-Based Wet Electrostatic Precipitation Dave Bayless, Greg Kremer, Liming Shi & Ben Stuart - Ohio University John Caine Southern Environmental James Reynolds Enerfab CRCAT
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
Advantages of Wet Precipitation No re-entrainment Higher power levels Control of acid aerosols Control of fine particulates Control of soluble (Hg 2+ ) mercury
Problems of Conventional Wet ESP Channeling and dry spots Wet-dry interface Spraying / misting Field disruptions Corrosion
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
Bench-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities Omnisil
Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities Full Length
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 28 10 diameter 10 724 ft 2 Square 16 11.5 square 10 613 ft 2
Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities FirstEnergy s Bruce Mansfield Plant Parallel wesp Trains Inlet Duct Sampling Platform Outlet Duct Observation Port
Pilot-Scale Wet ESP Test Facilities FirstEnergy s Bruce Mansfield Plant Inlet Duct Metal wesp wesp
Material Properties Testing Polypropylene Virgin Mansfield
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 (1000-5000+ hrs) Virgin PP Sample 1 Virgin PP Sample 2 Mansfield Samples Georgia-Pacific Samples Burst Strength (psi) 455 480 515 478 Std. Dev. (psi) 40 85 72 44
Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Particulate (mg/dscm) Precipitator Airflow (acfm) Power Fields Inlet Outlet Removal 8,394 1 67 14 79% 8,235 2 116 5 96% 8,410 2 113 11 90% 8,220 2 137 7 95% 15,850 2 103 30 71% 15,880 2 128 39 70% 8,140 2 106 4 96% 15,330 2 115 22 81%
Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Acid Aerosol Precipitator Air Flow (acfm) Power Inlet (ppm) Outlet (ppm) Removal 8,235 10 0.9 91% 8,430 8.9 1.0 89% 8,270 60% 11.1 4.3 61% 15,310 8.5 3.2 62% 15,150 60% 9.8 4.4 55% 7,880 2.6 0.3 88% 7,920 3.1 0.4 87% 14,570 6.2 2.0 68% 14,940 4.5 1.7 62% 8,430 4.1 0.3 93% 15,190 3.2 0.9 72%
Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Particulate-Bound Hg (µg/dscm) Precipitator Air Flow (acfm) Power Inlet Outlet Removal 8,000 0.011 0.004 64% 7,880 0.03 0.01 67% 8,050 0.01 0.00 8,120 0.03 0.02 33% 14,430 0.03 0.02 33% 15,110 0.03 0.01 67% 14,780 0.02 0.00 8,100 0.02 0.00 8,210 0.85 0.20 76% 15,060 0.01 0.00 14,910 0.69 0.23 67%
Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Elemental Hg (µg/dscm) Precipitator Airflow (acfm) Power Inlet Outlet Removal 8,000 6.2 3.5 44% 7,880 5.7 3.4 40% 8,050 6.8 4.6 32% 8,120 6.2 4.1 34% 14,430 7.2 5.8 19% 15,110 5.3 3.6 32% 14,780 5.6 4.1 27% 8,100 8.9 6.0 33% 8,210 2.9 2.4 17% 15,060 6.6 5.1 23% 14,910 3.7 3.0 19%
Pilot-Scale Test Results from Mansfield Oxidized Hg (µg/dscm) Precipitator Airflow (acfm) Power Inlet Outlet Removal 8,000 0.7 0.2 71% 7,880 1.4 0.3 79% 8,050 1.7 0.4 76% 8,120 1.8 0.5 72% 14,430 2.0 0.9 55% 15,110 1.5 0.8 47% 14,780 1.7 0.9 47% 8,100 2.2 0.4 82% 8,210 1.9 0.3 84% 15,060 1.5 0.6 60% 14,910 1.8 0.6 67%
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 160-300% of design flow
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.
Further questions? bayless@ohio.edu www.ohio.edu/ohiocoal