Dry sorbent injection for SOx emissions control

06/28/2017

As many in the international community begin to make

decisions on technologies that will meet the latest regulatory
requirements, dry sorbent injection is a viable option to be
considered for SOx emissions control, argues Connor Cox
The injection of hydrated lime, trona or sodium bicarbonate (SBC) into the ue gas for the
removal of SO2 and SO3 is a proven solution and a preferred technology both in Europe and
the US.

A dry sorbent injection (DSI) system enables plants to remain in operation when the capital
cost of a wet or semi-dry ue gas desulphurization (FGD) system is too high. Injection of
these alkali sorbents can also o er other bene ts to the plant including lower operating
costs, less corrosion and reduced activated carbon usage for mercury removal in high SO3
environments.

DSI for SO3 removal typically employs hydrated lime as a low cost, high-e ciency sorbent.
The hydrated lime can be injected into several locations throughout the ue gas path,
depending on preferred operation. Performance can vary based on mixing, injection
location, and whether the station employs an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric lter
(FF) as their particulate removal device.

Traditionally, sorbent was injected after the air pre-heater and before the particulate
collection device. This proved very e ective at eliminating visible plumes at the stack.
However, long-term operation in the US has proven that injecting upstream of the air pre-
heater can provide several additional bene ts.
Dry sorbent injection is a low capital cost, high e ciency system

By injecting hydrated lime upstream of the air heater, utilities have shown an improvement in
air pre-heater performance through the reduction of H2SO4 corrosion and ammonium
bisulfate (ABS) buildup caused by SO3 reaction with excess ammonia from SCRs.

In other instances, this location will be upstream of an activated carbon injection (ACI)
system, and the reduction in SO3 prior to interaction with powdered activated carbon (PAC)
will allow for improved sorbent availability and e ectiveness. Lastly, removal of SO3 prior to
the air pre-heater reduces the back-end acid gas condensation temperature. With a
consistent, well-designed DSI system in place, the air pre-heater can return more heat to the
boiler, improving heat rate and overall e ciency.

A relatively new strategy is to move the hydrated lime injection location upstream of the SCR.
In this application, hydrated lime allows the SCR to operate at lower temperatures by
removing the SO3 that would otherwise react with ammonia to form ABS inside the catalyst
layers.

This allows the SCR to continue operation during low load conditions. Plugging of the SCR
due to hydrated lime has not been evident and catalyst deactivation has also not been
observed.

Tackling SO2

With new SO2 emission limits varying between 100 and 220 mg/Nm3 for many coal- red
boilers in the EU, controls will be required to reduce current SO2 emissions. Technologies
available include semi-dry and wet FGDs, or dry sorbent injection systems. Each has
advantages and disadvantages.
DSI is an easily retro tted, low capital cost system that is capable of relatively high (>90 per
cent) SO2 removal, especially with a fabric lter. DSI employs SBC, trona, or hydrated lime as
sorbents of choice depending upon local availability and removal levels required. Operating
costs of a DSI system have shown to be comparable to other FGD systems in the right
application.

Hydrated lime is typically used for lower SO2 removal levels (<50 per cent). However, newer,
enhanced hydrated lime products injected prior to a fabric lter have shown the ability to
reach moderate to high levels of SO2 reduction (70-80 per cent). This performance comes
with higher injection rates compared to the sodium-based sorbents.

In Europe, SBC is the most available sodium sorbent for DSI. The material is delivered with a
relatively large particle size to ease the handling and storage process. Therefore, it must be
milled prior to injection to be e ective.

UCC's patented VIPER Mill was engineered speci cally for this application in order to reduce
particle size, maximize surface area and promote e cient sorbent usage without heating or
damaging the product. The blow-through design simpli es the equipment requirement and
allows one blower to convey the material from the silo through the mill to the duct.

With SBC, temperature is very important. Temperatures below 135°C will cause the SBC to
remain crystalline with very few pores. Temperatures above 345°C cause the SBC particles to
soften, which reduces its porosity and therefore reactivity.

Between those temperatures, the product is highly porous and reactive with SO2.
Depending on boiler type, coal type and system operation, the proper temperature for SBC
frequently is found post air pre-heater. SBC injection with a fabric lter can achieve greater
than 90 per cent SO2 removal.

Alternatively, trona is a sodium-based, naturally occurring mineral that can be applied in a

similar manner. Large deposits are found in Turkey, as well as in the US.

Although slightly less pure than typical SBC, trona does provide several bene ts. First, the
product has a lower cost since it can be mined in a ready-to-use condition. Second, trona
can be injected up to 540°C before the product is damaged.

This allows the ability to inject further upstream, which provides more of a reaction time and
improves the e ciency of the sorbent. When compared to SBC, trona performance is
generally lower, and more sorbent is required. This is often o set by its lower cost.
Balance of plant e ects
E ects on plant operation vary for the di erent sorbents. Some coal- red boiler owners and
operators select to use hydrated lime if possible in order to avoid potential heavy metal
leaching from the collected y ash mixed with DSI by-product. The downside of hydrated
lime, however, is the inability of some ESPs to accommodate the increase in surface
resistivity resulting from the calcium addition.

Alternatively, the use of trona or SBC reduces the resistivity, making the by-product and y
ash easier to collect. Most test and long term installation sites have shown neutral e ects or
even improved collection in their existing ESPs when injecting sodium-based sorbents.

DSI sorbents are not created equal when it comes to mercury capture. High levels of SO3
impede PAC performance, but naturally occurring halogens in the ue gas are necessary for
oxidation and the capture of mercury.

Hydrated lime, being more selective towards SO3 than HCl, typically improves PAC
performance. Sodium sorbents, though more e ective on a mass basis, are more likely to
impede overall mercury removal capabilities.

In these instances, I would recommend separating the DSI and ACI injection locations.
Precise arrangements should be determined based on unit speci cs. Typically, it is better for
the DSI sorbent to be injected before PAC on units burning high suphur coal (to remove
SO3), but after the PAC on lower sulphur units (to avoid halogen removal).

The most e ective method to determine optimal performance and balance of plant e ects is
to conduct a DSI trial on the unit in question. A trial or demonstration test can be designed
to determine the most cost-e ective overall emissions reduction strategy.

Once determined, the system is often operated continuously for a period of time to gain a
full understanding of the equipment and downstream e ects. These trials typically range
from one week to three months in duration, using temporary equipment designed for this
purpose.

DSI system design

DSI is a very e ective and exible technology and, when designed properly, system plugging
should not occur. Poorly designed systems will have distribution and plugging issues, which
will adversely a ect performance and the ability to bene t from all the advantages the
technology provides.
DSI's exibility in application will allow most coal- red boilers in operation to achieve
compliance with new air emission limits in a cost-e ective manner. It can be applied as an
independent SOx removal device, or it can be applied to aid under-performing FGDs.

Instead of upgrading the equipment for the new regulations, DSI can reduce the inlet
sulphur to the FGD, allowing the existing equipment to reach the regulatory limits. DSI
should be considered for all future SOx mitigation requirements as a low-capital cost, high
e ciency system.

Connor Cox is Project Manager at United Conveyor Corporation. www.unitedconveyor.com

Copyright © 2007-2018 PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, OK.

All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

TOPICS ABOUT US RESOURCES SUPPORT

World Regions Renewables About Us Current Issue Site Map
T&D Decentralized Energy Contact Us Online Archives
Gas Fired Digitalization Advertising RSS Feeds
Coal Fired Topic Index Subscribe
Nuclear
 

OTHER POWER SITES THE POWER & ENERGY SERIES

HydroWorld The Power & Energy Series Future Energy East Africa
Hydro Review African Utility Week Future Energy Nigeria
Renewable Energy World Asian Utility Week HydroVision
Power Engineering Australian Utility Week POWERGEN Africa
China Utility Week POWERGEN Asia
DistribuTECH POWERGEN Europe
European Utility Week POWERGEN International