Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Impact of Furnace Sorbent Injection On Boiler Performance PDF

    Uploaded by

    email
    14 views18 pages

    Original Title

    the-impact-of-furnace-sorbent-injection-on-boiler-performance.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views18 pages

    The Impact of Furnace Sorbent Injection On Boiler Performance PDF

    Uploaded by

    email

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    NACE SORBENT LER PERFOR THE 1985 JOINT POWER GENE Milwaukee, Wisconsin ocr¢ 4, 198 RILEY > STOKER Eisigeteeud Rr ear) ‘THE IMPACT OF FURNACE SORBENT INJECTION ON BOILER PERFORMANCE by ROBERT A. LISAUSKAS, Manager, Research Projects, and RALPH K. MONGEON, Manager, Program Development RILEY RESEARCH CENTER RILEY STOKER CORPORATION WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS ABSTRACT Furnace sorbent injection presents a low-cost alternative to the use of wet scrubbers for the removal of ‘SQ from power boiler flue gases. Recent laboratory and pitot scale studies have produced SO captures of ‘over $0%, Full-scale field evaluations, sponsored by both the U.S. EPA and the Electric Power Research Institute, are currently in the planning stages. ‘This paper presents an overview of considerations related to furnace sorbent injection technology from the boiler manufacturers’ point of view. It provides an interface between on-going development work and the field evaluations, and will focus on the various design and operational concerns associated with new and ex- isting steam generating units INTRODUCTION Although theres considerable scientific debate concerning the relationship between emissions and acid deposi- tion, the thrust of all proposed acid rain legislation has been on the reduction of sulfur emussions from new and existing coal-fired power plants. The prospect of more stringent emission standards has provided a strong incentive to develop alternatives to flue gas desulfurization based on wet scrubbing. As.a result, an extensive amount of research and develop ment is currently being pursued in the area of dry sorbent injection for sulfur dioxide (S02) control. This technology is particularly atractive for retrofit 10 older boilers due to its lower first cost as compared to conventional flue gas desulfurization processes. Dry sorbent injection also offers the opportunity for incremental SO control on new unit designs A renewed interest took place in dry sorbent SO2 control during the mid-1970’s due in large part to developments in West Germany and pilot-scale research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy (EPA). The West German developments were based on the installation of dry sorbent injection systems, as incremental SO control measures, on two brown coal-fired boilers As a result of its pilot scale studies using sorbent injection through a distributed mixing burner, the EPA, initiated its Limestone Injection with Multistage Burners (LIMB) program for simultaneous NOx/SO3 con- trol. The LIMB concept was originally based on the theory that the conditions created by second generation Jow NOx burners might also enhance the capture of sulfur with calcium-based sorbents, The lower peak flame temperatures and the extended fuel-rich conditions in the low NOx flame could contribute to sorbent SO removal. The EPA LIMB program objective has been to achieve 50 to 60% reduction in SO in retrofit ap- plications with practical levels of sorbent injection A large number of laboratory and field test programs are currently underway by various organizations in North America, Europe, and Japan. These programs are investigating a variety of process methodolog ‘and sorbent types in addition to limestone. Recent work has shown that reducing zone capture does not seem possible in full-scale boilers, and that the most favorable sulfur capture conditions occur in the post-flame region of the boiler. Another key factor in obtaining high capture rates is the ability of the process to achieve and maintain high sorbent reactivity. In spite of the high level of on-going research and development in this area, there are still a great many ‘unknowns concerning the effect of dry sorbent injection on combustion systems and boilers. This paper focuses ‘on the impact of this technology on boiler design and performance from a boiler manufacturer's point of view. FURNACE SORBENT INJECTION S02 reduction through dry sorbent injection encompasses a number of furnace and post-furnace injection options. In this paper, we will discuss furnace sorbent injection, or the injection of calcium-based materials, directly into the furnace cavity of a coal-fired boiler. There are a number of commercial calcium-based sor- bent candidates for this process. These include limestone (CaCO3), dolomite (CaCO3.MgCO3) and their derivatives, hydrated lime (Ca(OH)3), dolomitic hydroxide (Ca(OH). Mg(OH)) and quick lime (CaO). These compounds may be injected through burner passages into the main flame zone, or above the burners into the post-flame region. Sulfur capture by furnace sorbent injection involves several process steps during which the sorbent particles are-rapidly heated, activated, partially deactivated, reacted with gas phase sulfur species (e.g., SO, HS, or COS), and regenerated. Sorbent activation occurs asthe particles are heated forming porous particles with high surface area. This process takes place in the furnace through particle fragmentation and rapid calcina- tion. During calcination, reactive CaO forms as carbon dioxide and water vapor are driven from the sorbent crystal structure, The calcination of limestone, or calcium carbonate (CaCO), is described by the following reaction: CaCO + CaO + COz ‘The calcination of limestone is an endothermic reaction requiring approximately 800 Btu per pound of pure calcium carbonate, Caleination rates are a function of the type of sorbent and its initial surface area. The calcination of limestone is relatively fast at temperatures of 1800°F or greater. Laboratory studies have found that 80% calcination ‘occurs within 0.5 seconds or less at this temperature’. Calcination rates for hydrated compounds are even more rapid. However, as the peak calcination temperature continues to increase, sorbent grain growth and sintering can occur. Sorbent particles become deactivated as their porosity and internal surface area decrease. Under 03 ing conditions, sulfation or sulfur capture is described by the following general reaction: ©aQ + $02 4 40% Ca8O4 ‘The formation of calcium sulfate (CaSO) is an exothermic reaction releasing approximately 4000 Btu per pound of calcium oxide reacted. Sulfation rates are controlled by the diffusion of SO2 through the porous sorbent particle. Below 1600°F, reaction rates are low and little SO removal occurs. The degree of sulfation becomes self limiting as the reaction of SO and CaO proceeds. A product layer ‘of Ca$04 forms on the surface of the oxide increasing the solid diffusion resistance. Also, since the specific volume of CaSO, is significantly greater than CaO, the porous structure of the particle eventually becomes 2 plugged! with sulfate, Maximum calcium utilization, therefore, is on the order of 60M. Since MgCO does not sulfate, dolomitic compounds are not limited by pore plugging. ‘The sulfation reaction is also reversible. Spent sorbent particles may decompose and regenerate gaseous sulfur species. The stability of CaSOq is a function of the gas phase composition, as well as temperature Under conditions existing in the first part ofa pulverized coal flame, the onset of CaSOq instability can occur a low as 1850°F ‘The principal parameters controlling SO removal through these sorbent injection process steps are sorbent type, injection rate or Ca/S ratio, and thermal history of the sorbent particles. Furnace sorbent injection ap- pears to be most effective in the temperature region between 2300 to 1600°F*, The performance of two basic ‘commercial sorbent types is shown in Figure 1a, SO2 removal characteristics for both limestone and dolomitic hydroxide were obtained in a 3 x 106 Btu/hr pilot-scale combustion facility at the Riley Research Center. ‘The temperature profile and sorbent injection location for these characterization tests on Kentucky No. 9 bituminous coal (3.9% sulfur) are given in Figure 1b. Quench rates in the sulfation reaction window were on the order of 300°F/sec. This condition is typical of many full scale utility furnaces. ‘The difference in S02 removal characteristics for both of these sorbents is substantial. SO reduction in excess of 65% at a Ca/S molar ratio of 2 was achieved with a pressure hydrated dolomitic lime. The effec- tiveness of limestone was much less at about 20% reduction at Ca/S = 2. In full scale applications, the effectiveness of furnace sorbent injection will also be strongly influenced by the mixing and dispersion of the sorbent with the furnace gases. Rapid mixing and dispersion will be required. to mateh pilot scale results. In the following sections recent full scale experiences and the potential impact of this technology on a number Of boiler risk areas will be reviewed. too sso 28 x 108 atu f Oxi eran wer avis rs : < = wor g 5 oo oLomin 8 HYORONDE 8 anor aL sonseue Z soy 3 [—asn—s} » “imesrone an) 7 2 2 " cals, MoLaR RATIO ea (@) SULFUR CAPURE (b) RILEY RESEARCH PILOT SCALE FURNACE Figure 1 Comparison of sorbents tested in a Riley Research pilot seale furnace. Sorbent injection at 2100°F, 2.8 x 106 Btu/hr, Kentucky No. 9 Coal 3 FULL SCALE EXPERIENCE Furnace sorbent injection is not a new technology. Limestone injection has been used to reduce low temperature corrosion and high temperature fouling in the convection passes of steam generators’. Its use ‘was not wide spread and, while it may have helped, it was an expensive process making it undesirable. During the late 1960s and early 1970s furnace sorbent injection was tried for SO removal in units mostly ‘equipped with conventional, high turbulence burners. Removal efficiencies varied from 15 to 50% with the ‘mean at approximately 20%". The experimental conditions under which the widest spread in removal effi- ciencies are reported were conducted in boilers having considerably different thermal and residence time ‘Tests were run on horizontally fired, vertically fired, and tangentially fired units during this period. Limestone was generally introduced into the furnace with the fuel, although injection above the burners was also tried ‘on some of the units. A representative list of the most noteworthy full scale demonstrations is contained in Table I. Included in this table is the sulfur content of the coal, the sorbent utilized, the capture efficiency, and some of the problems encountered within the steam generating unit. The low SO captures resulted from “dead burning” of the sorbent (thermal deactivation). Much of this “dead burning” resulted from of the sorbent being injected with the fuel inthe high temperature combustion zones. A general boiler problem was hard fouling deposits and plugging of convection sections within the boilers. Some of the tests are described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. ‘The TVA boiler, located at the Shawnee Station, noted in Table I is wall-fired with temperatures in the burner zone typically greater than 3000°F and, depending on load, the temperature of the products of com- bustion dropped to approximately 1400°F in I to 1.5 seconds. Injecting the sorbent with the coal resulted in low S03 efficiencies. Limestone was also injected at various locations above the burner where the gas ‘temperature region was approximately 2000°F. From this location to the 1400°F zone the maximum residence Fotemen 967 met gl Det ated etome | Kecage [os | timenore [aa = Shawne 79) oursny Oo coy | _ UNO nce ie Table I Results of sorbent injection into boilers’ Pine wow | Bertcon | SLU hea" Gausaisent | oss. | carom | 2% a2 ee me ory ‘oatng fr oan ona, oS rat Table I (Continued) Results of sorbent injection into boilers time was less than 0.5 seconds. ‘The sorbent removal efficiencies for either injection location, with the fuel ‘or in the lower gas temperature regions, were relatively low. ‘The Detroit Edison unit is tangentially fired which provides @ longer flame length than the circular, wall fired, high turbulence burner. The test work was conducted with the sorbent being injected either with the ‘coal or in the upper row of burners only. S02 removal efficiencies varied from 15 to 29%, The Wisconsin Electric Power unit is arch fired, The burner fires downward with lean O2 levels and additional combustion air is added from the side walls at discrete locations. Similar to the tangentially fired unit, the combustion process would provide a more favorable temperature/time history for the sorbent. During these test, the sor- ‘bent was injected with the fuel and high (40 to SOM) SO removal efficiencies were achieved. ‘These programs were abandoned but, with the advent of low NOx burner technology, were revived around 1979. Low NO burner technology stages the combustion process, producing lower flame and gas temperatures in the lower portions of the furnace. The U.S. EPA conducted pilot scale tests around 1979 which indicated that SO removal efficiencies of 70% might be possible with sorbent injection through low NOx burners at reasonable calcium to sulfur molar ratios. In 1980, the EPA initiated its LIMB program to identify the pro- cess variables that resulted in the high capture observed in the pilot scale studies. The program's objective was to develop LIMB and low NO, burner technology for both retrofit and new applications, Recent sorbent injection testing has been performed at several scales, styles of firing, and various fuels. The Otter Tail Power Company unit is tangentially fired with a North Dakota lignite. The sorbent used was a pressure hydrated midwestern lime. SO2 captures of approximately 50% were demonstrated at a calcium {sulfur ratio of two with no adverse Impact on the boller. SOp capture of 80% was achleved when the calelum to sulfur ratio was increased to seven. Previous tests with limestone required three times the amount of sor- bent to achieve $0% removal. The fouling rate was noted to increase although this may have been due to the sodium levels in the fuel and not specifically to the sorbent, The deposits were easily removed using nor- ‘mal sootblowing procedures? ‘The Steinmueller program, conducted at the Weiher boiler in West Germany, was initially directed at assessing. potential operational problems during sorbent injection. Two of the 24 burners were set up for sorbent injec: 3 4. -The results inated thatthe combustion, Net tcansfer, and slageins processes Were BO adversely A veg. Cateinm utilization ‘with hydrated Time 2S md to be 2280 at ful Toad and 35 10 577 nal toad re unit was recently ateroted 1 accomnmada Ss epent injection into a lof the burners But TES encountered ie regulatory provlems “ating wit he CsPO8eE pty ash aa the fe OF his projects currently ‘uncertail ‘additional wsity sale evaluations of faace sorbent injetion wich FE gurney beine planes include? ‘e-the EPA demonstration of LIMB technolog® ne Ohio Batson EdBeNse station ‘sete frac sorbent iniestion program at the Homet ny Station of Penns sompany ‘en. 300 MW front fe unit in West Germany A350 MW uni Denmark 2AU vnagian projest at Gabel New Brunswick oA pr rer Research institote GPRD and Public service jmpact on system Speration and perform ‘assuring a somen ram is a aepartare F012 he previous activities ie ging a east eat priority SORBENT FEED SYSTEM cone of the maor impact rurmace sorbent inestion 0 ew or essing nits 5S sorbent feed system. This system a es ot pa he unis OT sweatin, Puente’ spent sorage a sytem eguipment eH es soe roms HE AT iat bring 119 OS TO pased on high sulfur coals this sorbent flow rate: ‘could be the equivalent ‘of 20% of the fuel fired in the unit, “aithouel fai gould have 10 Be EKO » ee design of eANE raion te Finely FOUN nent wesause OF

    You might also like