Status of the DOE/GEESI In-Duct Scrubbing Pilot Study

Murphy, K.R.; Shilling, N. Z.; Pennline, Henry W.

doi:10.1080/00022470.1986.10466133

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The time required for complete evaporation of a small water drop is proportional to the square of the drop size, and it varies nearly inversely with the temperature driving force, as shown by Murphy et al 17 A 90-micron drop would evaporate in 0.6 seconds with a driving force of 220° F or 1.0 seconds with 130° F driving force. However, the driving force decreases as evaporation proceeds, and in a practical situation, the log-mean driving force is only % to l k the initial value.…”

Section: -"mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…A rotary atomizer was used to inject calcitic lime slurry into a horizontal rectangular duct, where the gas residence time was about 1.5 seconds. Prolonged operation was not possible because of solids buildup on the duct surfaces, 12 but several short runs were made varying the slurry flow rate to give lime feed ratios of 0.16 to 1.3. The SO2 removal was almost directly proportional to the lime feed ratio, and the lime utilization was 35 percent.…”

Section: General Electric Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Simple Model for SO₂ Removal in the Duct Injection Process

Harriott

1990

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: -"mentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: General Electric Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple Model for SO₂ Removal in the Duct Injection Process

Harriott

1990

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Either a rotary atomizer or a dual-fluid atomizer is used to disperse the sorbent into the flue gas. 16 The SO 2 in the flue gas reacts with the alkaline slurry droplets as they dry, forming CaSO 3 and CaSO 4 . To allow for sufficient drying of the slurry droplets, the existing ductwork must be capable of providing at least a 1-sec, but preferably a 2-sec, residence time and must not contain any flow obstructions.…”

Section: Once-through Wet Fgd Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art

Srivastava

Jozewicz

2001

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

340

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coal-fired electricity-generating plants may use SO 2 scrubbers to meet the requirements of Phase II of the Acid Rain SO 2 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 SO 2 scrubbing technologies. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the state of the art in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technologies for coalfired 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 U.S. 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, magnesiumenhanced lime (MEL), and LSD. Further, of the wet limestone processes, limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) has been used most often in recent applications.The SO 2 removal performance of scrubbers has been reviewed. Data reflect that most wet limestone and LSD installations appear to be capable of ~90% SO 2 removal. Advanced, state-of-the-art wet scrubbers can provide SO 2 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 SO 2 removal requirements: (1) plants up to ~250 MW e 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 MW e and firing medium-to high-sulfur coals (i.e., coals with a sulfur content of 2% or higher) may use either LSFO or MEL.

show abstract