Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: New Granular Sorbent Sulfurization Process for Vapor- and Liquid-Phase Mercury Control
EPA Contract Number: 68D03034Title: New Granular Sorbent Sulfurization Process for Vapor- and Liquid-Phase Mercury Control
Investigators: Nowicki, Henry G.
Small Business: Professional Analytical and Consulting Services Inc. (PACS)
EPA Contact: Richards, April
Phase: I
Project Period: April 1, 2003 through September 1, 2003
Project Amount: $70,000
RFA: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) - Phase I (2003) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Hazardous Waste/Remediation , SBIR - Waste , Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Description:
Environmental regulations have drastically lowered the amount of mercury emissions released into the environment. Hospitals, domestic and industrial uses, and emissions from municipal and hospital incinerators have met the new regulations. With these environmental regulations promoting reductions in mercury emissions, the "spotlight" now is on mercury emissions from coal-burning electric power plants. Regulations also are expected to promote solutions to this major part of the problem.
One of the most expensive aspects of mercury control technologies is powdered sorbent injection. Injection of sorbents into the flue duct before the baghouse and other particulate control technologies appear to be the direction future solutions will take. During this Phase I research project, results obtained by PACS, Inc., indicated at least two new sorbents that can significantly lower costs and provide better mercury removal performance. These two new sorbents provide 50 percent and 20 percent cost savings compared to the sorbent currently in use. These least cost sorbents, which have superior performance over their competitors, potentially are an important part of the solution to this problem.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Successful completion of this Phase I research project resulted in several innovations, which may help remove the trace mercury (ionic and elemental forms) problem in flue gas from coal-burning electric power plants. These innovations include:
Conclusions:
Two major project innovations, direct chemical insertion into duct work and chemically impregnated used sorbent base material, are the least expensive solutions for mercury control. The current competitor cost of powdered sorbent injection at power plants is 50 cents per pound. The two innovations developed during this Phase I research project offer sorbent injection at 25 and 15 cents per pound. However, these new sorbents offer advantages in addition to least cost. The new sorbents would require much less material to remove a pound of mercury. Less sorbent usage would allow more fly ash to be used by concrete manufacturers. Current sorbents often foul fly ash for concrete manufacturing.
The Phase II research project will evaluate these two new sorbent inventions using prototypes and pilot-scale evaluations. This is reported to be a $3 billion market. At present, there is no satisfactory sorbent solution.
Supplemental Keywords:
granular sorbent sulfurization process, mercury control, mercury vapor, mercury emissions, fly ash, sorbent injection, coal, power plants, chemically impregnated used sorbent, concrete manufacturing, activated carbon, gravimetric relative percent difference, GRPD, coal-burning electric power plants, small business, SBIR., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Air, TREATMENT/CONTROL, Waste, POLLUTANTS/TOXICS, Sustainable Industry/Business, Air Pollution Control, Chemical Engineering, air toxics, Treatment Technologies, cleaner production/pollution prevention, Sustainable Environment, Environmental Chemistry, Chemicals, Chemistry, Technology for Sustainable Environment, Civil/Environmental Engineering, Engineering, Chemistry, & Physics, Environmental Engineering, Incineration/Combustion, volatile heavy metals, mercury, combustion gas streams, combustion sources, regenerable adsorbent, dry sorbent, combustion emissions, mercury emissions, flue gas, sorbent technology, liquid phase mercury control, treatment, mercury absorbtion, sorbents, mercury sorbents, mercury recovery, regenerable sorbent, heavy metals, flue gasesThe 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.