Membrane-Based Wet Electrostatic Precipitation

Transcription

1 -Based Wet Electrostatic Precipitation Dave Bayless, Greg Kremer, Liming Shi & Ben Stuart - Ohio University John Caine Southern Environmental James Reynolds Enerfab CRCAT

2 Project Partners Co-operative Effort GOVERNMENT Ohio Coal Development Office US Department of Energy INDUSTRY Croll-Reynolds Clean Air Tech. Southern Environmental, Inc. First Energy Corp. ACADEMIC RESEARCH Ohio University

3 Advantages of Wet Precipitation No re-entrainment Higher power levels Control of acid aerosols Control of fine particulates Control of soluble (Hg 2+ ) mercury

4 Problems of Conventional Wet ESP Channeling and dry spots Wet-dry interface Spraying / misting Field disruptions Corrosion

5 Advantages of Wet Precipitation Water distribution Gravity assisted capillary action Uniform water distribution Minimize misting/splashing Cleaning via sheeting (supersaturated) flow 90% reduction in water demand Lower weight and cost Corrosion resistance Multi-pollutant control

6 Bench-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities Omnisil

7 Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities Full Length

8 Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities FirstEnergy s Bruce Mansfield Plant Initial Design Criteria Single field with circular (tubular) collection ducts 90% capture of PM2.5 at 5,000 acfm Final wesp Design added second field Parameter Tube Configuration Number of Tubes Tube Diameter Tube Length Collection Area Metal Round diameter ft 2 Square square ft 2

9 Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities FirstEnergy s Bruce Mansfield Plant Parallel wesp Trains Inlet Duct Sampling Platform Outlet Duct Observation Port

10 Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities FirstEnergy s Bruce Mansfield Plant Inlet Duct Metal wesp wesp

11 Material Properties Testing Polypropylene Virgin Mansfield

12 Material Properties Testing Polypropylene Material wetting properties improve with use Virgin: 40% saturated in 2 minutes; ~ 50% coverage Used: saturated in 30 seconds; 98% coverage No reduction in material strength ( hrs) Virgin PP Sample 1 Virgin PP Sample 2 Mansfield Samples Georgia-Pacific Samples Burst Strength (psi) Std. Dev. (psi)

13 Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Particulate (mg/dscm) Precipitator Airflow (acfm) Power Fields Inlet Outlet Removal 8, % 8, % 8, % 8, % 15, % 15, % 8, % 15, %

14 Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Acid Aerosol Precipitator Air Flow (acfm) Power Inlet (ppm) Outlet (ppm) Removal 8, % 8, % 8,270 60% % 15, % 15,150 60% % 7, % 7, % 14, % 14, % 8, % 15, %

15 Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Particulate-Bound Hg (µg/dscm) Precipitator Air Flow (acfm) Power Inlet Outlet Removal 8, % 7, % 8, , % 14, % 15, % 14, , , % 15, , %

16 Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Elemental Hg (µg/dscm) Precipitator Airflow (acfm) Power Inlet Outlet Removal 8, % 7, % 8, % 8, % 14, % 15, % 14, % 8, % 8, % 15, % 14, %

17 Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Oxidized Hg (µg/dscm) Precipitator Airflow (acfm) Power Inlet Outlet Removal 8, % 7, % 8, % 8, % 14, % 15, % 14, % 8, % 8, % 15, % 14, %

18 Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Summary and Conclusions Material wetting properties improve with use No reduction in material strength Particulates, acid aerosols and oxidized Hg 5-20% improvement in collection efficiency Particulate bound and elemental Hg Requires further investigation Performance obtained with 15% less surface area and gas flows at % of design flow

19 Acknowledgments The work of the is partially supported by generous grants from the Ohio Coal Development Office (of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority) under contracts OCRC3.00.B1-4.1 and B1-4.7, the Department of Energy under grants DE-FT36-03GO13059, DE-FT26-02NT41592 and through Ohio University s 1804 Fund. Our thanks to all the staff and students in the for their outstanding efforts and to all our corporate partners.

20 Further questions?