Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Utility boiler design/cost comparison : fluidized-bed combustion versus flue gas desulfurization /
Author Reese, John T. ; Reese., John T.
CORP Author Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga. Office of Power.;Industrial Environmental Research Lab., Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publisher Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory ; For sale by the National Technical Information Service,
Year Published 1977
Report Number EPA-600/7-77-126; PRS-23
Stock Number PB-280 751
OCLC Number 04379045
ISBN pbk.
Subjects Fluidization. ; Flue gases--Desulfurization. ; Flue gases--Desulphurization
Additional Subjects Air pollution control ; Fluidized bed processors ; Scrubbers ; Flue gases ; Boilers ; Design criteria ; Performance evaluation ; Process charting ; Cost analysis ; Comparison ; Industrial wastes ; Combustion products ; Chimneys ; Electric power plants ; Solid waste disposal ; Substitutes ; Sulfur oxides ; Coal fired power plants
Internet Access
Description Access URL
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
EKAM  EPA-600/7-77-126 Region 4 Library/Atlanta,GA 07/08/1994
ESAD  EPA 600-7-77-126 Region 10 Library/Seattle,WA 10/06/2000
NTIS  PB-280 751 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 06/23/1988
Collation x, 318 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
The report gives results of a conceptual design, performance, and cost comparison of utility scale (750-925 MWe) coal-burning power plants employing three alternative technologies: conventional boiler with a stack gas scrubber (CWS), atmospheric-pressure fluidized-bed combustion (AFB), and pressurized fluidized-bed combustion/combined cycle (PFB). The AFB and PFB designs/estimates used were completed by the General Electric Co. as part of the Energy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS), funded by NASA, ERDA, and NSF. The CWS designs/estimates were developed by GE for this study, using the same basis as for the ECAS. TVA modified the GE results to: reflect TVA costing experience, consider alternate wet scrubbing techniques for the CWS, and include comparable solid waste disposal costs for all three plants, considering alternative disposal options. Results suggest that AFB offers a possible savings of 9-14% in the cost of electricity (COE) in comparison with CWS, and PFB offers a savings of up to 7%. The estimated COE for the three alternatives is so close that all are considered to be within the competitive range for further consideration. (Portions of this document are not fully legible)
"PRS-23." Prepared in cooperation with Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Power, Chattanooga, Tenn., under interagency agreement no. EPA-IAG-D5-E721, program element no. EHE623A, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Issued Nov. 1977. Includes bibliographical references.