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 |
|
Holdings |
Library |
Call Number |
Additional Info |
Location |
Last Modified |
Checkout Status |
ESAD |
EPA 600-7-77-126 |
|
Region 10 Library/Seattle,WA |
10/06/2000 |
NTIS |
PB-280 751 |
Some EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. |
|
07/26/2022 |
|
Collation |
x, 318 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. |
Abstract |
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) |
Notes |
"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. |
Place Published |
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Springfield, Va. |
Corporate Au Added Ent |
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (Research Triangle Park, N.C.) |
Corp Au Ser Add Ent |
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Interagency energy-environment research and development program report ; EPA-600/7-77-126. |
NTIS Title Notes |
Final rept. Aug 75-Mar 77. |
PUB Date Free Form |
Nov 77 |
Series Title Untraced |
Interagency energy-environment research and development program report ; EPA-600/7-77-126 |
Ti Tra Differently |
Fluidized-bed combustion versus flue gas desulfurization. |
Category Codes |
7A; 68A#; 99B#; 97R#; 97I |
NTIS Prices |
PC A15/MF A01 |
Primary Description |
600/13 |
BIB Level |
m |
Cataloging Source |
OCLC/T |
Control Number |
323740779 |
OCLC Time Stamp |
20110406175608 |
Language |
eng |
SUDOCS Number |
EP 1.23/8:600/7-77-126 |
Origin |
OCLC |
Type |
MERGE |
OCLC Rec Leader |
01835cam 2200373Ii 45020 |