EPA Science Inventory

COMPARISON OF WEST GERMAN AND U.S. FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION COSTS

Citation:

Emmel, T., M. Maibodi, AND J. Martinez. COMPARISON OF WEST GERMAN AND U.S. FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION COSTS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/7-90/009 (NTIS PB90-206319), 1990.

Description:

The report documents a comparison of the actual cost retrofitting flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on Federal Republic of German (FRG) boilers to cost estimating procedures used in the U.S. to estimate the retrofit of these controls on U.S. boilers. (NOTE: By the end of the l980s, more than 45,000 MWe and, by early 1990, more than 34,000 MWe of coal- and oil-fired utility boilers in the FRG will have been retrofitted with FGD and SCR, respectively.) The estimated capital costs of FGD using U.S. procedures compared well to the reported capital cost for the l3 FRG boilers evaluated. he difference between the estimated and actual costs was - 8 to 12%. owever, there are significant design differences between the U.S. systems, built to comply with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and the FRG systems. hese differences, which result in significantly lower capital costs on a dollar per kilowatt basis for the FRG systems, include: no spare absorber modules, large scrubber modules, and smaller sorbent and waste handling systems due to the low sulfur coals burned in the FRG. he estimated capital cost of SCR using the U.S. procedures also compared well to the reported capital costs for the nine FRG boilers evaluated. he differencewas between - 5 and 16%.

Purpose/Objective:

information

URLs/Downloads:

NTISCONTACT.PDF   (PDF,NA pp, 8 KB,  about PDF)

Record Details:

Record Type: DOCUMENT (PUBLISHED REPORT/REPORT)
Start Date: 07/31/1990
Completion Date: 07/31/1990
Record Last Revised: 10/02/2008
Record Created: 12/08/2004
Record Released: 04/02/2005
OMB Category: Other
Record ID: 126195

Organization:

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY

AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL DIVISION

AIR POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH