Advertisement

Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 155–163 | Cite as

Particulate carbon emissions from electrostatic precipitators used for mercury emissions control: operational factors and implications

  • Herek L. ClackEmail author
Article

Abstract

Injection of powdered activated carbon (PAC) into the combustion flue gas of a coal-fired boiler is a leading approach to reducing anthropogenic mercury emissions. Small particle size and poor electrical properties are known to make carbonaceous particles more difficult to remove from a gas stream by electrostatic precipitation, by far the dominant particulate control technology for coal-fired boilers. The present analysis estimates PAC emissions from electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and considers both the operational factors driving such emissions as well as their implications in terms of adsorbed mercury concentrations and their potential to act as a climate forcing agent similar to black carbon. The results of the analysis find the potential for PAC to increase particulate carbon emissions by tens of percent to over 150 % in the worst-case scenario considered. Such emissions could increase the contribution of coal combustion to total anthropogenic emissions of particulate carbon by several percentage points. Elevated levels of mercury on such emissions can translate into gas-phase-equivalent mercury concentrations approaching 1 ppb. The most important uncertainty influencing these results is the removal efficiency within ESPs of PM2.5-activated carbon particles.

Keywords

Black carbon Electrostatic precipitator Coal Mercury Powdered activated carbon Fly ash Particulate matter 

References

  1. ADA-ES (2005) Final site report for Brayton point generating station unit 1: sorbent injection into a cold-side ESP for mercury control. U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  2. Beychok MR (2005) Fundamentals of stack gas dispersion (4th ed.). Beychok, Newport Beach, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond TC, Streets DG, Yarber KF, Nelson SM, Woo JH, Klimont Z (2004) A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. J Geophys Res 109, D14203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown TD, Smith DN, Hargis RA Jr, O’Dowd WJ (1999) Mercury measurement and its control: what we know, have learned, and need to further investigate. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 49:1–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvert S, Englund HM (1984) Handbook of air pollution technology. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Clack HL (2006) Particle size distribution effects on gas-particle mass transfer within electrostatic precipitators. Environ Sci Technol 40:3929–3933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clack HL (2012) Estimates of increased black carbon emissions from electrostatic precipitators during powdered activated carbon injection for mercury emissions control. Environ Sci Technol 46:7327–7333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clack HL, Gorecki J, Macherzynski M, Golas J, Sherman LS, Blum JD (2013) Interpreting mercury capture within a utility electrostatic precipitator through analyses of hopper-segregated fly ash samples. Presented at 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant, July 29–August 3 Edinburgh, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Dombrowski K, Richardson C, Padilla J, Chang R, Archer G, Fisher K, Smokey S, Brickett L (2008) Evaluation of novel mercury sorbents and balance-of-plant impacts at Stanton Unit 1. In DOE-U.S. EPA-EPRI-AWMA Power Plant Air Pollution Control “Mega” Symposium, Baltimore, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Espinola A, Miguel PM, Salles MR, Pinto AR (1986) Electrical properties of carbons—resistance of powder materials. Carbon 24:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin, G (2008) A discussion about strategy of flue gas dust removal for India coal fired boiler. In 11th International Conference on Electrostatic Precipitation; K. Yan, Ed.; Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  12. Pavlish JH, Sondreal EA, Mann MD, Olson ES, Galbreath KC, Laudal DL, Benson SA (2003) Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants. Fuel Process Technol 82:89–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Prabhu V, Kim T, Khakpour Y, Serre S, Clack HL (2012) On the electrostatic precipitation of fly ash-powdered mercury sorbent mixtures. Fuel Process Technol 93:8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sjostrum, S (2005) Evaluation of sorbent injection for mercury control. Topical Report for: AmerenUE’s Meramec Station Unit 2. U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  15. United Nations Environment Programme (2010) Process optimization guidance for reducing mercury emissions from coal combustion in power plants. http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/PrioritiesforAction/Coalcombustion/ProcessOptimizationGuidanceDocument/tabid/4873/Default.aspx (accessed January 8, 2013)
  16. US EPA (2012) Report to Congress on black carbon. EPA-450/R-12-001; US EPA; Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. US Energy Information Administration (2011a) Annual energy outlook DOE/EIA-0383(2011). http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html (accessed August 20, 2012)
  18. US Energy Information Administration (2011b) Annual energy review DOE/EIA-0384(2010). http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf (accessed August 20, 2012)
  19. Wang SX, Zhang L, Li GH, Wu Y, Hao JM, Pirrone N, Sprovieri E, Ancora MP (2010) Mercury emission and speciation of coal-fired power plants in China. Atmos Chem Phys 10:1182–1192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace EngineeringIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations