JV TASK 45-MERCURY CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES BURNING LIGNITE COAL, PHASE I BENCH-AND PILOT-SCALE TESTING

The Energy & Environmental Research Center has completed the first phase of a 3-year, two-phase consortium project to develop and demonstrate mercury control technologies for utilities that burn lignite coal. The overall project goal is to maintain the viability of lignite-based energy production by providing utilities with low-cost options for meeting future mercury regulations. Phase I objectives are to develop a better understanding of mercury interactions with flue gas constituents, test a range of sorbent-based technologies targeted at removing elemental mercury (Hg{sup o}) from flue gases, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the most promising technologies at the pilot scale. The Phase II objectives are to demonstrate and quantify sorbent technology effectiveness, performance, and cost at a sponsor-owned and operated power plant. Phase I results are presented in this report along with a brief overview of the Phase II plans. Bench-scale testing provided information on mercury interactions with flue gas constituents and relative performances of the various sorbents. Activated carbons were prepared from relatively high-sodium lignites by carbonization at 400 C (752 F), followed by steam activation at 750 C (1382 F) and 800 C (1472 F). Luscar char was also steam-activated at these conditions. These lignite-based activated carbons, along with commercially available DARCO FGD and an oxidized calcium silicate, were tested in a thin-film, fixed-bed, bench-scale reactor using a simulated lignitic flue gas consisting of 10 {micro}g/Nm{sup 3} Hg{sup 0}, 6% O{sub 2}, 12% CO{sub 2}, 15% H{sub 2}O, 580 ppm SO{sub 2}, 120 ppm NO, 6 ppm NO{sub 2}, and 1 ppm HCl in N{sub 2}. All of the lignite-based activated (750 C, 1382 F) carbons required a 30-45-minute conditioning period in the simulated lignite flue gas before they exhibited good mercury sorption capacities. The unactivated Luscar char and oxidized calcium silicate were ineffective in capturing mercury. Lignite-based activated (800 C, 1472 F) carbons required a shorter (15-minute) conditioning period in the simulated lignite flue gas and captured gaseous mercury more effectively than those activated at 750 C (1382 F). Subsequent tests with higher acid gas concentrations including 50 ppm HCl showed no early mercury breakthrough for either the activated (750 C, 1382 F) Bienfait carbon or the DARCO FGD. Although these high acid gas tests yielded better mercury capture initially, significant breakthrough of mercury ultimately occurred sooner than during the simulated lignite flue gas tests. The steam-activated char, provided by Luscar Ltd., and DARCO FGD, provided by NORIT Americas, were evaluated for mercury removal potential in a 580 MJ/hr (550,000-Btu/hr) pilot-scale coal combustion system equipped with four particulate control devices: (1) an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), (2) a fabric filter (FF), (3) the Advanced Hybrid{trademark} filter, and (4) an ESP and FF in series, an EPRI-patented TOXECON{trademark} technology. The Ontario Hydro method and continuous mercury monitors were used to measure mercury species concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the control technology devices with and without sorbent injection. Primarily Hg{sup o} was measured when lignite coals from the Poplar River Plant and Freedom Mine were combusted. The effects of activated Luscar char, DARCO FGD, injection rates, particle size, and gas temperature on mercury removal were evaluated for each of the four particulate control device options. Increasing injection rates and decreasing gas temperatures generally promoted mercury capture in all four control devices. Relative to data reported for bituminous and subbituminous coal combustion flue gases, higher sorbent injection rates were generally required for the lignite coal to effectively remove mercury. Documented results in this report provide the impacts of these and other parameters and provide the inputs needed to direct Phase II of the project.