Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

ISSN: 0002-2470 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Energy Requirements of a Limestone FGD System

Edward S. Rubin & Due G. Nguyen

To cite this article: Edward S. Rubin & Due G. Nguyen (1978) Energy Requirements of a
Limestone FGD System, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 28:12, 1207-1212, DOI:
10.1080/00022470.1978.10470728

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1978.10470728

Published online: 14 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2343

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
 Energy Requirements of a
Limestone FGD System
Edward S. Rubin and Due G. Nguyen
Carnegie-Mellon University
A computerized simulation model has been developed to compute
energy requirements of a limestone slurry flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) system as a function of FGD system design parameters, power
plant characteristics, coal properties, and sulfur dioxide emission
regulation. Results are illustrated for a "base case" plant of 500 MW,
burning 3.5% sulfur coal, meeting the federal new source perfor-
mance standard of 1.2 Ib SO 2 /10 6 Btu. The flue gas is cleaned by an
electrostatic precipitator followed by a limestone FGD system with
a TCA scrubbing vessel and an optimized in-line steam reheater. The
total FGD system energy requirement for this case was found to be
3.4% of the total energy input to the boiler. Sensitivity analyses were
then performed in which the nominal values of ten system parameters
were individually varied. This caused the total FGD system energy
requirement to vary between 2.5 % and 6.1 % of the gross plant output
for the range of parameters tested. The most sensitive parameters
were found to be scrubbing slurry pH, which affects pumping re-
quirements, and stack gas exit temperature, which affects reheat
requirements. In all cases, FGD energy requirements were minimized
when the SO 2 emission standard was met by partially bypassing the
scrubber. In light of the recent Clean Air Act Amendments this option
may not be feasible in the future.
Since passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, electric
utilities throughout the country have been adopting flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) systems in increasing numbers to
achieve federal or state standards for sulfur dioxide emissions
at coal-fired facilities. At the present time, the most widely
used type of flue gas desulfurization system is a lime or lime-
stone wet scrubbing process which absorbs SO2 from power
plant flue gases and produces a sulfur-bearing sludge to be
disposed on land. Lime/limestone systems are employed on
98% of all new U.S. capacity with operating FGD systems, and
on 91% of new capacity with FGD systems under construction.
Of these, the majority use limestone rather than lime as the
scrubbing agent.1
December 1978 Volume 28, No. 12
In recent years, utilities have been concerned principally
with overcoming operational and reliability problems common
in early FGD designs. With many of these problems now re-
solved, attention is increasingly focused on the economic as-
pects of FGD technology. Besides the high capital cost of FGD
systems, operating costs are also substantial, in large part
because of the energy-intensive nature of this technology. To
date, relatively little attention has been paid to optimizing
FGD systems with respect to energy consumption. The
present study was therefore undertaken to systematically
analyze FGD energy requirements, and to investigate methods
of minimizing these to improve the net efficiency of electric
power generation. The analysis focused on a limestone system,
the most widespread process now in use.
The following section of this paper briefly reviews the na-
ture of FGD system operation. Following this, an analytical
model is described which was developed to study FGD system
energy requirements and optimization. Results are presented
in terms of sensitivity analyses showing the effect of plant,
coal, regulatory, and FGD system parameters on overall en-
ergy requirements. These results are discussed in light of the
1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, which were enacted sub-
sequent to the completion of this study.
FGD System Components
Figure 1 shows the flow diagram for a power plant boiler
equipped with a typical limestone slurry system. The three
main areas of interest are, (1) SO2 scrubbing module and
demister, (2) stack gas reheater, and, (3) materials handling
and sludge disposal.
Scrubber Module and Demister
The function of the scrubbing module is to absorb SO2 from
the stream of mixed combustion gases leaving the boiler.
Particulate matter may be removed simultaneously, or pref-
erably by dry collection upstream of the scrubber. SO2 is re-
moved by contacting the gas with a limestone slurry con-
Ccipyright 1978-Air Pollution Control Association
1207

Optional^
bypass \
Economizer I
Pulverized coal
Hoppers, feeders &
conveyors Feeders -
Weigh belts-
Gyratory crushers -
Elevators •
Figure 1. Limestone slurry process flow diagram (adapted from Reference 2).
taining approximately 60% solids. The slurry is recirculated
to a holding tank where limestone is added while part of the
spent solution is bled off to a settling pond feed tank. Pre-
cipitating calcium sulfate, calcium sulfite, unreacted lime-
stone, and other solids form a complicated chemical sludge
which is suspended in the holding tank by agitation, then
pumped to a settling pond for disposal.
The efficiency of SO2 removal is a function of the scrubbing
module design as well as gas composition and process condi-
tions including inlet SO2 concentration, flue gas velocity,
slurry composition, liquid-to-gas ratio, and slurry pH. Al-
though scrubber chemistry is not completely understood in
detail, existing semi-empirical models can adequately predict
the performance of current limestone systems.2
Energy is needed in the scrubbing process to pump slurry
through the scrubber circuit and to drive the fans needed to
overcome gas phase pressure drops through the SO2 absorber
vessel and associated ductwork. Pumping power is a function
of liquid flow and pressure drop, dependent on contactor
design. Similarly, fan power requirements increase directly
with the flow rate of flue gas treated and the gas phase pres-
sure drop through the system. Both fan power and pumping
power also depend on the mechanical fan or pump efficiency
and the electro-mechanical efficiency of motor drives.
Energy requirements are also influenced by the demister
downstream of the scrubber. The purpose of this device is to
remove liquid slurry entrained in the flue gas. The demister
thus adds to the pressure drop incurred in the scrubber, al-
though this is small during nominal operation. Current
practice is periodically to wash the demister with clean water
to remove deposits and prevent clogging. As a result, liquid
droplets from the demister wash water, as well as some liquid
scrubber slurry, inevitably escape the demister and remain
entrained in the flue gas. Evaporation of this entrained liquid
increases the energy required in reheating the gas downstream
of the demister.
Stack Gas Reheater
Reheating of the scrubbed flue gas is done to restore plume
buoyancy to achieve adequate dispersion of flue gases emitted
1208
Steam from
steam plant
SO2 I
absorber r-*-|Reheater
e—•r-—H I——-—
Mills Slurry Pump
product Pump feed
tank tank
to the atmosphere. The temperature of the scrubbed gas must
also be above the sulfuric acid dew point to avoid excessive
corrosion of fans, reheater tubes, and ductwork. Although exit
temperature requirements will depend on specific site pa-
rameters, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reports that
a 175°F exit temperature is usually sufficient for dispersion
and corrosion protection.2 In other studies, however, exit
temperatures as high as 250° F are reported.3
Reheaters currently in use utilize oil firing, hot air injection,
or an in-line steam heat exchanger to increase the stack gas
temperature. With oil firing, the hot combustion gases are
mixed directly with the flue gas to increase the bulk temper-
ature. This method is likely to diminish in the future in light
of energy policies aimed at reducing oil and natural gas con-
sumption. Methods utilizing steam typically draw energy from
an intermediate turbine stage of the power plant. The in-line
reheater accomplishes heat exchange by condensing steam in
tubes directly within the flue gas stream. Alternatively, steam
can be used to heat air which is then injected into the flue gas
stream to achieve the desired reheat. Although this is more
costly, it may be preferable where scaling or corrosion of an
in-line exchanger becomes excessive. The total energy re-
quirement for gas reheat is then the sum of the input thermal
energy plus the electrical power required by fans to overcome
the pressure drop of the flue gas across the reheater and as-
sociated breeching.
Raw Materials Handling and Sludge Disposal
The final area of an FGD system requiring ancillary energy
is materials handling. This refers to the various stages required
to process, store and feed the limestone slurry reagent, as well
as equipment to handle and dispose of the waste sludge gen-
erated in the scrubber. Energy is required in the form of
electricity to operate the various pumps, conveyors, and me-
chanical equipment needed to handle raw and waste materials.
Studies by TVA indicate that only about 10% of the total en-
ergy required by a limestone FGD system is needed for ma-
terials handling.2 In the present study, therefore, energy re-
quirements of the SO2 scrubber and stack gas reheater were
the prime areas of study.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
Energy Optimization Model
In order to analyze FGD energy requirements systemati-
cally, a computerized model of a coal-fired steam electric
power plant was developed. The model included a conven-
tional pulvurized coal-fired boiler, an electrostatic precipitator
for particulate removal, a wet limestone FGD system with
optional flue gas bypass, an in-line steam reheater, and a
separate induced draft fan for each scrubbing train. A detailed
description of the model is given by Carnahan, et al. in Ref-
erence 4. A summary of model input parameters is shown in
Table I, along with numerical values for a "base case" plant
configuration discussed later.
The size of the FGD system and minimum number of trains
were determined through a calculation of flue gas volumetric
flow rate based on plant size, boiler firing characteristics, and
coal composition. The model assumed complete combustion
with some retention of sulfur in the boiler bottom ash. The
TVA criterion of 93.6 m2 was used for the maximum cross-
sectional area of a single scrubber module.5 Performance of
the scrubber was modeled using semi-empirical correlations
developed by the Bechtel Corporation in conjunction with the
Tennessee Valley Authority Shawnee Test Program using
packed bed and spray tower absorbers. For a turbulent contact
absorber (TCA), the sulfur dioxide removal efficiency is given
by:6*
4 81 0 36
17SO2 = l - exp {-2.05 X 10- (L/G)°- u - •
exp [4.3 X 10~3 v (h/d + N) + 0.81 pH - 1.7 X 10"4 SO2
+ 7.9 X 10~5 Mg + 1.3 X 10~5 Cl]j (1)
where, 77so2 = fraction of SO2 removed from flue gas
L/G = liquid-to-gas contacting ratio (gal/1000 acfm
at scrubber outlet conditions)
v = flue gas velocity at contactor conditions
(ft/sec)
h = static packing height (in.)
d = packing diameter (in.)
N = number of TCA grids
pH = inlet slurry pH
SO2 = inlet SO2 concentration (ppm)
Mg = effective liquor Mg ++ concentration (ppm)
Cl = liquor Cl concentration (ppm)
In a similar manner, pressure drop across the scrubber was
calculated from correlations developed by Bechtel for dif-
ferent scrubber configurations.4-6 The scrubbing liquor
* An alternative form of Eq. (1) has been published more recently,7 but gives similar re-
sults.

Table I. Input parameters for FGD energy consumption model.

Boiler and equipment characteristics Base case values
Gross power generation 500 MW
Gross cycle heat rate 9000 Btu/kwh (9496 kJ/kwh)
Boiler thermal efficiency 85.0%
Percent excess air (including leakage) 33.0%
Air absolute humidity 0.0044 lb H2O/lb dry air
Sulfur in gas stream 95.0%
Fly ash in gas stream 80.0%
Electrostatic precipitator efficiency 99.5%
Hot gas temperature 300°F (149°C)
Coal moisture content (as fired) 9.80%
Coal analysis (dry basis)
Carbon 65.41%
Hydrogen 4.70%
Oxygen 7.34%
Nitrogen 1.18%
Sulfur 3.50%
Ash 17.74%
Coal heating value (as fired) 10,500 Btu/lb (24,428 kJ/kg)
Environmental regulatory constraints
Sulfur dioxide emission limit 1.2 lb/106 Btu (520 ng/J)
Scrubber system characteristics (TCA)
Scrubbing pH 5.65
Liquor Mg and Cl 0 ppm
Number of beds 3
Number of grids 4
Heights of spheres per bed 5.0 in. (127 mm)
Scrubber gas velocity 12.0 ft/sec (3.0 m/sec)
Flue gas inlet temperature 300°F(149°C)
Flue gas exit temperature 127°F (53°C)
SO2 removal efficiency (optional) (calculated)
Water entrainment of demister 0.1% wt. of flue gas
Fan efficiency 60%
Pump efficiency 60%
Motor efficiency 90%
Steam reheater characteristics
Flue gas face velocity 25.0 ft/sec (7.6 m/sec)
Inlet steam temperature 470°F (243°C)
Heat of vaporization of steam 750 Btu/lb (1745 kJ/kg)
Stack exit temperature 175°F (75°C)
Outside tube diameter 1.0 in. (25.4 mm)
Transverse tube spacing 1.5 in. (38.1 mm)

December 1978 Volume 28, No. 12 1209

pumping head and ductwork pressure drop were derived from
earlier TVA studies of packed and spray tower absorbers.4'5
From this, electrical power requirements were calculated from
the equation:
(
VeVm
where, E = electrical power requirement
Q = volumetric flow rate
AP = pressure drop or head
r)e = electromechanical motor efficiency
t]m — mechanical fan or pump efficiency.
This energy was then referred back to an equivalent coal en-
ergy input to the boiler utilizing the gross cycle heat rate
(coal-to-electric efficiency) for the power plant. Energy re-
quirements for raw materials handling and scrubber sludge
disposal were estimated at a constant value of 0.4% of total
gross generation based on TVA studies cited earlier.
Performance of the demister was modeled in terms of the
mass of entrained water carried downstream to the stack gas
reheater. Though these levels are generally not well quantified,
and vary with demister design, a range of estimates were
available from laboratory and pilot plant studies which
characterized water entrainment as a percentage of the mass
of flue gas crossing the demister.5 Entrainment was nominally
taken to be 0.1% of the flue gas mass flow, with a wider range
explored in sensitivity analyses.
Performance of the stack gas reheater was modeled as an
in-line cross flow heat exchanger in a rectangular duct. Figure
2 shows a schematic of the flow and pipe arrangement. Given
the inlet flue gas properties, flow rate, reheater tube diameter,
and transverse tube spacing, a gas dynamic optimum cross-
sectional area was calculated to determine the gas velocity at
which the most favorable trade-off is achieved between heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop.4 A pressure drop cor-
relation for the flow of a gas over banks of tubes8 was then used
to calculate the optimum number of pipes per bank (mini-
mizing overall pressure drop), and total required heat ex-
changer area was calculated using the Effectiveness-NTU
method described by Kays and London.9 High temperature
steam in the reheater was assumed to enter as saturated vapor
and leave as saturated liquid. The total thermal energy re-
quirement for reheat was expressed in terms of equivalent coal
input utilizing the boiler thermal efficiency.
A final feature of the energy utilization model was a calcu-
lation of the optimum level of scrubber bypass which mini-
mizes the total system energy requirement. Bypassing part
of the stack gas around the scrubber is feasible when an elec-
trostatic precipitator or other device is used to achieve the
particulate emission standard upstream of the scrubber, and
the SO2 emission standard does not require all of the exhaust
gas to be treated. For example, at a plant burning a 2% sulfur
eastern coal, an SO2 emission standard of 1.2 lb/106 Btu can
be met by removing 63% of SO2 from all the gas, or by re-
Flow duct
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
Figure 2. In-line steam reheater configuration.
1210
5.0
Coal sulfur content =
(dry basis)
5.0%
3.5%
2.0%
Increasing bypass-
0.0
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Percent SO2 removal from treated gas
Figure 3. Effects of coal sulfur content on total FGD energy requirements (all
other parameters at base case values).
moving 93% from two-thirds of the gas then mixing it with the
remaining third that bypasses the scrubber. Although the
higher SO2 removal efficiency increases the energy penalty
in the scrubber, the energy requirement for reheat is reduced
because hot bypass gas is available to mix with the saturated
gas leaving the scrubber. Reheat energy requirements are
reduced in proportion to the fraction of gas bypassed, while
scrubber energy requirements increase nonlinearly as the
treated gas requires continually higher removal efficiencies.
The result is an optimum level of bypass at which total system
energy is minimized while still achieving the applicable SO2
emission standard. This is illustrated in Figure 3 for a 500 MW
plant using a relatively high sulfur (3.5%) eastern coal and a
TCA scrubber. Other characteristics of this "base case" power
plant are summarized in Table I. Optimum bypass calcula-
tions assume that the SO2 removal efficiency is increased by
raising the slurry pumping rate (L/G) to the value dictated
by Eq. (1) when all other parameters are held at their nominal
(zero bypass) values.
It should be noted that the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
may well preclude the use of bypass in the future because of
the requirements for "best available control technology"
(BACT) and "lowest achievable emissions reduction"
(LAER). The energy consequences of this policy are explored
in the next section of this paper, together with the influence
of various system parameters on total FGD energy require-
ments.
Results of Sensitivity Analysis
Relative to the "base case" plant configuration of Table I,
sensitivity analyses were undertaken to determine the effect
on nominal FGD energy of changes in 10 system parameters.
For each of 30 cases, the fraction of flue gas bypassing the
scrubber was also systematically varied from zero to some
maximum value corresponding to an SO2 removal efficiency
of 90%. A summary of the parameter ranges tested and their
corresponding effect on energy requirements is given in Table
II. Illustrative results showing the effect of partial bypass are
given in Figures 3-6. In these figures, the minimum SO2 re-
moval efficiency needed to achieve the applicable emission
standard is found at the extreme left of each curve, which
corresponds to zero bypass. As the level of bypass is increased
the SO2 removal efficiency of the treated gas stream increases
proportionately so that the mixed stack gas achieves the same
emission standard. The total FGD energy requirement is given
as a percent of the gross power plant output (equivalent to the
boiler heat input times* the gross cycle heat rate.)
Two general conclusions are drawn from the results of these
sensitivity analyses. First, the absolute level of auxiliary en-
ergy required by the FGD system varies with many coal,
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
 Table II. Sensitivity analysis of FGD system energy requirements.
Corresponding Average percent
total FGD energy Corresponding increase in FGD
Range of with zero bypass percent energy energy for a
System parameter values (% boiler heat savings at 10% increase in
varied testeda input)b optimum bypass0 parameterd
Coal parameters
Sulfur content (Wt. %) 2.0-5.0 2.93-3.92 50.5-2.0 13.4
Heating value (Btu/lb) 9,500-13,500 3.79-2.61 2.5-22.6 -13.2
Boiler/plant parameters
Gross cycle heat rate 8,700-9,300 3.36-3.44 12.8-11.9 5.0
(Btu/kwh)
Total excess air (%) 10-50 2.97-3.72 10.8-13.4 1.6
Scrubber inlet temp. (°F) 300-350 3.40 12.4-19.1 -4.6
FGD system parameters
Slurry inlet pH 5.45-5.85 3.58-3.25 8.4-15.4 -25.1
Scrubber AP (in. H 2 0) 2.044-10.885 2.90-3.40 19.3-12.4 2.6
Demister entrainment 0.0-0.5 3.26-3.97 12.6-12.3 0.4
(Wt. % Flue Gas)
Reheater exit temp. (°F) 150-250 2.49-6.09 16.1-7.6 20.7
Emission constraint
SO2 emission level 0.6-1.5 3.87-3.26 0.5-22.1 -5.9
(lb/106 Btu)
a
All other parameters held at the "base case" values in Table I.
b
Sum of scrubber, reheater, and materials handling energy requirements as an equivalent percentage
of total heat input to the boiler.
c
Relative to total energy with zero bypass. Optimum bypass fraction ranged from 2.2 to 32.2% of total
flue gas.
d
Average of three cases tested for each parameter. Negative numbers indicate that energy requirements
decrease when value of the parameter increases.

process, and plant characteristics. For the cases examined, the
energy requirement of an FGD system without bypass ranged
from 2.5% to 6.1% of the total energy input (or gross power
output) of the plant.
The second general conclusion is that for any fixed set of
coal and plant characteristics, FGD energy use is minimized
by operating scrubbers at a high efficiency (90-93%), while
bypassing as much flue gas as permitted by the applicable
emission standard. An economic analysis of the base case plant
design further indicated that FGD capital costs as well as
operating costs were reduced using partial bypass.4 Although
widespread use of this option may be precluded by the recent
Clean Air Act Amendments, as noted earlier, it is of interest
to note that the energy savings potential can be significant.
For example, with 2.0% sulfur coal (Figure 3), an FGD system
removing 63% SO2 from 100% of the gas to achieve an emission
level of 1.2 lb SO2/IO6 Btu requires approximately twice the
energy of a system in which 32% of the gas is bypassed and the
remainder treated to a removal efficiency of 93% to achieve
the same stack emission standard. With 3.5% sulfur coal, the
total energy requirement with zero bypass was generally 10%
to 30% larger than with optimum partial bypass.
Table IF shows the sensitivity of total FGD energy re-
quirement to changes in the nominal value of different system
characteristics. The results show the percentage change in
total energy resulting from a 10% increase in the base case
value of the indicated parameter. Of the parameters tested,
the most sensitive were the scrubbing liquid pH and the stack
gas exit temperature. Based on the Bechtel correlations for
a TCA scrubber, a 10% increase in inlet slurry pH reduced the
nominal FGD energy requirement by approximately 25%. For
a spray tower absorber, where total pressure drop in the
scrubber is significantly lower than the TCA design, sensitivity
to pH still remains high. This is because pH affects the
amount of slurry that must be pumped, and this in turn di-
rectly affects the energy requirement. To minimize energy
consumption, pH should be kept relatively high.
The sensitivity of total energy requirement to stack gas exit
temperature is related directly to thermal reheat require-
ments. For the cases tested here, a 10% increase in stack exit
temperature increased the total FGD energy requirement by
approximately 21%. This suggests the need for careful study
to determine the minimum acceptable stack exit temperature
for any specific application. This energy penalty could also
be reduced substantially if improved heat transfer technology
allows waste heat utilization to become economically attrac-
tive such that reheat energy could be supplied from low
quality (turbine outlet) steam that would not penalize the
electrical generation cycle.
§5.0
Percent bypass
5 10 15 20
4.0
;3.o
.2 2.0
1.0
75 80 85 90 95 100
Percent SO2 removal from treated gas
Figure 4. FGD energy requirements as a percent of total power
plant requirements for the base case configuration (Table I).
Table II shows that coal characteristics play an important
part in determining FGD energy requirements. Decreasing
the base case sulfur content substantially reduced both the
size and energy requirement of the FGD system needed to
achieve new source emission standards. Thus, washing of high
sulfur coals to achieve lower inlet sulfur levels could be at-
tractive from the viewpoint of the power plant operator.
Similarly, increasing the heating value of coal reduced FGD

December 1978 Volume 28, No. 12 1211

 g5.0
Reheater exit temperature =
200°F ^ ^
•g 4 . 0 -
Zero - / I
I£3.0 bypass \
I
__^
175°F ^ ^ ^
150°F ^^y
2 2.0-
•R 1-Oh Increasing bypass
0.0 1 1 1
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Percent SO2 removal from treated gas
Figure 5. Effects of reheater exit temperature on total FGD en-
ergy requirements (all other parameters at base case values).
energy consumption when the allowable SO2 emission was
given in terms of boiler heat input. On the other hand, tight-
ening the nominal SO2 regulation by 10% produced about a
6% increase in the FGD system energy requirement. Figure
6 illustrates how the potential for bypass is also reduced as the.
emission constraint becomes more stringent.
Finally, Table II shows that several of the parameters ex-
amined had a relatively small impact on energy requirements.
Decreasing the pressure drop by converting from a packed bed
to a spray tower arrangement reduced the gas-side fan re-
quirements substantially, but produced a more modest de-
crease in overall energy requirement since pumping power
increased and reheat requirements were unaffected. Water
entrainment at the demister also exhibited relatively little
sensitivity to a 10% change in the nominal value, although the
relatively large uncertainty in this value could still produce
a noticeable impact on total system energy. Variations in the
excess air level and inlet air humidity displayed the weakest
effect on overall energy requirements.
Conclusion
A computerized simulation model was developed to de-
termine the energy requirements of a limestone flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) system of a coal-fired steam-electric
power plant. FGD system energy requirements were found to
depend on scrubber design, coal characteristics, power plant
design, and environmental regulatory constraints. Sensitivity
analyses were performed in which ten parameters were sys-
tematically varied from their nominal "base case" values
corresponding to a 500 MW plant, burning 3.5% sulfur coal,
and achieving an SO2 emission level of 1.2 lb/106 Btu with a
turbulent contact absorber (TCA) scrubbing vessel and an
•in-line steam reheater. Changes in the stack gas exit temper-
ature and the scrubbing slurry pH had the greatest effect on
FGD energy requirements for comparable changes in any of
the system parameters tested. A 10% change in either pH or
, exit temperature produced more than a 20% change in total
FGD energy use. For the range of parameters tested, the total
FGD energy requirement was equivalent to between 2.5% and
6.1% of the total power plant output when 100% of the flue gas
was treated in the FGD system.
Optimization studies also showed that if particulate matter
is removed upstream of the scrubber, FGD energy require-
ments are minimized by partially bypassing the scrubber
vessel while treating the remaining flue gas to a high SO2 re-
moval efficiency to achieve the applicable (mixed stack gas)
emission standard. Sensitivity analyses for the 3.5% sulfur coal
showed that treating the entire flue gas stream required 10%
to 30% more energy to achieve the same SO2 emission standard
as a system with a partial bypass. Capital cost was also lower
with bypass. For a 2.0% sulfur coal, the zero bypass configu-
1212
a 5.0
emission level =
"5 4 . 0 -
Zero bypass
>3.0
§2.0
Increasing bypass-
8
i 0.0 75 80 85 90 95 100
Percent SO2 removal from treated gas
Figure 6. Effect of SO2 emission constraint on total FGD energy
requirement (all other parameters at base case values).
ration required twice as much energy as the system with
partial bypass. The future viability of bypass, however, ap-
pears restricted by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments en-
acted subsequent to this study.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and
cooperation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, and Bechtel National, Inc. in
carrying out this work. David R. Carnahan, William D. Latura,
and Charles A. Zaczek of Carnegie-Mellon University con-
tributed significantly to the development of the computer
codes used here, and are happily acknowledged. Partial sup-
. port for this research was provided by grants from Brookhaven
National Laboratory (DOE), the Pennsylvania Science and
Engineering Foundation, and the Middle Atlantic Power
Research Committee.
References
1. "Summary Report, Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems, August-
September 1977," Prepared by PEDCo Environmental, Inc. for
the U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC, Nov. 1977.
2. G. G. McGlamery, R. L. Torstrick, W. J. Broadfoot, J. P. Simpson,
L. J. Henson, S. V. Tomlinson, and J. F. Young, "Detailed Cost
Estimates for Advanced Effluent Desulfurization Processes,"
EPA-600/2-75-.006, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, Jan. 1975.
3. D. H. Brown, "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study," Rept. No.
NASA CR-134950, Electric Company, Schenectady, NY, Dec.
1976.
4. E. S. Rubin, editor, "Comparative Environmental Assessments
of Coal Utilization Systems. Volume II: Details of Model Devel-
opment," Center for Energy and Environment Studies, Carne-
gie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, March 1978.
5. Private communication, Tennessee Valley Authority, Emission
Control Development Projects, Muscle Shoals, AL, 1976.
6. "EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility: Advanced Program, Third
Progress Report," EPA 600/7-77-105, Prepared by Bechtel Cor-
poration for U.S. EPA, Sept. 1977.
7. C. H. Rowland, N. E. Bell, C. C. Lewis, and H. N. Head, "Predicting
SO2 Removal by Limestone/Lime Wet Scrubbing: Correlations
of Shawnee Data," Paper No. 78-46.5, APCA Annual Meeting,
Houston, TX, June 1978.
8. J. P. Holman, Heat Transfer, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, 1976.
9. M. W. Kays and A. L. London, Compact Heat Exchangers, 2nd
ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1964.
Dr. Rubin is Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineer-
ing and Public Policy, and Director of the CMU Center for
Energy and Environmental Studies, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Mr. Nguyen is a former me-
chanical engineering research assistant, currently with Texa-
co Engineering, Houston, TX.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association