Clean Energy, 2019, Vol. 3, No.

1, 24–33

doi: 10.1093/ce/zky018
Advance Access Publication Date: 28 September 2018
Homepage: https://academic.oup.com/ce

Review Article
NOx control for high-ash coal-fired power plants in
India

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019

Malgorzata Wiatros-Motyka*
IEA Clean Coal Centre, Apsley House, 176 Upper Richmond Road, London, SW15 2SH, United Kingdom
*Corresponding author. E-mail: Malgorzata.Wiatros@iea-coal.org

Abstract
Many countries have strict emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx); thus NOx control systems are widely deployed.
India has recently introduced NOx emission limits, which require that pollution control technologies must be
installed on most coal-fired plants. However, operational experience with NOx control systems in India is limited
to primary measures only. Additionally, Indian coals have a high level of inherent ash, which is also highly erosive
and can influence the behaviour of some NOx control systems and thus affect the selection process. Primary
measures for NOx control from coal-fired power plants include low NOx burners (LNBs), overfire air systems
(OFA), fuel reburning, flue gas recirculation, fuel biasing, low excess air and combustion optimization. Secondary
NOx control includes selective catalytic reduction, selective non-catalytic reduction and multi-pollutant control
systems. Retrofit of primary measures (LNBs and OFA) in India has been recommended to take place during next-
scheduled plant outages; for many plants this could occur by 2019. However, control strategies for individual
plants will be needed to ascertain the appropriateness of installing post-combustion technologies or various
combinations of NOx control measures. Hence installation of secondary NOx controls is not expected before test
results from secondary controls on selected Indian power plants units are known.

Key words: high-ash coal; NOx controls; SCR; SNCR; low NOx burners; overfire air; India emission standards

Introduction applications, including lignite-fired plants and cement kilns

Since the 1970s various technologies to control emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) have been used in countries with
relevant emission standards. However, this is not the case
in India, which has high-ash coals and until recently did
not have NOx emission standards. NOx emissions control
legislation has been introduced and NOx control retrofits
are expected on a large scale. As some of the NOx reduc-
tion (DeNOx) technologies (secondary measures) have not
been used in Indian conditions (up to 80  g/m3 of ash in
the flue gas), utilities are concerned about their applicabil-
ity to Indian power plants. At the same time, vendors are
confident that their systems can operate in such an envi-
ronment as they have been successfully used in high-ash
where ash loading in the flue gas can be as high as 100 g/m3.
1  India—new norms and challenges
The new Indian emission standards for thermal power
plants (TPPs) regulate water consumption, particulate
matter (PM), SOx, NOx and mercury (Hg) emissions, and
are obligatory from 1 January 2017 for new plants. Existing
units have two years in which to comply. Regarding NOx,
the proposed new regulations stipulate that thermal
power plants installed before 31 December 2003 emit no
more than 600  mg/m3 NOx, plants installed between 31
December 2003 and 31 December 2016 emit no more than

Received 31 May, 2018; Accepted 27 July, 2018

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any 24
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
 Wiatros-Motyka | 25

Table 1  New emission norms in India [1]a

TPPb (units) installed before TPP (units) installed after 31/12/2003 TPP (units) to be installed from
Emission parameter 31/12/2003 and before 31/12/2016 01/01/2017

Particulate matter (PM) 100 mg/m3,c 50 mg/m3 30 mg/m3

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 600 mg/m3 for units <500 MW; 600 mg/m3 for units <500 MW; 100 mg/m3
200 mg/m3 for units 500 MW 200 mg/m3 for units 500 MW and
and above above
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) 600 mg/m3 300 mg/m3 100 mg/m3
Specific water con- Cooling tower to be installed in place of once-through cooling; max- Maximum water consumption,
sumption limit imum water consumption ≤3.5 m3/MWh. Water consumption 2.5 m3/MWhd; zero wastewater
≤3.5 m3/MWh for all existing cooling tower-based plants. discharge
Mercury (Hg) 1. TPP (units) installed before 31/12/2003 (500 MW and above 0.03 mg/m3
capacity)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019

2.  TPP (units) installed after 01/01/2003 up to 31/12/2016
3.   TPP (units) installed from 01/01/2017

a
These norms are mandated to be met within 2 years by all existing TPP units and from 01/01/17 onward by all new TPP units. bTPP = thermal power
plants. cmg/m3 = milligrams per normal cubic meter at 6% O2, 273.15 K and 0.1013 MPa. dAmended in 2018 to 3 m3/MWh.

300  mg/m3 NOx and plants installed from 1 January 2017
onward limit NOx emissions to 100 mg/m3 (see Table 1).
Indian thermal power plants fire mostly indigenous sub-
bituminous coals and washery middlings (K. Nandakumar,
Fuel Perf Tech Pro LLC, Irving, TX, USA, personal communica-
tion, 2018). The coal has relatively low moisture and low sul-
phur content but a high ash content. As reported by Barnes
[2], three-quarters of current Indian coal production has an
ash content of 30% or more, with some of the highest ash
coals approaching 50%; coal traded on the international
market rarely exceeds 15% ash. Much of the ash is inherent,
which means that it is present as small particles of mineral
matter embedded in the combustible part of the coal, making
it difficult to remove to levels below 30% prior to combustion
[2, 3]. Furthermore, ash in Indian coals has a high percent-
age of abrasive and erosive solids including silica, aluminium
oxide and iron oxide, with silica in alpha form being particu-
larly erosive. Firing such high-ash fuel can create many prob-
lems, including increased fouling, which causes reduced heat
transfer and erosion of heat transfer surfaces in horizontal
pass, second pass and downstream ducting and equipment.
Indian utilities minimize these detrimental effects by appro-
priate boiler design. Furnaces firing Indian coal are larger,
both in width and in height, than boilers firing imported coal;
flue gas velocities are lower; and the sizing and selection of
various auxiliary systems can also differ [4, 5].
In terms of NOx control in India, utilities’ experience is
limited to primary measures: low NOx burners (LNBs), over-
fire air (OFA) and fuel biasing. There are no secondary NOx
controls on any units to date (May 2018) and the effect of
high-ash coal on these systems is unknown. Consequently,
utilities have limited experience with NOx controls and will
rely on equipment suppliers’ expertise. At the same time,
the utilities are reluctant to decide on secondary measures
until results for pilot tests in India, currently underway on
units owned and operated by NTPC Ltd, are clear.
As with all retrofits and the introduction of technologies
to markets, challenges exist. In India, these include high-
ash, highly erosive coals; technical difficulties including
space constraints; financial issues as it is costly to intro-
duce multiple technologies at the same time; a lack of local
suppliers and a subsequent need to import technologies
as well as all materials and reagents; a lack of local skills
and expertise; and a lack of experience among utilities in
continuous emissions monitoring.
2 NOx controls
NOx control technologies can be broadly divided into two
main categories: primary or combustion measures and
secondary or flue gas control systems. The rates of NOx
reduction and the costs vary considerably. They can be
used alone or in combination, depending on the level of
NOx reduction required.
2.1  Primary measures
Primary measures—including LNBs, OFA, fuel biasing, low
excess air, fuel reburning, flue gas recirculation and combus-
tion optimization—are the least costly approach to obtain an
initial reduction in NOx emissions for any coal-fired plant.
By controlling coal combustion conditions such as the flame
temperature, fuel:oxygen ratio and fuel residence time they
reduce NOx emissions. Currently, LNBs are standard DeNOx
technology in countries with relevant standards. It is rela-
tively simple to include combustion controls in the con-
struction of new boilers, but it is more complicated to modify
(or retrofit) combustion controls in existing boilers because
combustion controls can adversely affect boiler operation
and lead to increased emissions of NOx and CO, and more
carbon in the ash. Burner flame geometry also changes and
the flame can impinge on the water walls. Hence careful
design is essential, as is the measurement and control of
various combustion parameters after retrofitting primary
measures. Advanced sensors and controls can be used that
allow accurate real-time mapping of the furnace conditions
Most primary measures have been already applied to
boilers using high-ash coals. In India, most boilers are the
 26 | Clean Energy, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1
tilting tangential type, have OFA and are supplied by the
Indian company BHEL (Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited).
Many also apply fuel biasing in the coal pipe [6]. However,
by the end of 2016, only 24 units had LNBs installed [7].
The new Indian emission standards mean that the major-
ity of existing and all new power plants (online after 1
January 2017)  have to install primary measures in the
form of LNBs and OFA systems. As it is relatively quick
to install these systems, it is recommended that they be
retrofitted during the next outages, starting with the new-
est units. Hence retrofits are expected on a large scale [8];
in fact, most power plants scheduled retrofits for 2017
and 2018.
Several manufacturers offer LNBs and OFA systems,
some of which are specifically designed for the Indian mar-
ket; as such they can operate with erosive, high-ash coals.
For example, Doosan Babcock and Doosan Heavy Industries’
high-ash coal burner (see Fig. 1) has been designed for wall-
fired 800-MW pulverized coal-fired units and is suitable
for both retrofit and new-build applications. As noted by
D.  Smith (Doosan Babcock Limited, personal communica-
tion, 2017), the objective of the LNBs is to provide excellent
performance in response to market requirements:
• up to 90-MWth burner size;
• primary NOx emissions below 300 mg/m3;
• very low unburnt loss (UBL);
• low operating excess air <15%;
• >3:1 burner turndown; and
• improved burner life and wear resistance to more than
16 000 hours.
2.2  Secondary measures
Secondary NOx control measures include selective catalytic
reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
Fig. 1  High-ash coal burner designed by Doosan Babcock and Doosan
Heavy Industries for Indian market (Source of the photo:  D. Smith,
Doosan Babcock Limited, UK, personal communication, 2017)
and a combination of the two. Both technologies neutral-
ize NOx into nitrogen and water, either with the presence
of a catalyst (SCR) or without (SNCR). Generally, secondary
measures are applied to plants that need to reduce NOx
limits beyond the capability of primary measures.
2.3 SCR
SCR achieves the highest NOx removal rates at 80–90%, but
it is also the most expensive option [9]. SCR has three main
configurations for a coal-fired power plant (see Fig. 2). In the
first configuration, known as hot-side, high-dust, an SCR is
installed upstream of the PM control, between the econo-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
mizer and the air heater. This is the most widely used version
in coal-fired power plants, as the temperature of the flue gas
between the economizer and air heater is ideal for the SCR
reaction. In this configuration, the catalyst is exposed to the
fly ash and chemical components of the flue gas.
In the low-dust arrangement, an SCR is installed down-
stream of the PM control equipment. Such a configuration,
also referred to as hot-side, low-dust, reduces degrada-
tion of the catalyst by fly-ash erosion, but needs a costly
hot-side electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or a flue gas heat-
ing system to maintain the optimal temperature required
for the catalytic reaction of NOx and to avoid formation of
ammonia.
In the tail-end configuration, also referred to as cold-
side, low-dust, the SCR is downstream of the flue gas
desulphurization (FGD) unit. It can be retrofitted on instal-
lations with limited space, but it also requires heating of
the flue gas.
There are many SCR suppliers and SCR design is highly
site-specific. Consequently, SCR systems differ between
power plants, and the capital and operating costs vary.
2.4  Solutions for hot-side, high-dust SCR applied
to high-ash coals
According to Moulton [11], more than 85% of global
installed SCR systems have the hot-side, high-dust con-
figuration. Some of these are on lignite-firing plants that
can burn a fuel with an ash content of 30% or more. For
example, China has had a positive experience with SCR
operation in coal-fired plants, with an ash loading in the
flue gas as high as 70 g/m3 [12]. SCR units in this configura-
tion have also been successfully applied in cement kilns
in Europe since 2001 and are reported to achieve control
efficiencies of approximately 80% with an inlet dust load-
ing up to 100 g/m3 [13]. Thus, although Indian utilities lack
experience with these systems, it is reasonable to expect
that, with some modification, proper dust-cleaning sys-
tems and careful management, such SCR units could be
applied to Indian high-ash coal plants. This view is con-
firmed by recent, successful pilot tests of SCR catalysts in
BHEL’s facility, which used Indian coals with an ash con-
tent of ~40%, of which 65% is silica [10].
 Wiatros-Motyka | 27

Hot-side, high-dust SCR

boiler NH3 Stack
Selective
Air Electrostatic Flue gas
catalytic
heater precipitator desulphurisation
reduction

Hot-side, low-dust SCR

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019

boiler NH3 Stack
Selective Flue gas
Electrostatic catalytic Air desulphurisation
precipitator reduction heater

Cold-side SCR, tail-end

boiler Stack
Flue gas
Air Electrostatic desulphurisation
heater precipitator

Duct burner

NH3
Selective
catalytic
reduction

Fig. 2  SCR configurations [10]

In India, around 120 GW of existing capacity (279 units)
and 72 GW under construction (73 units) may require SCR,
according to Kumar [14].
Ash loading in the flue gas of Indian plants can be as
high as 80  g/m3. Hence if SCR is placed in the hot-side,
high-dust configuration, the highly erosive ash compo-
nents such as silica and alumina will have an impact as
they contribute to excessive wear on the ductwork, large
particle ash (LPA) screens, ammonia injection grid (AIG)
nozzles, flow distribution devices and the SCR catalyst.
The ash components also lead to poor distribution of
velocity into the catalyst, accelerate its deactivation and
increase catalyst management costs. The more ash there
is in the flue gas, the greater the effect on the SCR system.
Various measures are available to alleviate the detrimen-
tal effects of highly erosive coal, including the use of
abrasion-resistant coatings, erosion-resistant wear plate,
and wear shields on AIG lances. Proper reactor sizing and
catalyst module shape and pitch will also minimize these
effects [11, 15].
As noted by Moulton [11], one drawback of burning high-
ash coal can be the formation of LPA of 5–10 mm or more
in the upper convective heat exchanger surfaces of the
boiler. These particles are conveyed in a high-velocity flue
gas to the SCR catalyst, resulting in its erosion and conse-
quently a decreased rate of NOx removal. The damage can
be avoided by installing LPA screens upstream of the AIG
to capture the particles, which can then be removed in the
 28 | Clean Energy, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1
economizer hopper. Appropriate materials such as abra-
sion-resistant plates should be used to increase the inher-
ent screen strength and minimize the effects of erosion.
Additionally, wear-resistant coatings, such as those made
with chromium oxide and tungsten carbides, should also be
used to extend the screen life. Alternatively, an extra screen
can be provided if a wear-resistant coating seems to be une-
conomical. In such cases the extra screen should be treated
as a consumable with a specified replacement schedule [11].
The AIG nozzles are an easy target for erosive compo-
nents of the flue gas. According to Moulton [11], their life
can be prolonged by
• designing the lances with an additional 0.32  cm
(1/8 inch) of materials to account for anticipated wear;
• using a more wear-resistant material such as 304 stain-
less steel; and
• installing sections of pipe 0.3 m (~1 foot) deep into the
duct around each AIG header pipe, as such shields can
neutralize the effects of highly localized velocities near
the duct wall where the AIG enters into the flue gas.
Flow distribution devices such as turning vanes, static
mixing elements and distribution plates are also subject to
erosion. The role of the plates is to ensure optimal ammo-
nia distribution and uniform flue gas velocity before it
enters the catalyst bed. Hence they need to be of a dura-
ble design, which includes using erosion-resistant protec-
tive coatings and/or an additional thickness of 0.16  mm
(1/16 inch) [11].
The size of the SCR unit for each application needs to be
determined carefully and the erosive nature of the flue gas
components must be considered. This is achieved by com-
putational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling. In contrast to
low-dust applications, the reactor should be designed with
a larger cross-sectional area so the catalyst faces velocities
on the lower end of the design range at 2.4–3.0 m/s. This
should ensure sufficient contact between the flue gas and
the catalyst for effective NOx reduction reaction. For a low-
dust environment the typical velocity through the catalyst
is in the range of 3.7–5.5 m/s.
CFD modelling is also used to determine the distribution
of velocity to minimize pressure drop and particulate drop-
out. Identifying localized high velocities allows prediction
of high-wear sites within the SCR unit and the ductwork.
Based on this, additional erosion protection can be added
to the most affected locations. Furthermore, CFD model-
ling can help assess potential operational issues, including
those that may occur due to the physical gaps between the
catalyst modules. High-velocity zones can occur in such
gaps and lead to accelerated deactivation of the catalyst
and increased maintenance costs [11]. Some companies
have already developed technologies to mitigate these
issues. For example, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems
(MHPS) have patented a technology to minimize the gas
angle and velocity maldistribution using a guide vane and
rectifier. This is believed to be appropriate for high-ash coal
applications, including in the Indian market [12].
Three main types of SCR catalyst are in use: corrugated,
honeycomb and plate. The last two are the most commonly
used in coal-fired power plants. Selection of the appropri-
ate catalyst type is important for effective SCR operation.
According to Schirmer [16], there is a ‘common perception’
that the plate catalyst experiences less plugging than the
honeycomb type, but this is not the case. Both types of cat-
alyst can be used in high-ash environments if they have
the correct size of pitch. In general, a larger catalyst pitch is
less susceptible to plugging than a small one. However, as
shown in tests and commercial operation of CORMETECH’s
SCR catalyst, there is a cut-off in the optimum size of the
pitch, as the inherent performance of a very large pitch
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
(>11  mm) is a compromise between no catalyst clogging
and a higher rate of replacement, higher local ammonia
slip and lower degree of NOx reduction. Appropriate par-
ticle and dust removal systems are necessary so that fly
ash and LPA are properly managed and do not accumu-
late. Otherwise, ash plugging of the catalyst will occur and
increase the pressure drop across the SCR catalyst and con-
sequently diminish its performance. LPA can be stopped
by screens and baffles and then removed in the hopper.
Fly ash can be removed by soot blowers and sonic horns
and moved to the hopper [15]. Dust removal systems are
generally installed between each catalyst layer and oper-
ate on a periodic basis, such as once a week [13]. However,
for high-ash situations, frequent or continuous cleaning of
the catalyst may be required. As noted by Schirmer [16],
maintaining the frequency of cleaning is critical to avoid
accumulation of the fly ash. Coating the catalyst edge with
a reinforcement material is another important measure in
high-ash situations as it prevents erosion by the ash and
extends the life of the catalyst [15].
Optimization of the catalyst pore structure is one of the
key factors to prevent deactivation by plugging and mask-
ing [15]. This can be achieved by preparing a catalyst with
a trimodal pore structure, which contains pores of three
different sizes: micro, meso and macro [17, 18]. A trimodal
porous structure provides a high internal surface area and
more active sites. The micropores provide the required
high specific surface area; the mesopores deliver resist-
ance to arsenic and other poisons such as CaO, as they can
accommodate large amounts of these substances; and the
macropores help to enhance gas-phase diffusion of the
reactants, NOx and ammonia, into the catalyst, and thus
assist overall catalyst activity [17].
Minimizing the angle of the flue gas entering the SCR
catalyst and minimizing velocity maldistribution at the
catalyst inlet will prevent erosion of the catalyst [12] by
the use of flow distribution devices such as turning vanes,
static mixing elements and distribution plates. However,
such devices can be the subject of erosion themselves, so
they must either be made of erosion-resistant materials or
coated with them.
It is possible to design a catalyst fit for the Indian
market, when these factors are taken into consideration.
For example, BHEL have developed, in house, the Ti-V-W

catalyst, which has been tested at a pilot scale at its Fuels
Evaluation Test Facility. The honeycomb-shaped cata-
lyst was tested and compared with an imported system.
The tests were performed at different temperatures (290–
400°C) and velocity ranges as well as with gaseous and
liquid ammonia at 25% concentration. The average char-
acteristics of the Indian coal used for the test are shown
in Table 2.
During the initial 100-hour test using coal with 37% ash
content, NOx reduction rates of 80–95% were achieved, no
plugging of catalyst cells by fly-ash particles was found,
and ammonia slip was kept below 5 ppm [12].
2.5  SCR in low-dust configuration
Placing the SCR in a low-dust position, downstream of
PM control, will result in essentially a particle-free flue
gas stream. This will eliminate the requirement for LPA
screens, extend the life of the catalyst and reduce the
maintenance costs associated with abrasion and erosion.
On the other hand, it will require heating of the flue gas
to keep the catalyst at the right temperature for the com-
plete NOx reduction reaction, and to avoid formation of
ammonia.
2.6  SCR in tail-end configuration
Another option for high-ash coals would be to place an SCR
system in the tail-end position, according to Nakamura
from JGC Catalysts & Chemicals, Japan [15]. Such systems
have been used since the late 1980s and applied in retrofits
of many coal-fired power plants in Europe, as they are often
easier and less complex to retrofit than other SCR-type
configurations. Thus, their installation causes less disrup-
tion to power plant operation. Also, in some cases, espe-
cially where there are space constraints, the capital cost
for retrofitting tail-end SCR can be lower than for high-dust
SCR. Furthermore, tail-end systems are available in modu-
lar forms designed to be installed with minimal disruption
to plant operation. However, as mentioned earlier, the flue
Table 2  Characteristics of Indian coal tested in BHEL SCR pilot
facility [10]
Proximate Ultimate Ash
analysis, % analysis, % composition, %
Moisture, 3.6 Carbon, 45.64 SiO2, 65.6
Volatile matter, 25.7 Hydrogen, 2.98 Al2O3, 23.6
Fixed carbon, 33.13 Sulphur, 0.61 Fe2O3, 5.2
Ash, 37.13 Nitrogen, 1.01 TiO2, 1.7
Calorific value, Oxygen, 4.91 CaO, 0.8
4385 kcal/g
MgO, 0.4
Na2O, 0.2
K2O, 1.7
SO3, 0.4
Wiatros-Motyka | 29
gas reheat is needed in this configuration for effective NOx
reduction reaction [13]. In Nakamura’s opinion [15], one
solution for Indian coals would be to place an SCR after a
dry FGD that uses an SOx adsorbent made of fly ash, cal-
cium hydroxide and the used SOx adsorbent as adhesive;
as such the FGD can remove more than 85% of the dust.
This, in combination with an ESP, would mean a low-dust
environment for an SCR and would avoid problems related
to a high-ash environment, particularly erosion, plugging
and clogging of the catalyst.
2.7  Role of SCR catalyst in mercury capture
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
Of increasing importance, an SCR catalyst can be a key
component for mercury oxidation, facilitating its removal
in downstream pollution control systems [19]. Oxidized
mercury species, such as HgCl2, are typically water solu-
ble and can be removed in wet FGD systems. Oxidized
mercury can also be bound to particulate matter and so
removed in PM control systems. In contrast, elemental
mercury vapour passes through sulphur and particulate
controls uncaptured. A  number of factors affect mercury
oxidation in the SCR catalyst, including
• fuel composition, particularly the levels of mercury and
halogen present;
• supplementary halogens, that is the addition of bro-
mine and chlorine;
• catalyst design, including catalyst pitch, the number
of layers and their configuration, catalyst volume and
composition;
• catalyst age;
• temperature, as a lower temperature favours oxidation
of mercury;
• flow rate; and
• presence of ammonia [19].
Several manufacturers offer SCR reactors with a catalyst
that can oxidize mercury. For example, Mitsubishi Hitachi
offers an SCR system, with TRAC (TRiple Action Catalyst).
Such a system is proposed for the Turów 11 lignite power
plant currently under construction in Poland. According
to Modern Power Systems [20], this will be the world’s first
lignite power plant to meet the new EU Best Available
Technology Reference Document (BREF) standards. For a
new lignite-fired power plant, it means that daily average
emission levels of NOx must be 80–125 mg/m3 [21]. This will
be achieved by using ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) as the
reagent, delivered via Delta Wing technology, and a plate-
type TRAC catalyst, which will have a 2 + 2-layer arrange-
ment. This will result in a NOx level at the SCR outlet of
85 mg/m3, high mercury oxidation and low SO2 to SO3 con-
version [21]. Mitsubishi’s SCR has already been installed
on various lignite plants in Austria, China, Germany,
Thailand and the USA, so it is reasonable to expect that
the Turów 11 power plant will achieve the NOx reduction
predicted. Turów 11 will burn locally mined lignite with an
 30 | Clean Energy, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1
ash content of ~30%. Other catalyst suppliers which offer
products that enhance mercury oxidation include Johnson
Matthey, CORMETECH and Haldor Topsøe.
3 SNCR
On its own, SNCR reduces NOx by 30–50%, whereas SCR
levels of performance can be achieved if it is applied in
conjunction with other combustion controls. Historically,
the effectiveness of SNCR has been limited, especially in
utility-scale boilers, due to a lack of accurate real-time
tools to measure the temperature and CO profile within
the boiler—parameters that are important for an effective
NOx reduction reaction. However, recent developments in
measurement systems allow the effective use of SNCR
even on large furnaces (>400 MW).
Although SNCR technology has not yet been used with
Indian coals, it has been proven with other high-ash coals,
such as coal-fired plants burning lignite and bituminous
coal with an ash content of ~30%, as well as on circulating
fluidized bed boilers and cement kilns. In the latter, SNCR
has been reported to achieve a reduction in NOx of 12–77%
for systems using ammonia and 25–90% for those using
urea as the reagent [13]. However, different rates of NOx
reduction are reported for coal-fired plants: up to 50% for an
SNCR unit on its own and up to 90% for an SNCR unit com-
bined with primary measures [9]. SNCR manufacturers with
long experience of high-ash coal environments include Fuel
Tech Inc., which systems have wall injectors and multi-noz-
zle lances, and Mobotec, which developed ROTAMIX.
Based on this experience, various experts and equip-
ment manufacturers are confident that SNCR can be suc-
cessfully used in Indian coal-fired plants, especially for the
units that must reduce their NOx emissions below 300 or
100 mg/m3 (J.M. Boyle, Fuel Tech Inc., USA, personal com-
munication, 2017; P. de Havilland, Fuel Tech Srl, Italy, per-
sonal communication, 2017; R.  Żmuda, SBB Energy S.A.,
Poland, personal communication, 2017).
SNCR applied in combination with primary NOx meas-
ures such as LNBs and OFA will meet the 300 mg/m3 limits
and is an alternative to SCR. However, for new plants that
have 100 mg/m3 NOx emission limits, an SNCR in combina-
tion with a small SCR is an option. In Boyle’s opinion (Fuel
Tech Inc., USA, personal communication, 2017), such a com-
bination applied to Indian boilers would reduce the cost of
an SCR catalyst as fewer layers would be required. A smaller
SCR unit with fewer layers of catalyst in the duct or stan-
dalone has many benefits. First, at low load, the tempera-
ture of the flue gas at the SCR reactor may be too low for its
effective operation. In this case, an upstream SNCR system
can still provide some level of NOx control. Second, catalyst
poisons may force replacement of catalyst modules, which
is expensive. Fewer layers make the risk of catalyst failure
less expensive. Third, each added catalyst layer causes more
oxidation of SO2 to SO3 and requires greater fan capacity to
overcome the pressure drop in the SCR reactor. Fewer layers
of SCR catalyst would also make ash removal easier and
would consequently prolong the life of the catalyst (J.M.
Boyle, Fuel Tech Inc., USA, personal communication, 2017).
Both ammonia and urea can be used as a reagent in
high-ash coal plants. However, as noted by P. de Havilland
(Fuel Tech Srl, Italy, personal communication, 2017), using
SNCR with urea would be more beneficial in Indian appli-
cations. This is because urea is non-toxic, unlike ammo-
nia, and its use would avoid significant environmental and
health hazards. Additionally, as noted by Boyle (Fuel Tech
Inc., USA,  personal communication, 2017), urea is much
more effective than ammonia for SNCR NOx reduction on
large furnaces (>400 MW), because aqueous urea droplets
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
can be propelled into the furnace with no reaction until
the water is evaporated. This then releases the urea salt
and reaction begins with the disassociation of urea into
ammonia (NH3) and isocyanic acid (HNCO), both of which
then react to reduce NOx. Although some competitors have
suggested that HNCO must first convert to ammonia, in
Boyle’s opinion this is not the case and the HNCO reac-
tion path does not include ammonia, so the likelihood of
residual unreacted ammonia, or ammonia slip, is reduced.
Boilers firing Indian coals are taller and wider than
those firing imported fuel due to the significantly higher
ash content. Consequently, an SNCR system must cover a
greater area and thus not all types of spraying nozzles and/
or SNCR systems may be applicable. This can be verified
using CFD modelling and field tests.
There are a number of SNCR suppliers. Fig.  3 shows a
multi-nozzle lance from Fuel Tech’s advanced SNCR. Such
a system has been used on a Chinese power plant firing
lignite with an ash content of 27.5% since 2007, and no ero-
sion or plugging has been reported.
3.1  Multi-pollutant and emerging NOx control
technologies
As noted by Sloss [22], pollution control technologies are
expensive and require significant time to install, which in
Fig. 3  Multi-nozzle lance during test (Source of the photo: P. de Havilland,
Fuel Tech Srl, Italy, personal communication, 2017)

turn can disrupt power generation. India already experi-
ences power shortages, and has to introduce multiple
technologies at once, so it would make sense to coordi-
nate installation of pollution control systems and consider
multi-pollutant control systems.
The definition of a multi-pollutant control system can
be confusing because all pollution control systems offer
the potential to reduce a few pollutants simultaneously.
In recent years, many technologies that have emerged in
the market are defined commercially as multi-pollutant
control systems. Although many of them can be used to
remove several pollutants simultaneously, they appear to
be sold for use as an addition to the usual control systems,
such as FGD, ESP, and SCR, with the aim to reduce emis-
sions of specific pollutants further [22].
A few multi-pollutant systems can remove NOx. Some
of them, such as ReACT, have been used in coal-fired power
plants for several years, notably at full scale in Japan since
the 1990s. Others are deployed in non-coal applications
but have the potential to be applied to coal-fired plants
and are in various stages of testing and demonstration.
Although no multi-pollutant systems have been devel-
oped specifically for high-ash coals, it appears that the
existing ones, such as ReACT and LoTOx, can be applied
successfully. For India, both cost and water availability are
important considerations in the selection of technology.
Hamon Research-Cottrell’s ReACT is a regenerative acti-
vated coke dry-type capture technology that captures SOx,
NOx and mercury while only using 1% of the water required
by a conventional wet FGD. The system can be configured
for different levels of NOx control, described as
• co-benefit NOx control at 20–50%;
• enhanced NOx control of 40–60% with ammonia-dosed
activated carbon regeneration; and
• higher NOx control to 80% available with two-stage
adsorption.
The ReACT technology is placed downstream of the ESP;
hence the system is not subject to fly-ash loading and is
suitable for units firing high-ash coals, according to J. Peters
(Hamon Research-Cottrell, New Jersey, personal commu-
nication, 2017). For such applications, it can be used in a
single-stage configuration, which allows removal of ~50%
of NOx. Alternatively, depending on economic and perfor-
mance factors, it can be used in a two-stage configuration
that enables control NOx control of up to 80%. Typically, the
inlet NOx concentration will be around 550 mg/m3 or lower
for ReACT applications. This level of concentration of NOx
is achieved easily in coal-fired units with low NOx burners.
The ReACT system can be installed on new and ret-
rofit projects, and appears to be especially advantageous
for units located where water use is an issue. In retrofit
applications, a single-stage ReACT can provide a feasible
solution in addition to low NOx burners and/or overfire
air systems. A two-stage ReACT application would also be
an option for new power plants using Indian coal as an
alternative to SCR technology, again if installed in addition
Wiatros-Motyka | 31
to LNBs and other primary measures. The system has
other advantages relevant to the Indian market: it mini-
mizes waste; revenue can be derived from the by-products
of fly ash and sulphuric acid; and the system is opera-
tional through start-up and shutdown. As noted by Peters
(Hamon Research-Cottrell, New Jersey, personal communi-
cation, 2017), the system can be considered as a ‘retrofit’
technology that minimizes station outage requirements
for construction, because the ReACT equipment is located
downstream of the plant’s existing equipment and can
be tied back into the existing stack. The potential of the
ReACT system for Indian high-ash coals has been already
recognized by the Indian government and utilities [8].
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
Another example of multi-pollutant capture technology
is Linde Gas’s patented LoTOx process. It uses low-tem-
perature ozone injection to oxidize NOx to highly soluble
dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5) for capture in an FGD system,
where the flue gas moisture and the liquid convert it to
nitic acid (HNO3) [23]. It can also be used with a dry FGD sys-
tem (B. Stapper, AECOM, Texas, personal communication,
2017). This technology has been applied in the refining sec-
tor on more than 30 units, installed on a 25-MW coal-fired
institutional boiler and tested as part of a pilot demonstra-
tion by the Electric Power Research Institute on a 550-MW
coal-fired plant and it can provide 90% NOx reduction [19,
24]. In LoTOx applications, ozone is produced onsite by
passing oxygen through a conventional ozone generator, so
no ozone storage is required. The ozone is generated ‘on
demand’, depending on the NOx level present in the flue gas
and the required removal efficiency. Another advantage of
the system is its ability to achieve mercury oxidation rates
of 50–70%; moreover, SO2 is not converted to SO3 [23].
Many existing Indian plants must install FGD units to
comply with the new SO2 standards of 200  mg/m3. Units
larger than 500  MW with the space for such systems have
already been identified. It has been estimated that pre-instal-
lation activities should take about three years, until around
2020. During this period, it is recommended that other pollu-
tion control measures such as LNBs and OFA can be installed
in the next planned outage [8, 24]. For plants where a wet
FGD system is selected, following installation of primary NOx
measures such as LNBs or OFA, it may be worth considering
installation of the LoTOx system as an alternative to an SNCR
or SCR. This is because the LoTOx system will allow removal
of NOx and oxidized mercury in a wet scrubber and should
not be affected by the high ash content. It will also remove
the need for storage and handling of an ammonia reagent
and consequently should save both space and water, as well
as potentially bringing the cost of NOx control down.
Other multi-pollutant controls and emerging systems
may have potential in Indian plants too, especially those
that minimize water usage and cost.
4 Conclusion
NOx controls, both primary and secondary measures, are
well-proven mature technologies, in use for more than
 32 | Clean Energy, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1
40 years. However, in India, which until recently did not have
NOx emission standards and where the majority of plants
fire high-ash coals, secondary controls (SCR and SNCR) have
not yet been commercially deployed and utilities are con-
cerned about their suitability for Indian coals. Nevertheless,
vendors have confidence that they can supply solutions for
Indian boilers as both systems have been used successfully
in high-ash lignite plants and in cement kilns where the ash
loading in flue gas is as high as 100 g/m3. Additionally, ini-
tial tests of BHEL’s SCR catalyst also had promising results.
Still, demonstrations are required to establish how to cus-
tomize these technologies for the Indian market, so they can
be used cost-effectively. Such demonstrations are already
underway on eight NTPC boilers, which are expected to pave
the way for the installation of these technologies in India.
For example, for SCR, the tests will show which type of cata-
lyst works best, its optimal pitch size, how many layers are
required, what cleaning system to choose and how often it
should be used. In the case of SNCR, the tests will determine
which type of spaying nozzles is able to cover Indian boil-
ers and which reagent (ammonia or urea) will work best.
Nevertheless, to know the exact effect of the Indian coal on
these systems may take years.
As India is introducing emission standards for more
pollutants, and pollution controls are expensive and time-
consuming to install, which disrupts power generation, it
would make sense to coordinate installation of pollution
control systems and to focus on multi-pollutant control
systems. There are a few multi-pollutant controls that can
remove NOx and are not affected by high ash content in the
flue gas. Examples include ReACT, which has been used in
coal-fired power plants for several years, and LoTOx, which
is deployed mainly in the oil-refining sector but has the
potential to be applied to coal-fired plants.
To summarize, NOx controls for high-ash coals are
broadly the same as for ‘normal’ boilers, but they must be
customized to local market requirements (high ash con-
tent) as already happened with LNBs. Choosing appro-
priate NOx control systems for any power plant requires
a site-specific strategy that, apart from cost, performance
and safety, should also consider water availability.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
References
[1] EEC (Excellence Enhancement Centre for Indian Power
Sector). Meeting New Environment Norms for Thermal
Power Generation—A Challenge. Proceedings of EEC Seminar,
New Delhi, India, 22 April 2016. http://www.eecpowerindia.
com/libraryFiles/82201606275412.pdf (20 April 2017, date last
accessed).
[2] Barnes I. The Prospects for HELE Power Plant Uptake in India.
CCC/271. London, UK: IEA Clean Coal Centre, 2016. https://
www.usea.org/sites/default/files/The%20prospects%20
f o r % 2 0 H E L E % 2 0 p owe r % 2 0 p l a n t % 2 0 u p t a k e % 2 0 i n % 2 0
India%20-%20ccc271.pdf (21 March 2018, date last accessed).
[3] Sloss LL. Coal in the Indian Energy Future—Emissions and Policy
Considerations. London, UK: IEA Clean Coal Centre, 2015. http://
wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/13898/
Sloss%20emissions%20report%20for%20USDS.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (21 March 2018, date last accessed).
[4] Mills S. Low Quality Coals—Key Commercial, Environmental and
Plant Considerations. CCC/270. London, UK: IEA Clean Coal
Centre, 2016.
[5] Arumugam S. Coal selection and processing for enhanced
plant performance. In: First IEA CCC Coal Quality Workshop,
New Delhi, India, 9–10 November 2016.
[6] Nandakumar K, Sundarrajan S, Karunakara Reddi M, et  al.
Technology Developments in Coal Combustion for Steam Generators.
In: International Coal Congress, Institution of Engineers.
India, December 2008.
[7] S&P Global Platts. UDI World Electric Power Plants Database.
Washington, DC: UDI Products Group, 2017.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
[8] NRPC (Government of lndia, Northern Regional Power
Committee). Preparation of Phasing Plan for Implementation of New
Environmental Norms for Thermal Plants, Issued by MOEF&CG. 2017.
http://www.nrpc.gov.in/Meetings/SPL/Phasing_Minutes.pdf
(15 March 2017, date last accessed).
[9] Xu B, Wilson D, Broglio R. Lower-Cost Alternative De-NOx
Solutions for Coal-Fired Power Plants. Power engineering. 2015.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0633/05183e35e18027eecb9
04a467ecf96fe3484.pdf (30 August 2018, date last accessed).
[10] BHEL. New Environment Norms on NOx for Thermal Power
Generation. MOEF Notification. New Delhi, India:   Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2016. http://www.
eecpowerindia.com/codelibrary/ckeditor/ckfinder/userfiles/
files/1_BHEL%20New%20Environmental%20Norms%20on%20
NOx%20PART%201.pdf (21 March 2018, date last accessed).
[11] Moulton B. Applying SCR NOx reduction in high-dust envi-
ronments. Power Engineering International 2015; 23. http://www.
powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-23/issue-12/
features/applying-scr-nox-reduction-in-high-dust-environ-
ments.html (21 March 2018, date last accessed).
[12] MHPS (Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems). MHPS’s State of Art
AQCS Technologies for Indian Power Plants. Presentation. In:
Seminar on Meeting New Environment Norms for Thermal Power
Generation - A Challenge, IHC, New Delhi, 22 April 2016. http://
www.eecpowerindia.com/codelibrary/ckeditor/ckfinder/
userfiles/files/MHPS_MOEF%20Conference.pdf (15 December
2016, date last accessed).
[13] Sorrels JL, Randall DD, Scaffner KS, et  al. Selective catalytic
reduction. In: EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. 7th ed. US
Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. https://www3.epa.
gov/ttn/ecas/docs/SCRCostManualchapter7thEdition_2016.
pdf (16 February 2017, date last accessed).
[14] Kumar A. Indian power sector overview. Presented at Clean
Coal Day 2016 International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 7–8
September 2016. http://www.jcoal.or.jp/coaldb/shiryo/
material/upload/D2_Session%20III_Speech%204_Mr.%20
Aniruddha%20Kumar.pdf (16 December 2016, date last
accessed).
[15] Nakamura T. Flue gas treatment technology for coal-fired
boiler. In: CEA-JCOAL Workshop FY2016, New Delhi, India, 11
November 2016.
[16] Schirmer M. Solution for High Dust SCR Applications
Webinar. CORMETECH, 2017. https://event.on24.com/
eve n t R eg i s t ra t i o n / E ve n t L o b by S e r v l e t ? t a rg e t = reg 2 0 .
jsp&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cormetech.com%2F&eve
ntid=1357968&sessionid=1&key=A44E7FF0D926E8C3F23D8E3
557FB60C1&regTag=&sourcepage=register (7 March 2017, date
last accessed).
[17] Jensen-Holm H, Topsøe NY, Cui J. Implementation of SCR DeNOx
Technology on Coal-Fired Boilers in P.R. China. Haldor Topsoe, 2006.

https://www.topsoe.com/sites/default/files/implementation_
of_scr_techology_on_coal_fired_boilers_china_power_2006.
ashx_.pdf (15 March 2017, date last accessed).
[18] Haldor T. DNX® - Topsøe SCR DeNOx Catalysts Properties and
Feature. 2012. https://www.topsoe.com/processes/nox-co-
removal (30 August 2018, date last accessed).
[19] McIlvaine. Hot Topic Seminar: NOx Control, Decision Guide
Webinar. McIlvaine, 2016. http://www.mcilvainecompany.
com/Decision_Tree/Webinars%202016/Hot%20Topic%20
Hour%20March%2024,%202016%20-%20NOx%20Control.pdf
(20 February 2017, date last accessed).
[20] Modern Power Systems. World First: Turow 11, a Lignite Plant
That Meets BREF Standards. 2016. http://www.modernpower-
systems.com/features/featureworld-first-turow-11-a-lignite-
plant-that-meets-bref-standards-5653442/ (15 December
2016, date last accessed).
Wiatros-Motyka | 33
[21] Vollmer B. Implementation of BREF requirements into the
ongoing execution of an EPC contract. In: ExPPERTS Europe
Conference 2016, Krakow, Poland, 8 September 2016.
[22] Sloss LL. Emerging Markets for Pollution Control Retrofits. CCC/274.
London, UK: IEA Clean Coal Centre, 2017.
[23] Liu G, Crotty P, Stapler B. NOx control options and strate-
gic planning for utility boilers through CSAPR and Regional
Haze Rules. Presented at Energy, Utility and Environment
Conference (EUEC 2016), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–5 February
2016.
[24] SRCP (Government of India, Sothern Region Power Committee).
Minutes of the Meeting on Preparation of Phasing Plan for
Implementation of New Environmental Norms for Thermal Plants
Issued by MOEF &CC-reg. 2017. http://www.srpc.kar.nic.in/web-
site/2016/meetings/special/MOM-phasing-plan-12-01-17.pdf
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-abstract/3/1/24/5108520 by guest on 28 March 2019
(19 January 2017, date last accessed).