Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: A Low-Cost, High-Temperature Mercury Sorbent for Coal-Fired Power Plants
EPA Contract Number: 68D01075Title: A Low-Cost, High-Temperature Mercury Sorbent for Coal-Fired Power Plants
Investigators: Nelson, Sid
Small Business: Sorbent Technologies Corporation
EPA Contact: Richards, April
Phase: II
Project Period: September 1, 2001 through September 1, 2003
Project Amount: $225,000
RFA: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) - Phase II (2001) Recipients Lists
Research Category: Air Quality and Air Toxics , SBIR - Air Pollution , Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Description:
The purpose of this research project was to evaluate various sorbent options for the removal of mercury from the utility flue gases through laboratory, pilot-scale, and full-scale testing. The sorbents examined were low-cost proprietary materials developed by Sorbent Technologies Corporation.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Sorbents were successfully produced from the materials of numerous commercial suppliers. Mercury capture tests with variations of the sorbents were performed on simulated coal-fired flue gases in a laboratory fixed-bed system to evaluate the mercury capacity of the sorbents and the impact of various flue gas parameters. The same was done with the pilot-scale duct-injection system, which was used to measure mercury capture as well as the impact of various flue gas parameters on mercury removal. A full-scale test program was conducted at the Ohio University Lausche Heating Plant to evaluate the performance of the new sorbents in actual operation.
Three new families of sorbents were found that remove mercury from flue gas through a chemisorption process. These sorbents (designated Type A, B, and C) all provide many times the mercury removal compared to sorbents currently on the market. These sorbents also are much less sensitive to the species in flue gas, which are detrimental to currently available sorbents. There is potential that the Type A sorbents can even be used at the temperatures present in hot-side electrostatic precipitators, providing an option for sorbent injection for these facilities that previously was not considered. The improved performance of these sorbents provides evidence that mercury removal can be achieved at a much lower cost than current estimates.
Conclusions:
This research is directly applicable to the majority of coal-fired power plants that will have to significantly reduce their mercury emissions in the near future as a result of the impending Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards that will regulate utility mercury. Further testing at full-scale facilities is all that is required to fully demonstrate the benefits of the new sorbents.
Supplemental Keywords:
mercury, sorbent, coal-fired power plants, utility flue gases, mercury capture tests, mercury removal, hot-side electrostatic precipitator, chemisorption process, mercury emissions, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, MACT, duct-injection system, small business, SBIR., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Air, Toxics, Waste, particulate matter, Chemical Engineering, air toxics, Environmental Chemistry, HAPS, VOCs, Hazardous Waste, exploratory air chemistry and physics, Incineration/Combustion, Engineering, Hazardous, 33/50, Engineering, Chemistry, & Physics, Environmental Engineering, Nox, particulates, coal fired utility boiler , mercury, pollution control technologies, simulated coal combustion, Sulfur dioxide, powdered activated carbon (PAC), PAC, emissions, sorbents, combustion, mercury & mercury compounds, Mercury Compounds, mercury recovery, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), coal combustion, coal fired power plants, air emissions, removalSBIR Phase I:
A Low-Cost, High-Temperature Mercury Sorbent for Coal-Fired Power Plants | 2001 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.