gore so control system - mission energy gore.pdf©2019 w. l. gore & associates, inc. 12...

©2019 W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

GORE™ SO2 Control System

SMARTLùth

Mark de Garbolewski, Jeff Kolde: W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc.

Sarajit Sen: SalesCom/Smartluth


• Founded in 1958 • Inventors of ePTFE Membrane• Privately-Held / Associate-Owned• > 10,000 Associates • Sales of Over $3.5 Billion • ~ 8% Re-invested in R&D Annually• Ranked as One of the Top 100 Companies to Work for• Enterprise Committed to Innovation

W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc


45 years of experience in air pollution control

W.L. Gore and Associate Inc. Formed

1958

Expanded PTFE technology invented

1969

1973

Gore enters pollution control business (industrial air filtration)

1996Launch of REMEDIA®

filter bags, Gore’s first gas phase remediation product

Gore begins Mercury and SO2 control technology development

2002

2013

2019+

Commercialization of SO2 technology in India

Mercury & SO2 Control Modules commercialized in Europe

Mercury & SO2 Control Modules commercialized in U.S.

2018

©2019 W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. 4

Challenges Facing Indian Power Generators

Meeting the New CPCB Emissions Limits

▪Availability, Quality, & Cost of Limestone and Other Reagents

▪Reagent Handling Cost and Safety

▪Unreliable Markets / Disposal Options for Reaction Byproducts

▪Space Constraints

▪Significant Capital Costs

▪Unpredictable Operating Costs

▪Outage Time Required for Installation

▪Preserving Fly Ash Sales

Which Technical Solution is the Best Option for Your Situation?


▪CATALYSTS Instead of REAGENTS

▪Saleable Sulfuric Acid Instead of Solid Waste Byproduct

Catalytic Approach to Flue Gas Desulfurization

Catalytic conversion of SO2

• Highly hydrophobic structure expels liquid sulfuric acid to catalyst outer surfaces

SO2 + ½ O2 + H2O H2SO4 (l)

Catalyst reacts with SO2 and Mercury

Liquid sulfuric acid expelled to surface


Low Pressure Drop Modules

GORE® SO2 Control Modules

Catalyst Configured

Into Open Channels

Module dimensions: 63 cm x 68 cm base32 cm height

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1.00 m/s 2.00 m/s 3.00 m/s 4.00 m/s 5.00 m/s

Pressu

re D

ro

p (

Pa)

Gas Flow Rate

Pressure Drop per Module


Scalable SO2 Removal System

Number of Module Layers Selected According to Desired Reduction of SO2

Flue Gas with SO2


System Design Flexibility

GORE®

Modules

Water Quench (cool and humidify)

Sulfuric Acid Collection

UPFLOW with INTEGRATED WET STACK

DOWNFLOW with INTEGRATED QUENCH

Flue gas from quench

Sulfuric Acid Collection


QuenchCatalyst Modules

Make-up Water

RECYCLE

Acid Concentration

Concentrated Sulfuric Acid

Recovered Water

Steam

FLUE GAS(from ESP)

Dilute Acid

STACK

TREATED FLUE GAS

GORE™ SO2 Control System Schematic

• No limestone handling, milling, gypsum dewatering and handling operations

• No solid waste generation

• Fewer, smaller pumps (water spray vs. slurry)


Sulfuric Acid Production & Use 105 Indian fertilizer plants consume 8 million tonnes /year of sulfuric acid

http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/chemicals/sulfuric-acid.html

▪ Typical acid production from a 300 MW unit is ~50T/day (98% basis)

–1800 mg SO2/Nm3 500 mg SO2/Nm3

–Acid concentration system designed according to market needs

▪ Sulfuric acid is utilized in many industries

–Fertilizer, batteries, chemical production, power plants, etc.

▪ India imports Sulfur to produce H2SO4

▪ India also imports H2SO4 depending on demand

Sulfuric Acid Consumption


Footprint Advantages of the Gore System

▪Many Different Design Arrangements for Catalytic Modules

▪No Reagent Storage, Preparation, or Handling

▪Acid Concentration System May Be Located Further From Process

▪ Fewer Pumps


Operational Simplicity

▪Passive System

▪No Reagent Logistics

▪No Reagent Handling / Preparation

–Few moving parts in entire system

▪ Fewer Operators Required

–No chemistry adjustments required

–Less components to maintain

▪Automatic Load Following – No Adjustments Needed to the FGD


Operational Efficiency

▪ Lower Parasitic Power–No slurry pumps

–No reagent milling

▪ Low Pressure Drop

▪ Lower Water Usage than Wet Limestone Process


Module Layers can be added during a short outage (less than one week)

Space for future layers to comply with tighter SO2

emissions regulations

Scalable SO2 Removal


Additional Benefits

▪No Impact on Fly Ash Quality

▪Some Additional PM Reduction

▪Minimal Downtime for Tie-in

▪High Removal of Elemental and Oxidized Mercury

▪No Additional CO2 Generation


No. Plant Country CustomerNo. of Units

Total MWStart-up

dateYear

1

Sherburne County

Generation Station

USA Xcel Energy 1 31 2013

2Fort Martin

Unit #1USA First Energy 1 550 2014

3Cayuga Power

PlantUnit #2

USACayuga Operating

Company1 167 2014

4AEP Conesville

Unit #6USA American Electric Power 1 440 2015

5AEP Conesville


6Fort Martin


7Eins Chemnitz

Unit #1Germany Eins Chemnitz 1 195 2018

8 CEZ MelnikCzech

RepublicCEZ 1 350

In process, start-up

late 2019

No. OwnerCity-State-

Country

Number of Incinerator

Lines

Start-up dateYear

1 Oneida County WWTPUtica - NY

USA2 2015

3 Mill Creek WWTPCincinnati - OH

USA3 2015

4 NEORSD - Southerly WWTPCleveland - OH

USA3 2015

5 Eric County WWTPBuffalo - NY

USA2 2015

6 City of Vancouver WWTPVancouer - WA

USA1 2016

7 H.L. Mooney WWTPPrince William County - VA,

USA1 2016

8MSD Buncombe County

WWTPAsheville - NC

USA1 2016

9 Lynnwood WWTPLynnwood - WA

USA1 2017

10 East Bank WWTPNew Orleans -

LAUSA

1 2017

11 Naugatuck WWTPNaugatuck - CT

USA1 2018

12 City of High Point WWTPHigh Point - NC

USA1 2018

13 Manchester WWTPManchester - NH

USA1 2019

14 PPG - Captive IncineratorCircleville - OH

USA1 2019

Full Scale Installations / Reference Plants

COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS INCINERATORS


No. Plant Country CustomerNo. of Units

Total MWStart-up

dateYear

1

Sherburne County

Generation Station

USA Xcel Energy 1 31 2013

2Fort Martin


3Cayuga Power

PlantUnit #2

USACayuga Operating

Company1 167 2014

4AEP Conesville


5AEP Conesville


6Fort Martin


7Eins Chemnitz

Unit #1Germany Eins Chemnitz 1 195 2018

8 CEZ MelnikCzech

RepublicCEZ 1 350

In process, start-up

late 2019

No. OwnerCity-State-

Country

Number of Incinerator

Lines

Start-up dateYear

1 Oneida County WWTPUtica - NY

USA2 2015

3 Mill Creek WWTPCincinnati - OH

USA3 2015

4 NEORSD - Southerly WWTPCleveland - OH

USA3 2015

5 Eric County WWTPBuffalo - NY

USA2 2015

6 City of Vancouver WWTPVancouer - WA

USA1 2016

7 H.L. Mooney WWTPPrince William County - VA,

USA1 2016

8MSD Buncombe County

WWTPAsheville - NC

USA1 2016

9 Lynnwood WWTPLynnwood - WA

USA1 2017

10 East Bank WWTPNew Orleans -

LAUSA

1 2017

11 Naugatuck WWTPNaugatuck - CT

USA1 2018

12 City of High Point WWTPHigh Point - NC

USA1 2018

13 Manchester WWTPManchester - NH

USA1 2019

14 PPG - Captive IncineratorCircleville - OH

USA1 2019

Full Scale Installations / Reference Plants

COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS INCINERATORS

>5 YEARS OF OPERATION


Installation at Heizkraftwerk, Chemnitz Germany, August 2018

▪120 MWel + 75 MWth

▪ Lignite-fired power plant

▪Plant required GUARANTEED mercury and SO2 removal

Gore Modules installed in top of existing wet limestone scrubber


Chemnitz Installation


Full-Scale Installations at Chemnitz Germany


Chemnitz SO2 Removal

▪GMCS Installed in August 2018

▪SO2 Performance measurements by Muller-BBM in June 2019

Inlet SO2

[mg/Nm3 @6% O2]Outlet SO2

[mg/Nm3 @6% O2]SO2 Removal

[%]

371.8 194.4 47.7

335.8 165.6 50.7

308.5 159.0 48.5

45-50% SO2 Removal significantly exceeds guaranteed value

Before GORE Modules After GORE Modules


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20:0

0:0

0

20:1

5:0

0

20:3

0:0

0

20:4

5:0

0

21:0

0:0

0

21:1

5:0

0

21:3

0:0

0

21:4

5:0

0

22:0

0:0

0

22:1

5:0

0

22:3

0:0

0

22:4

5:0

0

23:0

0:0

0

23:1

5:0

0

23:3

0:0

0

23:4

5:0

0

0:0

0:0

0

0:1

5:0

0

0:3

0:0

0

0:4

5:0

0

1:0

0:0

0

1:1

5:0

0

1:3

0:0

0

1:4

5:0

0

2:0

0:0

0

2:1

5:0

0

2:3

0:0

0

2:4

5:0

0

3:0

0:0

0

3:1

5:0

0

3:3

0:0

0

3:4

5:0

0

4:0

0:0

0

4:1

5:0

0

4:3

0:0

0

4:4

5:0

0

5:0

0:0

0

5:1

5:0

0

5:3

0:0

0

5:4

5:0

0

6:0

0:0

0

6:1

5:0

0

6:3

0:0

0

6:4

5:0

0

7:0

0:0

0

7:1

5:0

0

7:3

0:0

0

7:4

5:0

0

8:0

0:0

0

8:1

5:0

0

8:3

0:0

0

8:4

5:0

0

9:0

0:0

0

9:1

5:0

0

9:3

0:0

0

9:4

5:0

0

10:0

0:0

0

10:1

5:0

0

10:3

0:0

0

10:4

5:0

0

11:0

0:0

0

11:1

5:0

0

11:3

0:0

0

11:4

5:0

0

12:0

0:0

0

12:1

5:0

0

12:3

0:0

0

12:4

5:0

0

13:0

0:0

0

13:1

5:0

0

13:3

0:0

0

13:4

5:0

0

14:0

0:0

0

14:1

5:0

0

14:3

0:0

0

14:4

5:0

0

15:0

0:0

0

15:1

5:0

0

15:3

0:0

0

15:4

5:0

0

16:0

0:0

0

16:1

5:0

0

16:3

0:0

0

16:4

5:0

0

17:0

0:0

0

17:1

5:0

0

17:3

0:0

0

SO

2 C

oncentr

ation (

mg/N

m3, 6%

O2)

SO2 Emissions from Polish Lignite Plant (After wet FGD)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20:0

0:0

0

20:1

5:0

0

20:3

0:0

0

20:4

5:0

0

21:0

0:0

0

21:1

5:0

0

21:3

0:0

0

21:4

5:0

0

22:0

0:0

0

22:1

5:0

0

22:3

0:0

0

22:4

5:0

0

23:0

0:0

0

23:1

5:0

0

23:3

0:0

0

23:4

5:0

0

0:0

0:0

0

0:1

5:0

0

0:3

0:0

0

0:4

5:0

0

1:0

0:0

0

1:1

5:0

0

1:3

0:0

0

1:4

5:0

0

2:0

0:0

0

2:1

5:0

0

2:3

0:0

0

2:4

5:0

0

3:0

0:0

0

3:1

5:0

0

3:3

0:0

0

3:4

5:0

0

4:0

0:0

0

4:1

5:0

0

4:3

0:0

0

4:4

5:0

0

5:0

0:0

0

5:1

5:0

0

5:3

0:0

0

5:4

5:0

0

6:0

0:0

0

6:1

5:0

0

6:3

0:0

0

6:4

5:0

0

7:0

0:0

0

7:1

5:0

0

7:3

0:0

0

7:4

5:0

0

8:0

0:0

0

8:1

5:0

0

8:3

0:0

0

8:4

5:0

0

9:0

0:0

0

9:1

5:0

0

9:3

0:0

0

9:4

5:0

0

10:0

0:0

0

10:1

5:0

0

10:3

0:0

0

10:4

5:0

0

11:0

0:0

0

11:1

5:0

0

11:3

0:0

0

11:4

5:0

0

12:0

0:0

0

12:1

5:0

0

12:3

0:0

0

12:4

5:0

0

13:0

0:0

0

13:1

5:0

0

13:3

0:0

0

13:4

5:0

0

14:0

0:0

0

14:1

5:0

0

14:3

0:0

0

14:4

5:0

0

15:0

0:0

0

15:1

5:0

0

15:3

0:0

0

15:4

5:0

0

16:0

0:0

0

16:1

5:0

0

16:3

0:0

0

16:4

5:0

0

17:0

0:0

0

17:1

5:0

0

17:3

0:0

0

SO

2 C

oncentr

ation (

mg/N

m3, 6%

O2)

SO2 Reduction across 3.5 meter high stack of GORE Modules

Inlet to GORE Modules

Outlet of GORE Modules

~76% Average SO2 Removal


Indian Coal - Slip Stream Pilot Plant Approach

12 module pilot plant to simulate a 12 layer installation

Pilot designed to demonstrate ~50% SO2 removal

Additional layers in full scale will achieve higher SO2 removal

A single stack of modules acts as a “chimney” and is very representative of full scale


Gore Pilot Plant at Haldia Energy Limited

Fan

2x Collectors

Quench

Inlet

Outlet


Gore Pilot Plant at Haldia Energy Limited12 Modules (2 Collectors x 6 Modules each)

Gas flo

w

Gas flo

w


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

5

10

15

20

25

6/27/19 6/30/19 7/3/19 7/6/19 7/9/19 7/12/19 7/15/19 7/18/19 7/21/19 7/24/19

SO

2Rem

oval Effic

iency (

%)

Avera

ge A

cid

Concentr

ation (

%)

Acid Concentration % Removal Efficiency %

Passive SO2 ControlConsistent SO2 Removal Efficiency with No Reagent

Haldia Pilot Operation Began January 2019

Module design resists fouling and maintains very low pressure drop

Average pressure drop across 12 modules:

60 mm H2O

PILOT EFFICIENCY TARGET


Relative OpEx Comparison

1.0

1.5

0.8

0.1

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

WetLimestone

Semi-Dry w/BH

AmmoniaScrubber

Gore

OPEX R

ela

tive t

o W

et

Lim

esto

ne

Utilities Labor

Spares & Maintenance Reagent

Byproduct SUM

▪ Gore system has lowest overall operating cost

–Lowest utility requirement

–No reagent cost

–Some revenue from acid sales


What if there is no market for byproduct?

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Wet

Limestone

Semi-Dry w/

BH

Ammonia

Scrubber

Gore

OPEX R

ela

tive t

o W

et

Lim

esto

ne

Utilities Labor Spares & Maintenance Reagent

▪ Gore system still lowest overall operating cost

–Sales of sulfuric acid have minor impact on economics


Different Approach for SO2 Control

No Reagent

Simple Operation

Low Operating Cost

GORE™ SO2 Control System

Is the GORE system the right fit for your plant?

Contact us for plant-specific design details

Mark deGarbolewski(+1) 302/[email protected]

Jeff Kolde(+1) 484/678 [email protected]

Sarajit Sen(+) 91 98311 96637 (M)(+) 44 78844 42900 (M)[email protected]

Subrata Kumar Kundu(+) 91 98104 [email protected]

SMARTLùth

gore so control system - mission energy gore.pdf©2019 w. l. gore & associates, inc. 12...

Documents