Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: High-Capacity, Regenerable Sorbent for Removal of Mercury From Flue Gas
EPA Contract Number: 68D00225Title: High-Capacity, Regenerable Sorbent for Removal of Mercury From Flue Gas
Investigators: Turchi, Craig S.
Small Business: ADA Technologies Inc.
EPA Contact:
Phase: I
Project Period: September 1, 2000 through March 1, 2001
Project Amount: $69,995
RFA: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) - Phase I (2000) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Air Quality and Air Toxics , SBIR - Air Pollution , Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Description:
ADA Technologies, Inc. (ADA) has completed a Phase I investigation into an innovative series of sorbents for mercury control in flue gases. The program fulfilled all of the objectives of the Phase I proposal, but expanded the scope to create a series of remarkable sorbents that have a capacity for mercury that greatly exceeds that of the baseline technology, activated carbon. Furthermore, the sorbents are unaffected by typical acidic flue gases, which can render carbon virtually useless for this task.During Phase I, an innovative approach was developed to deploy the sorbents into the flue gases as amendments on an inert support. This strategy maximizes the efficiency and minimizes the costs of the sorbents by exposing only molecularly thin films to the mercury. As a result, all of the sorbent is presented to the flue gas, on a very inexpensive substrate.
During the Phase I investigation, new sorbents beyond the scope of the
original proposal also were conceived, prepared, and tested in conditions that
completely simulated flue gas conditions in terms of temperatures, exposure
times, and flue gas chemistry. In addition to having sorption characteristics
that are far superior to carbon for both elemental and oxidized mercury, the new
sorbents are cheaper, and unlike carbon, do not adversely impact the value of
the fly ash.
When the new EPA regulations to limit mercury emissions from
coal-fired power plants are fully implemented, it has been estimated that
mercury control technologies could cost from $5,000 to more than $60,000 per
pound of mercury removed from the flue gases. The total incremental annual costs
to the utility industry may exceed $5 billion, with a significant portion of
these costs being due to the cost of sorbent carbon. The form of the new ADA
sorbents ensures that they are "drop-in" replacements for carbon technology and
will not require any additional technologies for injection or collection. The
improved capacity and efficiency as well as the lower costs for this replacement
technology will substantially reduce the costs of implementing EPA's new
emissions controls, benefiting both the utility industry and the U.S.
public.
The objectives of the Phase II project will be to fully characterize this new family of sorbents, standardize their preparation, test them in simulated and actual flue gases, and evaluate the economics of the new technology. ADA already has enlisted the support of a powerful ally for the commercialization of this product, a $2 billion/year corporation with an expanding presence in the permitting, design, and construction of power plants. They enthusiastically support this technology and are in the process of developing a strong business relationship with ADA to introduce these new sorbents into the technology industry, both in the United States and internationally. They also will provide the outside funding requirement for EPA's Phase II Option Funding.
ADA has been active in developing mercury control technologies for the past 8 years for a wide variety of applications. During that time, ADA has tested a number of sorbents for mercury including carbon, fly ash, and ADA's proprietary noble metal sorbents. The promise of this new class of sorbents exceeds the potential of all of the candidates that ADA has studied to date.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The capital costs for installing and operating an injection system for the sorbents were estimated using a cost prediction model proposed by EPA in the Mercury Study Report to Congress. The EPA report developed costs for 90 percent mercury control at a 975-MW(e) and a 100-MW(e) power plant utilizing a carbon injection system. Annual costs were based on total capital costs, operating labor and materials, maintenance labor and materials, power consumption, carbon cost, disposal costs, overhead, taxes, and insurance. These capital and operating costs will be used as the basis to estimate the costs for an injection system for the new sorbents. Estimated manufactured costs were found to be comparable to the cost of activated carbon. However, because the mercury capacity for the ADA sorbents is three times the capacity for activated carbon (and much more in the presence of acidic flue gases), the annual operating cost will be no more than one-third of the estimated annual operating cost for a carbon injection system.Conclusions:
Additional work is needed in Phase II to standardize a process to create the new ADA sorbents in a consistent and cost-effective manner and to develop a fundamental understanding of the sorption mechanism. Results to date suggest that the mercury sorption capacity can be increased even more, implying that the full potential of these new sorbents has yet to be fully realized.Supplemental Keywords:
air emissions, mercury recovery, carbon injection, engineering, chemistry, sorption, flue gas., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Air, Toxics, Waste, Water, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Chemical Engineering, Bioavailability, air toxics, Environmental Chemistry, HAPS, exploratory air chemistry and physics, Engineering, Chemistry, & Physics, 33/50, Environmental Engineering, Incineration/Combustion, regeneration sorbent, mercury, flue gas, coal, sorbent technology, sorbents, Mercury Compounds, mercury & mercury compounds, flue gas emissions, coal fired power plants, regenerable sorbentSBIR Phase II:
High Capacity Sorbent for Removal of Mercury from Flue Gas | 2000 Progress Report | Final ReportThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.