Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Environmental Effects of burning Sulfur
- Thread starter CharleneM
- Start date
dicksewerrat
Civil/Environmental
You are kidding, right? Ever hear of 'low sulphur' coal?
BertGielen
Civil/Environmental
Burning sulfur just for energy (and wasting the SO2 to the air) is environmentally foolish.
It is also wasting the money of your company. Sulfur should be sold to chemical industry (for making sulfuric acid); the profits should be much higher than the value of energy in the sulfur.
It is also wasting the money of your company. Sulfur should be sold to chemical industry (for making sulfuric acid); the profits should be much higher than the value of energy in the sulfur.
The environmental agency of your country will come down on you like tons of brick. There is a specified limit of SO2 concentration level for emitting into the air everywhere in this world. Many power stations burning coal or oil spent millions to de-sulphur the flue gas in order to bring the level down to the mandatory level. Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment used to be comparable in cost to the generating equipment and is still very costly nowadays.
In power industry a fuel containing anywhere near 4% of sulphur is as popular as Sars. Theoretically you may possibly burn it in a very small scale by dispersing the pollutant high up in the air (using a really tall chimney) but your neighbours will hate your guts because you are just spreading the sulphur over a wide area. It is not easy to satisfy the EPA limit because you have to prove by using the historical wind data together with the background concentration already in existence that the dispersion will satisfy both the long term and short term criterion.
Countries have become unfriendly in the past because of the problem of acid rain from the windborne sulphur migrating across the border.
In power industry a fuel containing anywhere near 4% of sulphur is as popular as Sars. Theoretically you may possibly burn it in a very small scale by dispersing the pollutant high up in the air (using a really tall chimney) but your neighbours will hate your guts because you are just spreading the sulphur over a wide area. It is not easy to satisfy the EPA limit because you have to prove by using the historical wind data together with the background concentration already in existence that the dispersion will satisfy both the long term and short term criterion.
Countries have become unfriendly in the past because of the problem of acid rain from the windborne sulphur migrating across the border.
That last remark was hilarious, but we need to realize that she does not have the experience and is looking for ways of recycling a high sulfur content fuel. charlene can you be more specific as to what you have and what do you intend to use for?
I hope that I am not upsetting anybody here
I was surprised to find out the amount of water needed to scrub the flue gas from buring fuel oil with just 4% suplur can be comparable to that required for cooling a power plant. Oil fired power plant has an efficiency of 35% or there about and the balance in the form of heat is dumped in the sea. Thus the scale of the problem from burning pure sulphur is mind boggling to me.
I have also had a battle with a EPC contractor on designing a chimney to meet the EPA criterion. He had to increase the chimney height every time we met. He started with 115m and after 4 rounds I stopped him at 160m. He managed only because the plant was designed to burn gas mainly and oil was burnt only for a limited period in a year so that the overall average air quality could be met.
However, I read Eng-tips to learn from our fellow professionals and there may be some clever ways to deal with it.
I was surprised to find out the amount of water needed to scrub the flue gas from buring fuel oil with just 4% suplur can be comparable to that required for cooling a power plant. Oil fired power plant has an efficiency of 35% or there about and the balance in the form of heat is dumped in the sea. Thus the scale of the problem from burning pure sulphur is mind boggling to me.
I have also had a battle with a EPC contractor on designing a chimney to meet the EPA criterion. He had to increase the chimney height every time we met. He started with 115m and after 4 rounds I stopped him at 160m. He managed only because the plant was designed to burn gas mainly and oil was burnt only for a limited period in a year so that the overall average air quality could be met.
However, I read Eng-tips to learn from our fellow professionals and there may be some clever ways to deal with it.
Sp77,
The world source on the standard of SO2 point source for different countries can be viewed from wedsite
The emission standards are related manily to the power generation and plant size above a certain capacity. These information may not be much help to your suphur extraction plant but you should get a feel of the limit.
However at the receiver end the 1-hour average ground concentration I come across on my last project was 730 ug/m3. There was also a 30-day limit to be met but I haven't got the data with me now.
The world source on the standard of SO2 point source for different countries can be viewed from wedsite
The emission standards are related manily to the power generation and plant size above a certain capacity. These information may not be much help to your suphur extraction plant but you should get a feel of the limit.
However at the receiver end the 1-hour average ground concentration I come across on my last project was 730 ug/m3. There was also a 30-day limit to be met but I haven't got the data with me now.
- Status
Similar threads