 1.32 0.95 1.25 1.47
Fabric Filter
O&M Costs,
USD
millions/year 2.03 2.14 2.34 1.92 2.01 2.20 1.98 2.08 2.28
Levelized
Cost
ESP Levelized
Costs, USD
millions/year 3.32 4.11 4.58 2.60 3.40 3.87 3.17 3.98 4.45
Fabric Filter
Levelized
Costs, USD
millions/year 3.65 3.86 4.29 3.44 3.64 4.04 3.55 3.76 4.17
Note: ESP and fabric filter cost estimates are based on previous project experience and engineering judgment.

basis on 100 percent Indian coal and 100 percent South African coal, the fabric filter was the
more cost-effective option. To achieve stringent particulate emissions limits of 30 mg/Nm3 and
15 mg/Nm3 on a continuous basis on 100 percent Indonesian coals, a flue gas conditioning
system may be required, which may offset the saleability of fly ash and thus require disposal of
fly ash. Ash disposal costs were not taken into account in this case study because they are site-
specific.

13
CONCLUSIONS
When designing a new power plant, there are multiple options for particulate control.
The technology selection is dependent on many factors, including the following:
 Particulate emissions limits.
 Variability in the source of the fuel.
 Site issues.
 Startup requirements.
 O&M priorities.
 Other pollution control equipment and emissions requirements.
For each project, it is recommended that an economic evaluation be performed to ensure
that the most cost-effective technology is selected for the project.

REFERENCES
1. Lawrence F. Drbal, et. al., Power Plant Engineering – Black & Veatch, Springer, 1996.

© Black & Veatch Holding Company 2013. All Rights Reserved. The Black & Veatch name and logo are registered trademarks
of Black & Veatch Holding Company. 

14