I would invite comments from knowledgable peers regarding your views of this technology.
Both of the links above are rather glowing in their assessments, but where are the pitfalls?
Is coal fired power flue gas clean up this simple?
rmw
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!
Promising technology? 1
- Thread starter rmw
- Start date
- Status
I would invite comments from knowledgable peers regarding your views of this technology.
Both of the links above are rather glowing in their assessments, but where are the pitfalls?
Is coal fired power flue gas clean up this simple?
rmw
-
1
- #3
No, it is not so simple. The simplified flow diagram leaves off many process steps including the dewatering and material handling steps. Selection of an FGD process would also have to consider the cost of raw materials, product value, as well as capital cost.
This technology is not much different than what Marsulex is already doing. Marsulex has already commercialized the process and has actual installations. Marsulex also has other competing FGD processes for evaluation.
I don't think Powerspan has an actual installation of any FGD process. FirstEnergy by the way is the company that was criticized for being responsible for that major electrical blackout in the northeast US a few years ago.
This technology is not much different than what Marsulex is already doing. Marsulex has already commercialized the process and has actual installations. Marsulex also has other competing FGD processes for evaluation.
I don't think Powerspan has an actual installation of any FGD process. FirstEnergy by the way is the company that was criticized for being responsible for that major electrical blackout in the northeast US a few years ago.
- Thread starter
- #4
Good link bimr.
You are reading another thread in this forum where I state that there are not a lot of coal fired plants in the area, and among them, there are fewer FGD systems. So while FGD towers are rare around here, I do deal with companies who are heavily involved in FGD, SCR, DeNox, etc. systems, but only in a perifial way, so I haven't typically done a lot of digging into that topic.
And, the FGD systems that I am familiar with among my clients aren't even into Gypsum production. They are on lignite, not coal.
I'll give you a star for that one.
rmw
You are reading another thread in this forum where I state that there are not a lot of coal fired plants in the area, and among them, there are fewer FGD systems. So while FGD towers are rare around here, I do deal with companies who are heavily involved in FGD, SCR, DeNox, etc. systems, but only in a perifial way, so I haven't typically done a lot of digging into that topic.
And, the FGD systems that I am familiar with among my clients aren't even into Gypsum production. They are on lignite, not coal.
I'll give you a star for that one.
rmw
Many states are looking very closely at industrial byproducts being sold as fertilizer. Problems in Washington state in the late 90's were well-publisized (google "fear in the fields'). California and Washington came out with new regulations that are pretty tight on heavy metals, etc.
Ammonium sulphate fertilizer can come in nice white crystals if it's made from sulfuric acid and ammonia. Some of the ammonium sulfate from industrial processes looks like black dirt, with poor size control and much dust. It wouldn't command as high a price.
As far as selling gypsum as a fertilizer, it's not a moneymaker. The US farm locations that need it have nearby gypsum mines that supply the small demand quite nicely. Freight costs are a showstopper.
Just my $0.02.
Ammonium sulphate fertilizer can come in nice white crystals if it's made from sulfuric acid and ammonia. Some of the ammonium sulfate from industrial processes looks like black dirt, with poor size control and much dust. It wouldn't command as high a price.
As far as selling gypsum as a fertilizer, it's not a moneymaker. The US farm locations that need it have nearby gypsum mines that supply the small demand quite nicely. Freight costs are a showstopper.
Just my $0.02.
From my environmental Guru:
In the 1970's technologies arose for the production of fertilizers from the sulfur oxides and nitrogen, in that time the gases could not be cleaned of the UHC's and now in the past decade with cleaning technologies, these fertilizer technologies have been realized but with the high costs associated to clean the gases of UHC's.
The quantity of ammonium sulphate that can be produced by a refinery or thermo-electric station burning 5,000 bbl/day of heavy fuel oil containing 5% sulphur is 162.27 Ton/day.
Daily consumption of fuel 5,000 barriles (793,410 Kg.)
Density 0.998 gr/cm3
Sulfur content 5 % (39,670 Kg.)
The sulfur reacts in the furnace with oxygen and forms sulfur dioxide.
Sulfur dioxide (79,340 Kg.)
S + O2 -------SO2
32 32 64
The sulfur dioxide of the combustion gases reacts with the ammonia solution
Ammonium Sulfite (143,600 Kg.)
SO2 + H2O + 2(NH3)------(NH4)2SO3
64 18 34 116
Ammonium Sulfate (162,270 Kg.)
(NH4)2SO3 + ½ O2---------(NH4)2SO4
116 16 132
It is good if it does not mean spending big downstream dollars to cleanup gases...
The process technologies developed for cleaning of the gases of combustion and their level of advancement are:
PROCESS DEVELOPMENT STAGE
COMINCO COMMERCIAL
INSTITUT INORGANIC CHEMISTRY, CHEK COMMERCIAL
IPRAN, RUMANIA COMMERCIAL
SHOWADENKO, JAPÓN PROTOTYPE
NIIOGAZ, RUSIA COMMERCIAL
KUHLMAN ELECTRICITE DE FRANCE PROTOTYPO
INSTITUT FRANCAIS DU PETROLE PROTOTYPO
TVA – EPA PILOT PROJECT
The technology of catalytic combustion, allowing 99% combustion of the product makes it possible to clean the combustion gases. The gases react with a solution of ammonia to produce fertilizers. The products obtained are ammonium sulphate, nitrites and nitrates of ammonia and ammonium bicarbonate.
In the 1970's technologies arose for the production of fertilizers from the sulfur oxides and nitrogen, in that time the gases could not be cleaned of the UHC's and now in the past decade with cleaning technologies, these fertilizer technologies have been realized but with the high costs associated to clean the gases of UHC's.
The quantity of ammonium sulphate that can be produced by a refinery or thermo-electric station burning 5,000 bbl/day of heavy fuel oil containing 5% sulphur is 162.27 Ton/day.
Daily consumption of fuel 5,000 barriles (793,410 Kg.)
Density 0.998 gr/cm3
Sulfur content 5 % (39,670 Kg.)
The sulfur reacts in the furnace with oxygen and forms sulfur dioxide.
Sulfur dioxide (79,340 Kg.)
S + O2 -------SO2
32 32 64
The sulfur dioxide of the combustion gases reacts with the ammonia solution
Ammonium Sulfite (143,600 Kg.)
SO2 + H2O + 2(NH3)------(NH4)2SO3
64 18 34 116
Ammonium Sulfate (162,270 Kg.)
(NH4)2SO3 + ½ O2---------(NH4)2SO4
116 16 132
It is good if it does not mean spending big downstream dollars to cleanup gases...
The process technologies developed for cleaning of the gases of combustion and their level of advancement are:
PROCESS DEVELOPMENT STAGE
COMINCO COMMERCIAL
INSTITUT INORGANIC CHEMISTRY, CHEK COMMERCIAL
IPRAN, RUMANIA COMMERCIAL
SHOWADENKO, JAPÓN PROTOTYPE
NIIOGAZ, RUSIA COMMERCIAL
KUHLMAN ELECTRICITE DE FRANCE PROTOTYPO
INSTITUT FRANCAIS DU PETROLE PROTOTYPO
TVA – EPA PILOT PROJECT
The technology of catalytic combustion, allowing 99% combustion of the product makes it possible to clean the combustion gases. The gases react with a solution of ammonia to produce fertilizers. The products obtained are ammonium sulphate, nitrites and nitrates of ammonia and ammonium bicarbonate.
rmw..
Have you seen this paper ?
After you have had a chance to review it....
Tell us what you think..
-MJC
Have you seen this paper ?
After you have had a chance to review it....
Tell us what you think..
-MJC
- Status