Slide 1

Hello, my name is Alfian, representative of 22nd title of ICT-PEP paper that will present today’s material about sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emission.
Let’s start the presentation
This paper is entitled “Preliminary Study of Dry Sorbent Injection and Limestone Forced Oxidation Comparison for Coal Fired Steam Power Plant
Retrofit”. I am the first author and the other authors whose the name written here
We’re from PLN enjiniring part of PLN (persero).
Slide 2
The fact about Indonesian Coal Fired Steam Power Plant.
Most of Indonesian electricity is supplied by coal fired power plant, that is about 50%.
CFSPP produce various emission such as SOx, Particulate, NOx, CO, Mercury and others. But not all regulated in Indonesian regulation
Most of Indonesian CFSPP are existing plant that established before 2019. That was before Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan
no 15 year 2019 stated.
Slide 3
Indonesia regulation of emission was already stated at Peraturan Menteri lingkungan hidup dan kehutanan no 15 year 2019. It is updates from the
previous regulation that was peraturan Menteri negara lingkungan hidup no 21 year 2008.
Slide 4
The regulation of emission become more stringent, take a point on coal fired power plant emission. These are CFSPP regulation of emission
comparison.
Slide 5
The regulation of course have a limitation to restrict the assumption and prevent inaccuracy.
First, Gas volume is measured in standard condition that is 25 oC and 1 atmosphere.
And second, O2 content in the flue gas is corrected to 7% dry basis.
Slide 6
In this slide is showed the development of Indonesian SO2 regulation. In the previous regulation, SO2 should be maximum in the number of 750
mg/Nm3. Then for the new regulation become 200 mg/Nm3 for new unit and 550 mg/Nm3 for existing unit.
Logically, Existing CFSPP shall reconsider this more stringent regulation from 750 to 550.
It’s make some power plant procure new SO 2 control equipment that suitable to applied in existing plant or can be said as “RETROFIT”
Power plant engineer need consideration references to select what is the SO2 control method that suitable for their power plant.
That’s why we conduct this study.
Slide 7
Sulfur dioxide, one of the causes of acidic rain.
The amount is influenced by sulfur content in coal that fired in the furnace.
The stringent regulation make power plant procure a SO 2 equipment control or usually called “desulfurization”.
Actually SO3 is also formed but in small fraction and do not regulated in Indonesia regulations.
Slide 8
CFSPP SO2 control usually called as Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD).
Various desulfurization method were already used such as :
• Limestone Forced Oxidation (LSFO)
• Dry Sorbent Injection
• Semi-dry FGD
• Seawater FGD
• Regenerable FGD
• Limestone co-firing
Desulfurization methods that will be compared in this study are LSFO and Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI)
Slide 9
The first method that will be studied is Limestone Forced Oxidation.
LSFO can be said that is the most common external flue gas desulfurization used in CFSPP. But just a few CFSPP in Indonesia use LSFO.
This method use Limestone or Calcium Carbonate slurry as absorbent.
In a good application, this method can reach 99% SO 2 removal.
Slide 10
These are the basic reaction of LSFO. There are 2 reaction.
First is the absorption reaction producing calcium sulphite
and the second is oxidation reaction to oxidize the calcium sulphite producing gypsum crystal as an economical valued product.
Slide 11
In coal fired power plant, LSFO is located after particulate handling equipment (e.g. ESP or bag filter).
Slide 12
The second method is sodium bicarbonate dry sorbent injection or usually can be called as duct sorbent injection.
Dry sorbent injection included to a novel flue gas desulfurization method.
This method is easy to apply because no need massive aditional equipment and space.
Slide 13
There are two step reaction of DSI. The first is decomposition reaction, Sodium bicarbonate as a supplied raw material will decomposed as the
effect of heat addition then producing Sodium carbonate as a main sorbent to capture SO 2 .
Then the second is absorption reaction and producing sodium sulphate.
Slide 14
This is the calculation frame work of this study to give references to readers how the LSFO and DSI comparison. Start with the coal consumption
as the main factor that affect the emission quantity until the sorbent consumption cost analysis.
Slide 15
To demonstrate how both methods are compared, we take a case as a calculation basis.
The case is based on Palu 3 CFSPP that rated for 2 x 50 MW, gross output is 110 MW, gross plant heat rate of 2697 kCal/kWh, and coal calorific
value of 4153 kcal/kg.
The coal specification can be seen in Table I
Slide 16
This is how to calculate the amount of coal consumption per hour. The fuel consumption is gross ouput times heat rate and divided by coal
calorific value. Then the coal consumption is 71,422 kg/h.
Mass flow rate of each component can be seen in Table II.
Slide 17
General combustion reactions in furnace are these three reaction of carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur. There are also other reaction but will not be
discussed in this study like NOx and CO formation.
For SO2 production of course is the effect of sulfur combustion reaction.
By Assuming all sulfur is converted to SO2, so the SO2 mass flow is 706.69 kg/h calculated by equation 4.
Slide 18
Every combustion reaction needs O2 (usually from the air). since combustion oxygen influence the combustion product, it must be calculated. The
stoichiometric combustion oxygen calculated by equation 2.
Actually there are already oxygen content in coal, the oxygen required for combustion is slightly reduced to 93,249.2 kg/h
Oxygen is obtained from ambient air which is 23.3 % mass fraction. So the stoichiometric air calculated like equation in the bottom.
Slide 19
For manufacturer requirements, the amount of entered air to the boiler is excess with 20% as the most common value. So the actual air entered the
furnace estimated in the number of 480,253.39 kg/h
With the same calculation as eq. 4 for other components, the combustion product will be defined as table III
Slide 20
One of important step in this study is how to convert the actual concentration condition to the regulation condition.
To calculate the SO2 concentration in actual O2 content use the equation 5. Then to correct the O2 content to the regulation requirement use
equation 6. Resulting SO2 concentration of 1,419.74 mg/Nm3.
Slide 21
This table explain the amount of SO2 that shall be removed to comply the related regulation. The concentration is based on actual O2.
To comply 550 regulation, SO2 removal should be 61% and for 750 should be 47%.
Slide 22
So we start the comparison with Dry Sorbent Injection.
Slide 23
The calculation is based on 1.1 Normalized Stoichiomettic Ratio (NSR) per entered SO2. Na is represented by Na2CO3 . then estimating the
NaHCO3 requirement by stoichiometric decomposition reaction.
Sodium bicarbonate required is 24.36 kmol/h
Slide 24
This is the calculation result for sorbent requirement in DSI.
The 24.36 kmol required sodium bicarbonate then converted to mass flow and corrected by 98% purity of sorbents, resulting 2,090.59 kg/h for 550
mg/Nm3
Slide 25
Continue to Limestone Forced Oxidation
Slide 26
The calculation based on desulfurization reaction with using calcium per removed SO2 as 1.1
Limestone required for this case is 7.46 kmol/h
Slide 27
This is the calculation result for sorbent requirement in LSFO.
The 7.46 kmol required limestone the converted to mass flow and corrected by 95% purity of limestone, resulting 785.46 kg/h for 550 mg/Nm 3
Slide 28
The comparison result of sorbent consumption cost can be seen in table XIII.
To comply 550 mg/Nm3 (7% O2 dry basis) regulation, LSFO will cost $ 53.18 per hour and the sorbent price will be $ 0.12 / kg SO2 while DSI
will cost $ 743.13 per hour and $ 1.68 / kg SO2.
In the case of existing plant that already installed LSFO and DSI to enhance the existing SO2 capture capacity (if possible) due to the stringent
regulation from 750 to 550, LSFO will increase the sorbent consumption cost by 30% while DSI is 22%. It means that sorbent consumption for
existing method retrofit due to the stringent regulation, DSI will take less sorbent cost increase than LSFO.
Slide 29
However. desulfurizer selection does not depend on operating cost only but also totally depend on coal analysis. new or existing plant, coal sulfur
content, CFSPP technology, space availability, supporting chemicals, SO2 allowance, fixed and operating cost estimation.
The other comparison can be seen in in Table XIV. Those are refer to various manufacture and study data.
Slide 30
The conclusions that we have from our study are:
LSFO is cheaper in operating cost than DSI. It was proven by sorbent consumption cost estimation of both desulfurization methods to comply 550
(7% O2 dry basis) regulation, LSFO will cost $ 53.18 per hour and the sorbent price will be $ 0.12 / kg SO 2 while DSI will cost $ 743.13 per hour
and $ 1.68 / kg SO2.
But desulfurizer selection does not depend on operating cost only but also totally depend on other comparisons stated before
Slide 31
Authors wants to suggest that do not use DSI as a main desulfurization method when a coal fired power plant utilize a high sulfur coal. DSI better
to use in low sulfur coal utilization or in hybrid system as a support of the main desulfurization since DSI is easy to retrofit and less space
requirement but high sorbent cost.