Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:16:13.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ontario Hydro's R&D on Sorbent Injection Waste Part I. Characterization and Conditioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

M. S. Mozes
Affiliation:
Ontario Hydro Research Division, 800 Kipling Avenue, Toronto, Ontario Canada
R. Mangal
Affiliation:
Ontario Hydro Research Division, 800 Kipling Avenue, Toronto, Ontario Canada
R. Thampi
Affiliation:
Ontario Hydro Research Division, 800 Kipling Avenue, Toronto, Ontario Canada
Get access

Abstract

The effects of furnace sorbent injection on waste characteristics and the performance of electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have been studied under conditions simulating full scale operation at Ontario Hydro's 640 MJ/h Combustion Research Facility. Twice as much waste was produced as with coal ash; the waste was found to contain high levels of calcium compounds (CaO, CaSO4, etc.). In situ resistivity and impactor data were obtained using various sorbents injected either as a dry powder or in the form of a slurry while burning coals with sulphur content ranging between 1.4 to 2.8%. Resistivities were found to increase 2- to 3-orders of magnitude from a baseline level of 108 ohm.cm, and the size distribution of particles suspended in the flue was slightly finer than the baseline ash. Experiments with flue gas conditioning showed that the resistivity of the ash/sorbent mixture produced from limestone injection could be reduced by 1- to 2.5-orders of magnitude during SO3 conditioning and 3-orders of magnitude during water conditioning. Both agents improved the performance of the ESP and reduced particulate emissions by a factor of 1.2 to 4.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Strein, D.L., “ESP Improvement via Flue Gas Conditioning,” presented at Pennsylvania Electric Association, Power Generation Committee, May 9–10, 1985.Google Scholar
2. Sekhar, N., “Effect of Flue Gas Conditioning on Fly Ash Collection,” Ontario Hydro Report No. 80–200-K, October 23, 1980.Google Scholar
3. Mozes, M.S., Mangal, R., Thampi, R. and Michasiw, D., “Pilot Studies of Limestone Injection Process, Phase I: Simulating Lakeview TGS Quenching Rate,” Ontario Hydro Research Division Report No. 86-62-K, May 30, 1986.Google Scholar
4. Barrett, W.J., Gooch, J.P., Dahlin, R.S., Riggin, R.M. and Roth, H.D., in Planning Studies for Measurement of Chemical Emissions in Stack Gases of Coal-Fired Power Plants, Final Report, EPRI EA-2892 (Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1983).Google Scholar
5. Mozes, M.S., Mangal, R. and Thampi, R., “Ontario Hydro's R&D on Sorbent Injection for SO2 Control, Part I: Effect on Ash Characteristics and Particulate Control,” presented at EPRI's Conference on Effects of Coal Quality on Power Plants, October 13–15, 1987, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
6. Mozes, M.S., Mangal, R. and Thampi, R., “Sorbent Injection for SO2 Control: (A) Sulphur Capture by Various Sorbents and (B) Humidification,” Ontario Hydro Research Report No. 88-63-K, July, 1988.Google Scholar