You are here:
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION: THE STATE OF THE ART: JOURNAL ARTICLE
Srivastava*, R.K., and Jozewicz, W. Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association (Air & Waste Management Asiciation) 51 (12):1676-88 (2001). EPA/600/J-01/391, Available: Journal of Air and Waste Management Association (journal), http://www.awma.org/pubs/indexes.asp. Coal-fired electricity-generating plants may use SO2 scrubbers to meet the requirements of Phase II of the Acid Rain SO2 Reduction Program. Additionally, the use of scrubbers can result in reduction of Hg and other emissions from combustion sources. It is timely, therefore, to examine the current status of SO2 scrubbing technologies. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the state of the art in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technologies for coal-fired boilers. Data on worldwide FGD applications reveal that wet FGD technologies, and specifically wet limestone FGD, have been predominantly selected over other FGD technologies. However, lime spray drying (LSD) is being used at the majority of the plants employing dry FGD technologies. Additional review of the US FGD technology applications that began operation in 1991 through 1995 reveals that FGD processes of choice recently in the United States have been wet limestone FGD, magnisium-enhanced lime (MEL), and LSD. Further, of the wet limestone processes, limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) has been used most often in recent applications. The SO2 removal performance of scrubbers has been reviewed. Data reflect that most wet limestone and LSD installations appear capable of ~90% SO2 removal. Advanced, state-of-the-art wet scrubbers can provide SO2 removal in excess of 95%. Costs associated with state-of-the-art applications of LSFO, MEL, and LSD technologies have been analyzed with appropriate cost models. Analyses indicate that the capital cost of an LSD system is lower than those of same capacity LSFO and MEL systems, reflective of the relatively less complex hardware used in LSD. Analyses also reflect that, based on total annualized cost and SO2 removal requirements: (1) plants up to ~250MWe in size and firing low- to medium-sulfur coals (i.e., coals with a sulfur content of 2% or lower) may use LSD; and (2) plants larger than 250 MWe and firing medium- to high-sulfur coals (i.e., coals with a sulfur content of 2% or higher) may use either LSFO or MEL.
Record Details:Record Type: DOCUMENT
Organization:U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL DIVISION