1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 14

CLEANER COAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMME

TECHNOLOGY
STATUS REPORT

FLUE GAS
DESULPHURISATION
(FGD) TECHNOLOGIES

T ECHNOLOGY
S TATUS R EPORT
MARCH 2000
Department of Trade and Industry 012
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 15

Further information on the Cleaner Coal Technology Programme,

and copies of publications, can be obtained from:
Roshan Kamall, Location 1124, Department of Trade and Industry,
1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET
Tel: +44 (0) 207 215 6261
Fax: +44 (0) 207 215 2674
E-mail: roshan.kamal@hend.dti.gov.uk
Web: www.dti.gov.uk/ent/coal
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 1
FLUE GAS DESULPHURISATION (FGD) TECHNOLOGIES
Figure 1. Ratcliffe-on-Soar FGD (Courtesy of PowerGen UK plc)
SUMMARY
Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technologies are widely used to control
the emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and sulphur trioxide (SO3) from
large stationary sources such as coal- and oil-fired power stations and
refineries. They are to be distinguished from the flue gas treatment (FGT)
processes used for removing pollutants from waste incinerators.
A variety of FGD processes are available; most use an alkali sorbent to
recover the acidic sulphur compounds from the flue gas. The most widely
used processes are the limestone gypsum process, which produces a
saleable gypsum by-product, variants of the limestone process that
produce a disposable sludge, and the spray dry process, which produces a
mixed solid waste.
Capital costs of FGD processes have been steadily falling and current costs
are in the range US$100-125 kW-1 (£65-80 kW-1), with further falls in
cost predicted for 2000 and beyond. The total market for FGD plant is
likely to exceed £1Bn pa over the next decade, with North America and
China being the largest markets.
Current research and development (R&D) needs are to further reduce
costs, increase desulphurisation efficiencies and improve the reliability of
plant components.
BENEFITS OF THE
TECHNOLOGY
FGD is widely applicable as a means of controlling SO2 emissions from
large, stationary sources such as power stations, refineries and
metallurgical plant (eg Figure 1). The widespread adoption of FGD,
together with measures to reduce SO2 emissions from other sources (eg
replacement of coal by electricity or gas for domestic heating; low sulphur
motor fuels) will significantly reduce anthropogenic sulphur emissions
worldwide and thus help to improve air quality to the benefit of both
human health and the environment.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND
INDUSTRY SUPPORT
Since 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has supported 8
projects associated with FGD, contributing £320k to total project costs of
£1887k.
INTRODUCTION
Sulphur is one of the most common elements in the earth’s crust, and
occurs widely as an impurity in coal, crude oil and many ores. It is
therefore produced on a large scale during such industrial processes as the
combustion of coal, oil and oil-derived fuels, oil refining and the
production of metals from their ores. Currently, global SO2 emissions
arising from human activity amount to ~140 million tonnes (Mt) per year,
of which ~2Mt (1.4%) is produced by the UK. The UK’s SO2 emissions
have, however, fallen significantly over the past 30 years (Figure 2).
SO2 is one of the principal gaseous pollutants emitted by human activity.
It can be a hazard to human health and damages both the natural and
built environments. High levels of SO2 can cause respiratory illness and its
presence in the environment causes acid rain that damages both
vegetation and buildings. Control and reduction of SO2 emissions has
therefore been recognised as important for safeguarding human health
and protecting the environment since the mid-19th century; many
countries now set limits on the amount and concentration of sulphur
compounds emitted from the stacks of industrial plant.
Emissions of SO2 can be controlled in several ways. It may be possible to
switch to a fuel or ore that has a lower sulphur content, or improve the
efficiency of the industrial process so that less fuel is required. The
sulphur in the fuel or ore can in principle be removed before use;
however, in practice, it is uneconomic to remove more than a small
percentage of the sulphur. The sulphur can also be removed during use.
However, in many applications, the most efficient means of controlling
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 2
SO2 emissions is to remove the SO2 from the flue gases before they are
released to the atmosphere. Several differing FGD technologies have been
developed to this end.
SO2 Emitted (kt)
1970 1980 1985 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Year
Large combustion plant
Figure 2. Trends in UK SO 2 emissions
FUNDAMENTALS OF FGD
Chemical Principles
Almost all commercial FGD processes are based on the fact that SO2 is
acidic in nature, and remove the SO2 from flue gases by reaction with a
suitable alkaline substance. The most commonly used alkaline materials
are limestone (calcium carbonate), quicklime (calcium oxide, CaO) and
hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide). Limestone is an abundant and
therefore relatively cheap material and both quicklime and hydrated lime
are produced from limestone by heating. Other alkalis sometimes used
include sodium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and ammonia.
The alkali used reacts with SO2 in the flue gas to produce a mixture of
sulphite and sulphate salts (of calcium, sodium, magnesium or ammonium,
depending on the alkali used). The proportions of sulphite and sulphate
are determined by the process conditions; in some processes, all the
sulphite is converted to sulphate.
The reaction between the SO2 and the alkali can take place either in bulk
solution (‘wet’ FGD processes) or at the wetted surface of the solid alkali
(‘dry’ and ‘semi-dry’ FGD processes).
In wet FGD systems, the alkali (usually as a solution or, more commonly, a
slurry) and flue gas are contacted in a spray tower. The SO2 in the flue gas
dissolves in the water to form a dilute solution of acid that then reacts
with and is neutralised by the dissolved alkali. The sulphite and sulphate
salts produced precipitate out of solution, depending on the relative
solubility of the different salts present. Calcium sulphate, for example, is
relatively insoluble and readily precipitates out. Sodium and ammonium
sulphates are very much more soluble.
In dry and semi-dry systems, the solid alkali ‘sorbent’ is brought into
contact with the flue gas, either by injecting or spraying the alkali into the
gas stream or by passing the flue gas through a bed of alkali. In either
case, the SO2 reacts directly with the solid to form the corresponding
sulphite and sulphate. For this to be effective, the solid has to be quite
porous and/or finely divided. In semi-dry systems, water is added to the
flue gas to form a liquid film on the particles in which the SO2 dissolves,
promoting the reaction with the solid.
Selection of FGD Processes
There are a wide range of FGD processes on offer, differing significantly in
terms of sorbent used, by-products produced, removal efficiency and
capital cost. Selection of the most appropriate FGD process for a
particular application will normally be made on economic grounds, ie the
process with the lowest overall through-life cost. However, there are many
different factors that affect the overall cost. These include:
• Technical considerations.
• Economic issues
- operating costs
- capital costs.
• Commercial considerations.
Technical considerations include the degree of desulphurisation that the
process can offer, the flexibility of the process, the amount of space that
the FGD plant requires and the technical risks. Economic issues include the
capital and operating costs, including consideration of the cost of the
plant itself (which may be appreciably more if the plant is to be retrofitted
to an existing boiler), the costs of the sorbent used, any revenues or
expenses arising from disposal of the by-products and maintenance costs.
Commercial considerations include the degree of commercial risk, the
maturity of the technology, the number and size of units already in
operation (and how they have performed) and suppliers’ guarantees.
Some of the major FGD processes are described below. These are:
1993 1994 1995 1996
• Wet Processes:
- limestone gypsum
- sea-water washing
Total - ammonia scrubbing
- Wellman-Lord.
• Semi-dry Processes:
- circulating fluidised bed
- spray dry
- duct spray dry.
• Dry Processes
- furnace sorbent injection
- sodium bicarbonate injection.
FGD PROCESSES
Limestone Gypsum
In the limestone gypsum wet scrubbing process, the flue gas is treated
with limestone slurry, in order to remove the SO2 and neutralise it. The
final product is calcium sulphate dihydrate (gypsum).
Figure 3. Ratcliffe-on-Soar FGD (under construction) (Courtesy of PowerGen UK plc)
This is the most common FGD process now being installed worldwide, and
has evolved over almost 30 years. Nowadays, a plant would normally be
designed to achieve a high-quality gypsum product, which is suitable for
wallboard manufacture. Earlier limestone-based FGD processes produced
sulphite sludge or gypsum for dumping, but these types of design are not
often adopted now. Both of the large UK power plant with FGD, Ratcliffe
(Figure 3) and Drax, use the limestone gypsum process.
There are a number of process variants and equipment arrangements
which can be adopted; eg the absorber type and reheat methods can vary
with the supplier and with the client’s requirements. The design chosen
here for illustrative purposes (Figure 4) is one of the most common
limestone gypsum (wallboard) plant types, and consists of an open spray
tower with a rotary regenerative reheater. The limestone gypsum plant is
located downstream of the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or bag filter, so
that most of the fly ash from combustion is removed before the gas
reaches the FGD plant. For coal-fired plant, fly ash removal would be
~99.5%.
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 3
Flue gas from the ESP passes through an induced draught (ID) and/or
booster fan and enters the gas/gas reheater. Here the gas is cooled as
heat is extracted. The warm gas from the reheater enters the absorber
and mixes with the process liquor. Some of the water is evaporated, and
the gas is further cooled. The gas is scrubbed with the recirculating
limestone slurry to remove the required amount of SO2. FGD plant
manufacturers generally claim that over 95% of the SO2 can be removed
within the absorber. This process also removes almost 100% of any
hydrogen chloride (HCl) in the flue gas. At the top of the absorber, the
gas passes through de-misters to remove suspended water droplets.
After leaving the absorber, the gas is passed through the reheater again,
to raise its temperature before being exhausted to the stack. Absorber
outlet temperatures are typically 50-70ºC, depending mainly on the type of
fuel burnt. The minimum gas temperature at the stack is often specified in
national emission standards. In the UK this is 80ºC, but in mainland
Europe it is slightly lower. Most plant have a by-pass duct, fitted with a
(normally closed) damper. This would be opened in an emergency or
during start-up, to allow flue gas to be diverted past the FGD plant,
directly to the stack.
Limestone/gypsum slurry is pumped from the absorber sump to the spray
headers at the top of the scrubber. As the slurry falls down the tower it
contacts the rising flue gas. The SO 2 is dissolved in the water, neutralised
and thus removed from the flue gas. Calcium carbonate from the
limestone reacts with the SO2 and oxygen (O2 from air), ultimately to
produce gypsum, which precipitates from solution in the sump. HCl is also
dissolved in the water and neutralised to produce calcium chloride solution.
Fresh limestone slurry is pumped into the sump to maintain the required
pH. At many plant, crushed limestone is milled on site before being
slurried and pumped into the absorber sump. Although a certain amount
of liquor oxidation occurs naturally due to excess air in the flue gas, the
sump liquor is sparged with air, oxidising any remaining bisulphite to
sulphate. Gypsum slurry (contaminated with ~3% limestone) is extracted
from the absorber sump, thickened, de-watered and washed for
subsequent storage before dispatch from site.
As described above, HCl is removed from the flue gas in the scrubber, to
produce calcium chloride in solution. In addition to this, trace quantities
of fly ash are also removed from the flue gas. These and impurities in the
limestone will accumulate in the process liquor as dissolved metal salts and
suspended minerals such as quartz. The concentrations of these
contaminants must be controlled to ensure the gypsum purity is
maintained at the required level and high concentrations of chloride do
not inhibit the desulphurisation process chemistry. The system is purged
with water to control the concentration of these contaminants. Fresh
water is added to the absorber via the de-mister wash. The purge stream
is taken off as the overflow from the hydrocyclone system used for gypsum
thickening. The purge stream, which contains dissolved solids and very
fine suspended particles, is sent to the waste-water treatment plant. Here
lime is added to raise the pH and precipitate heavy metals from solution.
The treated water is then normally discharged from site.
;;
Precipitator
Flue gas
By-pass damper
Fly ash
ID fan
Booster fan
Reheater
Limestone Limestone
store mills
Slurry Air
tank
Figure 4. Schematic of a limestone gypsum FGD process
Despite falling prices, the limestone gypsum process should still be
regarded as relatively high in capital cost, significantly higher than most
other processes except ammonia scrubbing and the regenerative types. It
is also more complex than some other process types. However, for many
applications it will provide a lower operating cost than other, lime-based
processes. This is because limestone is normally much cheaper than lime,
and normally the by-product gypsum can be sold rather than incurring a
disposal cost. This becomes particularly important for plant with a high
sorbent consumption.
The limestone gypsum process will usually offer the lowest through-life
cost option for large inland plant with medium- to high-sulphur fuel, a
high load factor and a long residual life.
The limestone gypsum process is the most well-developed and widely
adopted FGD process worldwide, and is the one normally adopted for a
large power station. The total worldwide installed capacity is
approximately 149,000MWe for coal-fired plant alone. The technology is
very well understood and is offered by many contractors. It probably
offers a lower commercial risk than any other process, and a plant can be
obtained at a competitive price. The process is capable of high sulphur-
removal efficiency, even with fairly high-sulphur fuel. Most suppliers
would now offer 95% removal for use with European coals. Some recent
plant have been designed for up to 98% removal.
As already noted, there are several design variations, centred on the layout
of the absorber itself. The most common design type today is the single
loop open spray tower with the flue gas flowing upward through the
scrubber. Marsulex, ABB, Lurgi Lentjes Bischoff (LLB), Babcock Borsig,
Kawasaki and IHI produce this type. Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) and
Babcock Hitachi have a very similar design but theirs includes a tray at the
bottom of the gas treatment zone. This provides gas/liquid contact and
presents a more even flow profile to the spray headers.
The traditional Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) design is very different
from the others. It is not an open spray tower, but has a layer of packing
in order to obtain effective gas/liquid contact. Also the flue gas is
normally drawn down the tower rather than upward. Recently MHI has
adopted a type of open spray tower which it calls the double-contact flow
scrubber (DCFS).
Sea-water Washing
The sea-water washing (SWW) process uses untreated sea water to scrub
the flue gas, taking advantage of sea water’s natural alkalinity in order to
neutralise the SO2. After scrubbing, the water used is treated with air to
reduce its chemical oxygen demand and its acidity, and is then discharged
back to the sea.
This is a relatively new technology for desulphurisation of power plant flue
gases, although it has been used on small-scale industrial applications for
over 30 years. There are only two suppliers, ABB and LLB, the former
having the most experience; LLB is currently commissioning its first plant.
Flue
Hydrocyclones Waste-water
Absorber treatment
v v Water discharge
v v
Sludge
Gypsum
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 4
The ABB design is shown schematically in Figure 5. Flue gas from the ESP
and ID fan passes through a booster fan before entering the gas/gas
reheater. The gas from the reheater enters the absorber and mixes with
the relatively cold sea water. The flue gas is cooled and saturated with
water vapour. This low temperature arises because the sea water passes
directly through the scrubber, and is not recycled as in other wet scrubbing
processes.
The gas is scrubbed with the (alkaline) sea water to remove the SO2. The
manufacturers claim that up to 99% of the SO2 can be removed within the
absorber. This process also removes almost 100% of any HCl in the flue
gas. At the top of the absorber, the gas passes through a de-mister to
remove suspended water droplets.
After leaving the absorber, the gas is passed through the reheater again,
to raise its temperature before being exhausted to the stack. Because the
flue gas leaves the absorber at a low temperature, perhaps 15-40ºC
depending upon the local sea water temperature, an additional form of
reheat is sometimes required. One option is to force a small percentage of
hot untreated flue gas into the cold treated gas stream, after it has left the
absorber, but before it reaches the gas/gas reheater. This dries as well as
warms the treated gas, and helps prevent reheater fouling and corrosion.
In all applications of the SWW process on power plant, raw sea water is
obtained from the steam turbine condenser outlet. In most plant, all the
condenser outlet water is used in the FGD plant, so as to utilise all the
available alkali from this source. Part of this water is pumped into the top
of the absorber tower. As the water falls down the tower, it passes
through the packing and comes into close contact with the rising flue gas
and dissolves the SO2 and any HCl. The acidified liquor is collected in the
absorber sump. It is not recirculated back to the top of the tower, but
flows into the external mixing basin and aeration lagoon. Here it is
combined with the remainder of the sea water from the condenser outlet,
and air is blown through to reduce the chemical oxygen demand, and raise
its pH by driving off carbon dioxide (CO2). The treated liquor is then
discharged to the sea.
SWW FGD is a rapidly expanding technology, particularly in tropical
countries. ABB has built 21 plant with a total installed capacity equivalent
to 2470MWe. LLB is currently commissioning two 610MWe plant in
Indonesia.
SWW’s main advantage is that it requires no solid sorbent as a reagent,
unlike nearly all other FGD processes. The plant design is relatively simple.
The most obvious disadvantage is that it is limited to use at coastal sites.
The process is capable of very high SO2 removal (up to ~97-98%), but only
if the fuel sulphur content is below 2.5-3.0 wt%. High SO2-removal
efficiencies at higher SO2 loadings would require additional sea water,
above that used by the power plant for cooling, and would significantly
increase capital and operating costs.
Flue
By-pass
Flue gas damper
Inlet Outlet
damper damper
Booster fan Reheater
Absorber Sea water from
v v v v condenser
Packing
Oxidation air
Return
v v v v v v to sea
Figure 5. The SWW process
Ammonia Scrubbing
The ammonia/ammonium sulphate or ammonium scrubbing process works
in a similar way to the limestone gypsum process except that aqueous
ammonia is used as the scrubbing agent. SO2 is removed from the flue gas
by reaction with ammonia, and the final product is ammonium sulphate.
Ammonia scrubbing has been used intermittently since the 1950s. The
only plant currently operational is installed on a 350MWe oil-fired boiler
system at Dakota Gas Company’s Great Plains plant. This has been
designed for 93% SO2 removal, treating gas from high-sulphur oil. The
plant is operating successfully. FGD plant manufacturers indicate that
SO2-removal efficiencies in the region of 98-99% can be achieved within
the absorber systems, although commercial plant have been designed for
91-93% removal. There are two known suppliers with successful
commercial experience, LLB and Marsulex.
Flue gas from the ESP and ID fan is passed through a booster fan before
entering the gas/gas reheater (Figure 6). The gas then enters a pre-
scrubber where it comes into contact with a recirculating ammonium
sulphate slurry. The gas is cooled and becomes saturated with water
vapour. The saturated gas leaves the pre-scrubber through a mist
eliminator, and then enters the absorber, where it is scrubbed with
subsaturated ammonium sulphate solution, which removes the required
amount of SO2 from the flue gas. At the top of the absorber, the gas
passes through two stages of de-misters to remove suspended water
droplets.
The aqueous solution leaving the absorber is processed to produce
ammonium sulphate, which is a relatively high-value product that can be
used in fertilisers. The high value of this by-product is the principal
advantage of this process. With high-sulphur fuels, the receipts from the
sale of the sulphate can exceed the costs of operating the FGD plant.
However, there could be commercial risks associated with this, because the
price of ammonium sulphate and ammonia are both very volatile.
A potential risk arises from the need to store ammonia on site, either in
anhydrous form, or as a concentrated aqueous solution. This might cause
serious difficulties in the planning stage, at certain sites.
These plant are expensive to build, and require a large ‘footprint’ similar to
a limestone gypsum plant. The process has the advantage that there is no
waste-water discharge, and there are unlikely to be problems of scaling
and blockage. At certain sites, particularly those burning high-sulphur
fuels, or with the potential to do so, this process could be a very attractive
one. However, it is unlikely to achieve very widespread use because very
few plant are needed to satisfy the market for ammonium sulphate
fertiliser in a particular country or region.
Precipitator Flue
ID fan By-pass
Damper
Booster fan
Absorber Water
Fly ash Ammonia
Reheater
storage tank
Purge v v v
Pre-scrubber v v v
v v v
Hydrocyclone Air
Centrifuge Bleed
Bleed
Compactor
Dryer
Figure 6. The ammonia scrubbing process
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 5

Precipitator
Condenser
ID fan By-pass Flue

Damper
Absorber
Fly ash Booster fan
Reheater
v v v
Sodium carbonate/ v v v

hydroxide
v v v

Blowdown
Sulphate
Water solids
EDTA

Sodium carbonate or
hydroxide make-up Regenerated Liquor
Tank Tank

Figure 7. The Wellman-Lord process

The Wellman-Lord Process
The Wellman-Lord Process is regenerative, ie the active reagent used for
removal of SO2 from the flue gas is regenerated in a second process stage,
and returned to the first stage (absorber tower) for re-use. Consequently,
the process does not involve the large-scale consumption of lime or
limestone, unlike other processes described here.
The process involves the wet scrubbing of SO2 from the flue gas with
aqueous sodium sulphite solution. It produces a saleable by-product that,
depending on the plant’s design, could be elemental sulphur, sulphuric
acid or liquid SO2.
The Wellman-Lord process has been installed on nearly 40 plant, in Japan,
the USA and Germany. This includes over 3000MWe of electric utility
boilers, and many industrial plant. However, there appears to have been
no new plant built in recent years.
Flue gas from the ESP and ID fan is passed through a booster fan before
entering the gas/gas reheater (Figure 7). Here the gas is cooled as heat is
extracted. The warm gas from the reheater enters the pre-scrubber/absorber
and mixes with the process liquor. An equilibrium temperature is
established, when the flue gas becomes saturated with water vapour.
In the pre-scrubbing stage, fly ash and HCl are removed. In the main
absorber, the gas is scrubbed with the process liquor, to remove the
required amount of SO2. Typically 95-98% of the SO2 can be removed
within the absorber. At the top of the absorber, the gas passes through
de-misters to remove suspended water droplets. After leaving the
absorber, the gas is passed through the reheater again, to raise its
temperature before being exhausted to the stack.
A pre-scrubber is usually fitted upstream of the absorber, primarily to
remove any HCl present in the flue gas. If HCl were to dissolve in the
main absorber liquor, the concentration of sodium chloride in the liquor
would progressively increase to levels where it would interfere with the
chemistry governing the removal of SO2. The degree of desulphurisation
attained would hence progressively fall off.
In the main absorber, the flue gas is scrubbed with aqueous sodium
sulphite solution, forming sodium bisulphite. The sodium bisulphite is
decomposed by steam heating in an evaporative crystalliser to produce
sodium sulphite and SO2. The sodium sulphite is returned to the flue gas
absorber tower circuit for re-use, while the concentrated SO2 gas stream
can then be treated as appropriate to produce a by-product suitable for
export. Whether this is concentrated SO2 liquid, sulphuric acid or
elemental sulphur would depend on the local commercial environment.
This process can achieve a SO2-removal efficiency of well over 95% on
high-sulphur fuels. It is expensive to install but relatively cheap to operate
and, as such, in relation to other processes, is best suited to high SO2-
removal requirements, high-sulphur fuel, and plant with a long residual
life. Comparative studies have suggested that the operating cost is very
similar to that of the limestone gypsum process.
The process also has the advantages that it does not require the
consumption of large quantities of sorbent and does not produce large
quantities of solid waste.

CFB reactor New FF or ESP

From boiler air heater

Recycle ID fan

Water

Lime
storage silo Disposal
Lime silo
feed bin

Lime reception system

V Dry product
Blower Hydrator for disposal

Blower
Blower

Figure 8. The CFB process

1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 6

Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB)
In the CFB process, the flue gas is passed through a dense mixture of lime
(calcium hydroxide), reaction products and sometimes fly ash, which
removes the SO2, SO3 and HCl. The final product is a dry powdered
mixture of calcium compounds.
The process has been commercially available for over 10 years, and is an
expanding technology, particularly for retrofitting to small- to medium-
sized power plant. Because of its simplicity, higher performance, lower
spatial requirement, and sometimes lower cost, it is nowadays being
chosen instead of the more widely established spray dry process in certain
applications. The process and variants on it are now supplied by several
vendors, whose designs vary significantly, although the process chemistries
are the same. The originator and most experienced vendor is LLB.
Flue gas from the airheater (Figure 8) is carried through the inlet venturi
throat of the CFB reactor and passes upwards through a fluidised bed of
lime, reaction products and fly ash particles contained within the vertical
reactor tower. This removes up to 99% of the SO2 and all of the SO3 and
HCl from the flue gas. From here the gas is carried through the dust
arrestor and the ID fan to the stack.
A large quantity of the particulate matter in the CFB reactor is carried with
the flue gas into the ESP or fabric filter (FF) located downstream. Most of
the solids collected in the pre-collector and ESP are returned to the reactor,
so as to achieve a high dust loading within the fluidised bed.
The normal sorbent is quicklime, which is hydrated on site to make calcium
hydroxide powder (hydrated lime). This is injected into the base of the
reactor. Water is also added to humidify the flue gas and so improve SO2
and particulate removal. The water flow is controlled to achieve a
temperature ~20ºC above the adiabatic saturation temperature of the gas.
The solid by-product from the process, including fly ash, is transported
from the bottom of the ESP to a silo, prior to dispatch from site.
atomiser. The water in the slurry will humidify the flue gas and so improve
both SO2 and particulate removal. The water flow rate is controlled so as
to achieve a temperature approximately 20ºC above the adiabatic
saturation temperature of the gas. When firing bituminous coal, the
humidified gas temperature would be ~70ºC.
The solid by-product from the process, including fly ash, is transported
from the bottom of the ESP to a silo, prior to dispatch from site.
As with other semi-dry systems producing a throw-away by-product, the
spray-dry process is relatively cheap to install, typically being ~70% of the
cost of the equivalent limestone gypsum system. However, the variable
operating costs are among the highest of the major FGD processes, due to
both the high lime usage and the costs of by-product disposal. The lower
sorbent utilisation of the spray-dry process, compared with the CFB, means
that additional costs are incurred twice: extra lime has to be bought and
then a portion of this is dumped at a cost.
The spray-dry process is one of the most well-developed and widely used
worldwide. The total installed capacity is in excess of 15,000MWe. The
technology is well understood, and offered by a number of contractors.
The process is very similar in many respects to the CFB process and the
two are in competition. The process can achieve 85-90% SO2 removal
with moderately high-sulphur fuels.
The spray-dry process is cheaper to install than a limestone gypsum plant,
and similar to or slightly more expensive than a CFB-type plant. However,
like the CFB it can be relatively expensive to operate, depending on the
relative costs of labour, power, lime and limestone. The disposal cost of
the residues produced also adds to the overall operating cost.
Spray-dryer Flue
From boiler
ESP or FF
air heater

CFB FGD plant have been fitted to a total of over 3000MWe of power
plant, as well as units fitted to a variety of industrial processes (such as ID fan
hydrogen fluoride removal), at sizes of up to 300MWe. Major suppliers of
Disposal Blower
the technology are LLB (Germany), Wulff (Germany), FLS Miljø of Denmark silo
(gas suspension absorber (GSA) process) and ABB (new integrated
desulphurisation (NID) technology). Lime
storage silo Water
The CFB process is capable of very high SO2-removal efficiency, even with
very high inlet SO2 concentrations. For example, one German plant
Lime reception
achieved 97% SO2 removal with an inlet SO2 concentration of 13,000mg system
Nm-3. Several CFB/GSA plant have achieved >99% SO2 removal. The V Lime
feed bin
process can also achieve complete removal of SO3. Blower Slaker
Blower Lime slurry
This is a well-established FGD process with rapidly growing experience. It feed tank

is cheaper to install than a limestone gypsum plant and costs about the
same as a spray-dry plant. It has a much lower space requirement than a Figure 9. The spray-dry FGD process
limestone gypsum plant, at least as high SO2-removal efficiency, and is
capable of complete removal of SO3. It has almost unlimited turndown
The Duct Spray-dry Process
capability and accommodates very rapid changes in inlet SO2
concentration. Also, it does not normally suffer from serious scaling,
This process is essentially the same as conventional spray-drying, except
plugging or corrosion problems. However, it can be relatively expensive to
that in this case the spray-dryer vessel is omitted, and the lime slurry is
operate and, in common with all other semi-dry processes, it generates a
sprayed directly into the duct. The lime reacts with and removes the acid
waste product that normally has to be disposed of.
gases. The final product is a dry powdered mixture of calcium compounds.
Spray-dry Process The process has been developed by two suppliers, but has not yet reached
full-scale continuous commercial operation. It is one of a number of FGD
In the spray-dry process, concentrated lime (calcium hydroxide) slurry is processes developed or being developed primarily for those instances in
injected into the flue gas, to react with and remove acidic compounds such as which a moderate degree of desulphurisation (50-75%) is required on
SO2, SO3 and HCl. The final product is a dry powdered mixture of calcium plant with limited operating hours and remaining lifetimes.
compounds. The spray-dry process is supplied by several vendors, whose
designs vary significantly - although the process chemistries are the same. Fur nace Sorbent Injection
The flue gas from the air heater is carried into the spray-dryer vessel, where
This is another process developed for moderate degrees of
it comes into contact with a finely atomised spray of lime and by-product
desulphurisation with low capital costs. The process involves the injection
slurry, delivered from a single high-speed rotary atomiser (Figure 9). This
of hydrated lime into the furnace cavity of the boiler to absorb SO2. Spent
removes up to ~95% of the SO2 and most if not all of the SO3 and HCl
sorbent is extracted with the fly ash, in an ESP or FF. The final product is a
from the flue gas. From here the gas is carried through the dust arrestor
mixture of ash and calcium compounds.
and the ID fan before discharge through the stack.
This process was first investigated in the 1950s and a second phase has
The normal sorbent fed to this process is quicklime. This is slaked on site,
been under way since the 1970s. However, there are very few plant now
with excess water, to produce a calcium hydroxide slurry (slaked lime).
in commercial operation, most being in Poland. Dry hydrated lime is
This is mixed with recycled by-product before being pumped to the rotary
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 7

blown pneumatically into the furnace, typically above the burners (Figure
10). This removes up to ~70% of the SO2 from the flue gas. From the
boiler, the gas is carried through the air heater, dust arrestor and ID fan
before discharge through the stack.
It is one of the cheapest FGD processes to install but can be expensive to
operate because it is inefficient in its use of sorbent. Because of this,
furnace sorbent injection is most suitable for retrofit situations. It is well
suited to a situation where only a low SO2-removal efficiency is required,
and where there is little space available in the unit plant area. The fly ash
can not be collected separately from the spent sorbent. Consequently all
the furnace ash as well as the solid by-product mixture must be dumped.
Sodium bicarbonate is pneumatically injected into the flue gas stream as a
dry fine powder. This removes up to ~70% of the SO2 from the flue gas.
SO3 and HCl are removed to some extent. From here the gas is carried
through the dust arrestor and the ID fan before discharge through the
stack. All of the particulate matter from the process and the fly ash are
carried with the flue gas into the dust arrestor – an ESP or FF.
The process has been demonstrated on four full-scale, coal-fired boilers of
80-575MWe in the USA. It has also been demonstrated on a 120MWe
boiler in the UK by PowerGen.
Combined SO x /NO x Removal Systems

The Sodium Bicarbonate Injection Process
This process involves the direct injection of dry sodium bicarbonate into
the flue gas duct downstream of the airheater, to react with and remove
acidic compounds such as SO2, SO3 and HCl. The final product is a dry
powdered mixture of sodium compounds and fly ash. It is suitable
primarily for those applications where a moderate degree of
desulphurisation is required at low capital cost, although it should be
noted that the reagent itself, sodium bicarbonate, is relatively expensive.
Both SO2 and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are present in flue gases. Since
emissions of both are regulated, it would, in principle, be highly desirable
to remove both using the same process. However, despite the fact that
both are acidic (and therefore amenable to reaction with a range of
alkaline substances), in practice, separate methods are normally used for
the control of each: conventional FGD processes are used to restrict SO2
emissions and NOx are limited either by combustion measures or selective
catalytic reduction (SCR). One reason for this is that any combined
SOx/NOx-removal system would have to be sufficiently effective at
removing both species that no further system was required.

Several combined SOx/NOx-removal systems have, however, been

Boiler developed to the point where they are suitable for deployment on utility-
ESP Flue scale boilers. One of the most advanced of these is the SNOX process
(Figure 11).

The SNOX process has been developed by the Danish company Haldor
Topsøe. The process is located downstream of the particulate control
ID fan
device. The flue gas is reheated and then undergoes SCR. The flue gas is
Blower then further heated and a second catalytic reactor oxidises SO2 to SO3.
Disposal
silo The gas is then cooled to condense out the SO3 as sulphuric acid. The
Air compressor Water for Dry product
humidification
condenser uses glass tubes to prevent excessive acid corrosion.
for disposal

Water A further point about the process is that, since both the oxidation of SO2
to SO3 and the reaction of water vapour with SO3 to form sulphuric acid
Lime reception
system are exothermic, for high-sulphur coals (ie >~2.5%) the heat released is
V Lime sufficient to offset the auxiliary power consumption. The process uses no
feed bin Hydrator reagents other than ammonia and produces sulphuric acid of saleable
Blower
Blower quality.

Large SNOX units have been built on plant in Denmark, Italy and the USA,
with smaller units in Japan, the Czech Republic, Italy and Denmark. A SNOX
Figure 10. FGD using furnace sorbent injection unit has been operational on Unit 2 (305MWe) of Elsam’s Nordjyllansværket

Electrostatic
precipitator

Stack

Boiler Cooling
air
Support
Flue To disposal burner
gas
Air preheater Clean flue gas
Air Hot air discharge
Flue gas
Condenser
Flue gas heater (WSA Tower)

Sulphuric acid
Coal
Acid
Baghouse collector

Support Ammonia
Ash burner
Catalytic NOx Acid storage
reactor tank
Ash to disposal

Hot air
Natural gas
Support Catalytic SO2
burner reactor

Figure 11. The SNOX process for the combined removal of NO x and SO x (From the USDOE Website)
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 8

in Denmark since 1991. SNOX has also been installed in the USA under the
United States Department of Energy’s (USDOE’s) Clean Coal Technology

Total plant cost

Demonstration Program. A small unit was installed on a slip-stream (35MWe
equivalent) of Unit 2 at Ohio Edison’s Niles station in Ohio.

FGD COSTS
Costs of FGD plant are very site-specific. The capital costs of FGD plant Limestone Lime CFB Ammonia Wellman-
are difficult to accurately assess as they are considerably influenced by Gypsum spray-dry scrubbing Lord
market conditions and other factors, eg geographical location and the
amount of preparatory site work required. Running costs depend on the
Reagent handling SO2 removal
costs of sorbents, the costs associated with disposal of the by-products
Flue gas handling By-product handling
and power costs, all of which are influenced by local conditions.
General & additional equipment Engineering & contingency
Capital Costs

Bid costs of FGD plant depend on market conditions and other commercial
factors. Such costs are seldom disclosed. In addition, the cost of the FGD
plant obviously depends on technical factors, eg:
• volume of flue gas to be treated
• concentration of SO2 in the flue gas
• degree of desulphurisation required
• quality of the by-products produced
• other environmental constraints, eg permitted waste water discharges
• the need or otherwise for flue gas reheat
• the degree of reliability and redundancy required
• design life.
Capital costs of FGD plant have been falling in real terms over many years.
This is partly due to improvements in design and also partly due to less
redundancy as suppliers become more knowledgeable about the abilities of
the technology. For example, many early FGD units had multiple and/or
spare absorber towers – this is now seldom the case. The downward trend
in FGD costs is shown schematically in Figure 12. Current costs of FGD
plant are roughly in the range $100-125 kW-1 (£65-80 kW-1), with further
falls in cost anticipated in 2000 and beyond.
Installed cost ($ kW-1)
Figure 13. Indicative relative costs of FGD processes (After EPRI, 1992)
Operating Costs
Operating Costs can be split into variable and fixed costs.
Variable costs cover such aspects of operation as reagents, by-product
disposal and utilities (steam, power, water etc). Reagent costs will be
approximately proportional to the amount of SO2 removed, although they
will also be influenced by the chemical stoichiometry, which may vary as
the degree of desulphurisation changes. Similarly, by-product disposal
costs will be proportional to the amount of by-product produced (and will
be negative if the by-product can be sold). Costs of steam, power, water
etc will be determined both by the amount of flue gas processed and by
the throughput of reagents and by-products.
Reagent and by-product costs can be considerably influenced by the
location of the plant. The total cost of a reagent to the plant will include
a transport cost, and so the proximity (or otherwise) of a suitable
limestone mine, for example, can be an important consideration. Similarly,
the economics of an FGD process benefit from the proximity of a
convenient disposal point for the by-products; eg the limestone/gypsum
FGD plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station benefits from having a major
user of gypsum located nearby.
Indicative relative variable running costs for several FGD processes are
shown in Figure 14.

500
Variable costs

400

300

200

100
Limestone Lime CFB Ammonia Wellman-
0 Gypsum spray-dry scrubbing Lord
1970 1980 1990 1997 2000

Year Reagents Utilities By-products

Figure 12. Reductions in the cost of retrofit FGD units in the USA (After Broward &
Brinkmann) Figure 14. Indicative relative variable operating costs (After EPRI, 1992)

In general, those processes that produce a saleable by-product, such as

Differences in the capital costs of different FGD processes are determined
by the degree of complexity of the process, the amount of engineering
required and other factors. FGD processes in which the sorbent is
processed to give a saleable by-product (eg limestone gypsum, ammonia
scrubbing) or in which the sorbent is regenerable (eg Wellman-Lord) have
higher capital costs than other processes (see Figure 13).
gypsum (limestone gypsum) or ammonium sulphate (ammonia scrubbing),
have lower nett operating costs than those processes that produce a non-
saleable by-product that incurs disposal costs. Actual variable operating
costs can depend critically on the actual market conditions for sorbents, by-
products, disposal costs etc, and these can be very location-specific. As a
general guide, variable operating costs can be in the order of £2 per MWh.
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 9

A survey of potential markets for clean coal technologies, published by the

International Energy Agency (IEA) in 1996, identified opportunities for FGD
retrofits to existing coal-fired units. It also estimated the market for new
pulverised fuel (pf)-fired units; since some or many of these new units will
be fitted with FGD as a matter of course, an overall estimate of the market
Fixed cost

for FGD plant, for coal-fired plant, can be made for the next decade.

The total market for FGD plant is likely to exceed £1Bn per year over the
next 10 years.
Limestone Lime CFB Ammonia Wellman-
Gypsum Spray-dry scrubbing Lord North America

Operations
Figure 15. Comparative fixed operating and maintenance costs for FGD processes
Fixed costs cover such aspects as operating labour, maintenance (both
materials and labour) and administration.
Maintenance costs are usually correlated or estimated as a percentage of
the total plant cost. The actual percentage of plant cost depends on the
type of unit operation, with unit operations such as solids handling, or
those involving high temperatures or pressures, requiring more
maintenance than a process that involves liquids and gases at ambient
conditions (see Figure 15).
Maintenance costs are usually taken to be independent of plant operating
hours or operating regime. In reality both these affect maintenance costs.
The number of start-ups, in particular, can have a very significant effect on
the rate of degradation of plant components, due to the mechanical and
thermal stresses that the start-up procedure imposes on the plant. Specific
examples include the effects of thermal cycling on the linings used in FGD
absorbers and the additional rotational loads on motors and pumps as they
are accelerated to operating speed. This, however, is still a relatively
poorly understood area.
FUTURE MARKETS FOR FGD
The future market for FGD plant will be mostly, although not exclusively,
for use with coal-fired power stations. This market can be divided into
two classes: retrofits to existing units and FGD equipment for new units.
The former will be more important for parts of the world such as Western
Europe, where there is unlikely to be any significant new build of coal-fired
power stations in the next 10 years. The latter will be more important for
parts of the world such as India and China.
Other potential markets for FGD include: oil-fired boilers, sulphuric acid
plant, cement kilns, other industrial boilers and oil refinery fluid catalytic
cracking units (FCCUs).
50
45
40
Maintenance Admin & support A considerable fraction of the coal-fired capacity in Canada and the USA
has FGD (retro)fitted. However, there is significant scope for further FGD
retrofits, as legislation governing air quality is being progressively
tightened. In addition, there will be some new build of coal-fired units.
Although a substantial proportion of this build will be integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) or fluidised bed combustion (FBC) that
do not require FGD, there will be some new pf-fired units that will
certainly require FGD. Overall, therefore, North America will continue to
be one of the major markets for FGD plant worldwide.
Europe
The two factors limiting the future market for FGD plant in Western
Europe are (i) a large proportion of coal-fired plant are already fitted with
FGD, thus reducing the market for further retrofits, and (ii) the switch to
gas as the preferred fuel for power generation limits the amount of new
coal-fired capacity that will be built.
Overall, therefore, the market for FGD in Western Europe is in its mature
phase, with the majority of units having already been (retro)fitted with FGD.
Parts of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) are very
dependent on coal, not only for power generation but also for industrial
and domestic use. Under Communist regimes, environmental protection
was sacrificed to economic development and there was no
desulphurisation. In the last 10 years, FGD has been introduced into parts
of Eastern Europe; however, this has been constrained by cost.
The countries in this region most dependent on coal are the Czech
Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine. Nearly all of the coal-fired
power stations in the Czech Republic have now been retrofitted with FGD.
The most important market for FGD in Eastern Europe at the moment is
probably Poland. Poland has ~28GWe of coal-fired plant; of this, 10GWe
has been or is currently being retrofitted with FGD. Plans exist to retrofit
most of the main coal-fired power stations there. Bulgaria is another
country with significant coal-burning capacity; its indigenous lignite is very
high in both sulphur and ash, making Bulgarian power stations highly
polluting. As yet, only a very small proportion of its coal-fired plant has
been fitted with FGD. The major factor limiting the uptake of FGD is the
cost. The same applies to both the Russian Federation and Ukraine, both
of which have very significant coal-fired generating capacity and coal-fired
industrial boilers.
Retrofits New Units Total

35
South Asia
Capacity in GWe

30

25
Both Pakistan and India rely heavily on thermal power plant for power
20
supply. India has a large number of coal-fired units burning indigenous
coals. These coals are generally high in ash but low in sulphur, and the
15
emphasis on environmental control so far has been mostly on fitting or
10
retrofitting ESPs to control particulate emissions. Very few Indian power
5
plant have FGD (one exception is the Tata-owned plant at Trombay near
0
Mumbai, which uses SWW – Figure 17) and very few if any of the new
Central & Eastern Europe
North America

and Former Soviet Union

Central & South America

Western Europe

South Asia

China

East Asia

Japan, Australia
and New Zealand

Africa

coal-fired plant have provision for FGD. Recent units commissioned in

Pakistan have been based on fluidised bed boilers. There will be some
market for retrofit FGD and a larger market for FGD for new plant.

Figure 16. Estimated total market for FGD for coal-fired power plant, 1996-2010
(After IEA)
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 10

The massive increase in electrical generating capacity required to keep pace

with increasing power demand means that the emphasis for FGD will be on
new units rather than retrofits. However, it should be noted that most
current coal-fired independent power projects (IPPs) in China lack FGD.

Japan, Australia and New Zealand

These three developed countries of the Pacific Rim vary in terms of

electricity generation. Coal plays a very minor role in the generation of
power in New Zealand. Australia, particularly the eastern part, depends
heavily on coal for power generation. Australian coal is relatively low in
sulphur, thus sulphur emissions have not hitherto been a major issue and
none of the major coal-burning stations is fitted with FGD. Japan
generates power mostly from gas, oil and nuclear. Its coal-fired units are
all equipped with FGD. The absolute amount of power generated from
coal is set to rise as older oil-fired units are replaced, and these new coal-
fired units will require FGD, although a significant proportion of new coal-
fired units in Japan may well employ pressurised fluidised bed combustion
(PFBC).

East Asia

Many of the countries in this region have recently undergone (South

Korea) or are currently undergoing (eg Malaysia, Indonesia) rapid economic
expansion with a consequent increase in power demand. However,
economic growth in many of these countries has recently, albeit
temporarily, stalled.

It is anticipated that much of the new generating capacity will be coal-

fired. Environmental problems resulting from the use of coal have already
been significant in some areas and some of the countries in this region
have already installed FGD.

Figure 17. SWW FGD plant at Tata Electric’s Trombay plant, India (Courtesy of ABB
Alstom Power)

China

Coal is China’s primary indigenous fuel source and is in widespread use for
power generation and for industrial and domestic purposes. The
widespread use of coal on a significant scale with very few environmental
controls has resulted in China having significant pollution problems.
China’s ninth Five Year Plan (1996-2000) is the first to address
environmental protection, and includes provision to reduce emissions from
the coal and oil industries.

FGD plant was introduced into China in the early 1990s (Figure 18). So
far, very few plant have been built, and the emphasis has been on trying
one of each type in an attempt to determine which are the most suitable
technologies for China. Many of the plant so far built have been
supported by the World Bank.

Figure 19. LLB SWW plant at Paiton, Indonesia (Courtesy of LLB)

Figure 18. Luohuang FGD plant under construction in China (Courtesy MHI)
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 11

Central and South America
Coal plays only a very minor role in power generation in Central and South
America. The market for FGD for new and retrofit units is unlikely to
exceed 1GWe in the next 10 years.
Africa
Coal is the predominant source of power in South Africa and in some
neighbouring states. The IEA forecasts that there could be 4GWe of FGD
retrofitted to existing plant; in addition, a further 4GWe of FGD could be
required for new units.
As FGD plant designs have improved and environmental standards have
become more onerous, there has been a need to upgrade the performance
of older and less well-designed plant. Many of the leading suppliers have
been involved in this already, eg fitting trays or improved spray header
arrangements, improved nozzles, or better packing. There will be a steady
demand for this type of improvement of older plant in the future,
including such recent innovations as double open-ended hollow cone
nozzles, to provide co-current scrubbing, as well as increased limestone
loading, finer grinds and/or organic additives.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Improvements to Existing Processes

Work is ongoing in a number of fields to improve currently-existing FGD

processes. Much of the work is focused on limestone/gypsum and other
wet scrubbing processes, since these represent the most common type
worldwide. Specific areas of improvement include higher desulphurisation
efficiencies, lower capital and operating costs and better reliability.

One of the most noticeable developments is in the scale-up in absorber

size. At one time, it was not uncommon to have multiple scrubbers for
one boiler, partly for redundancy reasons. Experience with larger FGD
units, and confidence in the high reliability of FGD plant, has given
suppliers the confidence to move firstly to single absorbers for even the
largest units (up to 1000MWe) and, recently, to install one FGD unit
serving two large (~400MWe) boilers. Scaling-up plant size in this way
considerably reduces the overall capital costs, since one absorber is usually
cheaper than two of half the throughput: the amount of steel etc used is
much less and fabrication procedures are also reduced.

Costs have also been reduced by increases in the gas velocity, and thus
flowrate, through the absorber. This results in a smaller (and thus cheaper)
absorber for the same gas flow. Until recently, a design velocity of ~3m s-1
was usual; however, velocities of ~4m s-1 are now being adopted and
4.5m s-1 is considered possible. Reductions in tower height are also being
investigated, as the processes in the scrubber and sump are better
understood and this allows scrubbers to be designed with shorter gas and
particle residence times.

Aerodynamic modelling and computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

simulations of the gas and liquid flows in absorbers are proving invaluable
in ensuring better gas/liquid contact and increased rates of mass transfer.
This aids the development of better nozzle and contacter designs and mist
eliminators. A further improvement to the limestone gypsum process is
the use of higher-concentration limestone slurries. This gives better mass
transfer and also reduces running costs, as the amount of liquid or slurry
to be pumped is reduced.
There have been important developments in the major plant components
throughout the last 30 years, in parallel with the process developments.
These include larger booster fans and a move towards axial rather than
centrifugal designs. These require far less power at reduced boiler loads.
The development of larger and more efficient fans will be advantageous to
the development and acceptance of very large absorbers. Gas/gas
exchangers are another area of work, with the use of liquid-coupled
heaters (or other low-leakage exchangers) reducing the amount of gas
leakage between the clean and raw gas sides of the flue gas path.
Further development of corrosion-resistant materials continues. Some
slightly improved or lower cost alloys have come onto the market, and a
vinyl ester resin with mica rather than glass flakes has been developed,
which will withstand slightly higher flue gas temperatures. Glass
reinforced fibre (GRP) pipe sizes have increased to the point where they are
now used for the manufacture of small absorbers, up to ~80MWe
equivalent or larger in size. Further use of (larger) GRP scrubbers can be
expected, in many cases offering lower costs, with better corrosion and
weather resistance and easier maintenance than for metal absorbers.
Figure 20. GSA absorber (Courtesy of FLS Miljø)
New Processes
Processes are under development in which the flue gas is irradiated with
electron beams in order to convert the SOx (and NOx) into more reactive
species that can be removed from the flue gas more easily. Most variants
of this process combine the process with the injection of ammonia for NOx
control. High-energy electrons react with molecules in the flue gas to
produce radicals that then react with the SOx and NOx in the flue gas to
produce sulphuric and nitric acids that in turn react with ammonia or some
other alkali.
Research on electron beam processes was started in Japan in 1970, but
they are only now reaching the point of commercial-scale demonstration.
One of the most advanced of the processes under development is that of
the EBARA Corporation (Figure 21). Flue gas from the ESPs is cooled and
enters the process vessel in which ammonia is added and the gas irradiated
with electrons. Ammonium sulphate and nitrate are formed and are carried
in the gas as an aerosol. The ammonium salts are removed downstream of
the reaction vessel using a further ESP, and the salts are recovered and sold
as fertiliser. The process has recently been tested at the 90MW e scale on
the Chengdu Power Station belonging to the Sichuan Electric Power
Company; 80% SOx and 20% NOx reductions were achieved.

One area where there is a need for improved materials is in FGD recycle
pumps. Under certain operating conditions these can have a relatively
short life. Rubber internals can suffer damage through contact with solids,
and metal casings and impellers can suffer corrosion and cracking,
particularly in high-chloride environments.
Considerable research effort has been expended on the development of
dry sorbent-based FGD systems that are also capable of removing NOx. Up
to 90% NOx reduction has been achieved in some pilot-scale reactors.
MHI and Hokkaido Electric have been jointly developing the LILAC (lively
intensified lime ash compound) process. The reagent is a mixture of lime,
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 12

fly ash and spent sorbent (or gypsum). It is claimed that this is made
highly reactive towards SO2 and NOx through curing with hot water. The
reagent can be sprayed into the flue gas as a slurry or as a dry powder,
and can be used with a spray drier, or injected directly into the flue gas
duct. This process is still at the development/demonstration stage. It has
recently been retrofitted to the Huangdao Power Station in China.
A combined SOx/NOx system using regenerable copper oxide adsorbent is
under development in the USA, named COBRA (copper oxide bed
regenerable application). In the process a copper oxide sorbent is used to
remove SO2 in a moving-bed adsorber. The copper oxide is converted to
copper sulphate and also acts as a catalyst for the reduction of NOx to
nitrogen using ammonia. The sorbent is regenerated using methane and
the SO2 liberated is processed to give elemental sulphur or sulphuric acid.
Tests on the 1MWth scale have shown desulphurisation of >98%.
dozen or more centrifuges, which can represent a considerable expense;
scale-up of the technology could reduce costs. Furthermore, centrifuges
work on a cyclic basis, with rapid acceleration and deceleration that puts
high stresses on the equipment. An alternative, the decanter centrifuge,
has so far found only very limited application on FGD plant but
development work to improve its de-watering efficiency could reduce both
capital and maintenance costs. The further development of steam-heated
vacuum belt filters capable of high levels of de-watering would also be
advantageous.
Materials development is required to underpin the work on component
improvement outlined above. In addition, the application of metals,
organic linings and GRP for FGD absorbers, could reduce costs, and
improve operational flexibility and reliability.

;
CONCLUSIONS
• A wide variety of FGD technologies are available. The most widely used
processes are the limestone/gypsum (and its variations) and the spray
Flue gas from ESPs
dry process, but newer technologies such as CFB and SWW are rapidly
Water gaining acceptance.
E-beam system

• Overall, there is ~275GWe of FGD plant currently installed worldwide.

ESP • A steady improvement in process design over the years means that
modern designs can achieve 95%+ sulphur removal.
Clean flue gas
Spray to stack • At the same time, costs have fallen steadily and are now equivalent to
cooler $100-125 kW-1 (~£65-80 kW-1).
Process vessel
• Most FGD plant currently operational are in North America, Western
Ammonia Ammonium sulphate/nitrate Europe and Japan. FGD technology is rapidly being deployed in parts of
fertiliser to agglomerator
Eastern Europe, East Asia and South East Asia, and there could be major
market opportunities in China and India.

• Several new processes are under development, many of which are

Figure 21. The EBARA process designed to remove both SOx and NOx.

• At the same time, further improvements are being made to absorber

R&D Needs
Key requirements for FGD systems and plant are:
• high SO2 removal
• high reliability
• low auxiliary power consumption
• use of a single absorber (where applicable)
• saleable or usable by-product.
R&D work required to support these requirements can be split into process,
component and materials development.
Process improvement entails such R&D aspects as better understanding of
the flow regimes in absorbers and the nature of the mass transfer
phenomena in both wet and semi-dry processes. In addition, the more
onerous operating regimes that FGD plant are now operating under mean
that work needs to be undertaken to understand the long-term effects of
plant cycling and of repeated start-ups and shut-downs, and the optimum
condition in which to leave FGD plant standing idle. Work is also required
on the utilisation of semi-dry process by-products.
design and to plant components such as heaters and fans.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Boward, W L and Brinkmann, M S (1998) ‘Retrofit FGD System Price
Trends and Influence Factors’, Proceedings of the 60th American Power
Conference, 14–16 April 1998, Chicago
• EPRI (1992) ‘Economic Evaluation of Flue Gas Desulfurisation (FGD)
Systems’, EPRI GS-7192, vols 1 and 2
• IEA/OECD (1996) ‘Clean Coal Technology: Markets and Opportunities
to 2010’
• Singer, J G (1991) ‘Combustion Fossil Power – A Reference Book on Fuel
Burning and Steam Generation’, Edited by J G Singer. Fourth Edition.
Published by Combustion Engineering Inc. ABB Windsor Connecticut.
ISBN 0-9605974-0-9
• Takeshita, M and Soud, H (1993) ‘FGD Performance and Experience on
Coal Fired Plants’, IEACR/58, IEA Coal Research, London, July 1993.

The UK has a particular strength in the supply of components for FGD

plant, particularly gas/gas reheaters, fans, pumps and gypsum de-watering
equipment. Most gas/gas reheaters currently installed on FGD plant are of
the rotary regenerative type. These generally perform well, but they can
be susceptible to corrosion and inevitably there is a degree of gas leakage,
with untreated sour gas crossing over to the clean gas side, reducing the
SOx removal of the overall process. There is thus a need for the
development of improved designs with greater corrosion resistance and
better sealing.

Gypsum slurry and recycle pumps are widely used in FGD plant but can
suffer from corrosion (if not rubber-lined) or erosion (if rubber-lined).
Increased corrosion/erosion resistance will reduce FGD plant downtime and
maintenance costs. Gypsum de-watering is undertaken using basket
centrifuges or vacuum belt filters. Large FGD plant typically require a
1751 TSR 012 31/5/00 3:59 pm Page 13

Department of Trade and Industry

DTI/Pub URN 00/652