Posts

Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) recently announced they’re developing a unique combustion method that results in lower power plant pollutant emissions, without efficiency penalties, by combining staged-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air.

The SCNEA combustion method burns fuels in two or more stages, where the fuel is combusted fuel-rich with nitrogen-enriched air in the first stage, and the fuel remaining after the first stage is combusted in the remaining stage(s) with air or nitrogen-enriched air. This method substantially reduces the oxidant and pollutant loading in the effluent gas and is applicable to many types of combustion equipment including: boilers, burners, turbines, internal combustion engines and many types of fuel including coal, oil and natural gas.

Results to date are from computer models. The next stage (Phase 1), to be completed in October ’02, is to do a small scale-pilot program involving experimental measurements at a bench scale (10-50 kw) to confirm predictions. Thereafter, Phase 2 will be conducted using commercial boilers and burners with an industry partner.

Provisional patents have been filed for the coal applications, and are in the process of filing on others.

To date, the work has been funded internally by the lab, and they are seeking additional funds (e.g. DOE, industry matching, etc.) to continue. LLNL is in the process of forming a consortium that includes the EPA, DOE, utilities, suppliers to the industry (e.g. boiler and burner manufacturers), engineering design firms, and suppliers of nitrogen enriched air. They are actively encouraging participation from industry.

^^^^^^^
Here is the abstract of a recent 8-page unpublished white paper prepared by LLNL. (I can send the pdf on request).

“A new primary control process for stationary combustion processes is predicted to significantly reduce NOx emissions, reduce corrosion in equipment, and enhance energy efficiency. This combustion method combines the technologies of stage-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air for the oxidant stream in one or more of the combustion stages, and is termed Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA). … SCNEA can replace or enhance currently employed NOx control technologies, such as low-NOx burners, overfire, reburning, and advanced flue gas treatment. SCNEA offers the ability to achieve NOx emission levels lower than levels attained using secondary control methods (e.g. SCR and SNCR) without the use of a catalyst.”

[another excerpt]
“SCNEA utilizes two stages. The first combustion stage is operated fuel-rich so that enough fuel remains for a second combustion stage. Nitrogen-enriched air is used as the oxidant stream in the first combustion stage, which allows precise control of the combustion temperature while producing effluent gases that have a very low oxidant and pollutant loading. The fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (along with the other effluent gases) is mixed with a stoichiometric amount of air and burned in the second stage. The temperature of the second combustion stage is maintained at or below the temperature of the first combustion stage by: (1) controlling the amount of fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (the equivalence ratio of the first combustion stage), (2) using nitrogen-enriched air as the oxidant stream for the second stage, and/or (3) controlling the minimum temperature between the two combustion stages.
NOx levels are significantly lower (1.40×10-2 lb NOx/MBTU) than either of the other single stage methods. Oxidant levels are also significantly reduced (3.30×10-2 lb O2/MBTU, and 6.45×10-6 lb O/MBTU). These advantages are coupled with an improvement in the amount of heat released per scf, i.e. 75.2 BTU/scf. ”

For more information, contact:
Kevin O’Brien, New Business Development
LLNL, Livermore, CA
925-422-7782 obrien14@llnl.gov

RAMGEN Update

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is an update on a previous UFTO Note (see below).

Progress is good. The first machine is hooked to a 10 MW generator, and it’s doing better and better all the time. They’re also working hard on a 800 KW version, which will enable them to advance the technology faster, and which is size they believe the DG market wants. The disk on the new machine will be 32 inches, operating at 28,000 rpm. Efficiency is 40%, and they expect single-digit NOx.

The company was featured two weeks ago in an article in the Puget Sound Business Journal, available on the company’s website: http://www.ramgen.com/2000/news.htm

A core group of local investors has been more than willing to provide as much money as needed, so there hasn’t been other corporate or VC participation in the past. Now, however, the company has decided to engage CSFB to do a $30 Million formal private offering for them.

For information, contact:
Bill Craver, Credit Suisse First Boston, San Francisco
415-249-8919, william.craver@csfb.com

On request, he can send you “Prelim. Information Materials” (aka the “teaser”)

——————————————————

The RAMGEN Engine [UFTO Note – Ramgen Engine 03 Mar 1999]

The Ramgen engine is based on the ramjet, the earliest form of jet engine and one still used on missiles. A ram jet gets its thrust from burning fuel in air compressed by its forward motion, then expelling the exhaust to create a forward force.

In the Ramgen engine, two ramjet thrust modules are mounted opposite each other at the perimeter of a 6 foot diameter rotor, in a kind of pinwheel configuration. The rim speed exceeds Mach 2.5. The engine’s axle then drives a generator through a gearbox.

Ramgen Power Systems, Inc. (WA) has just begun full testing of a full scale prototype, following ten years of work by its inventor, and the infusion 2 years ago of over $6 million from private investors. On February 2, 1999, the engine was the successfully ignited for the first time. It is currently generating compression at or above projected values; it is starting reliably and is creating combustion and power as anticipated; it is maintaining combustion after ignition; and the air film and other cooling systems are functioning effectively at current fuel loads.

The magnitude of the centrifugal forces generated at these speeds requires advanced, high-performance materials, which have only recently become commercially available (i.e. declassified), as have the computer modeling and machining techniques to manufacture the rotor to required tolerances. While sophisticated in design and modeling, the Ramgen has only a single moving part, the rotor and axle. It is designed to be maintained and work reliably in developing countries and isolated areas.

The Ramgen engine is a Brayton cycle engine that uses compressible gas dynamic phenomena and replaces the mechanical compression and expansion systems of conventional combustion engines with oblique shock wave and supersonic processes. In the Ramgen engine, the fuel and air mixture is compressed as it enters the thrust module, thereby removing the need to mechanically compress either the fuel or the combustion air. The engine’s burner operates on lean premix combustion to minimize NOx formation.

US Patent No 5709076 was awarded on Jan 20, 1999, and others are pending.

The performance of the Ramgen engine results from its efficient compression and expansion of the air/fuel mix within the thrust modules. The Ramgen engine’s inherently simpler design makes it less expensive to construct, operate and maintain than competing systems for electric power generation. The company anticipates that Ramgen will have:
– $400-450/KW capital cost (excluding site/development costs)
– 40-50% simple cycle efficiency
– around 2% efficiency loss down to 20% part-load
– very low emissions (NOx below 5 ppm)
– ability to operate on a wide range of fuels
(including oilfield and platform flare gases,
or caustic gases as low as 4% fuel by volume)
– small footprint (8-10 MW engine fits on a standard truck trailer)

With cooling by water-jacket and supercooled air, parts experience temperatures around 300 deg F. The exhaust is at 1230 deg.F, enabling combined cycle or cogen applications.

The prototype currently operating at a test facility in Tacoma, WA, can be configured to produce up to 15 MW. The company believes that the Ramgen engine can be scaled to produce electrical output ranging from 1 to 40 MW. The first commercial units (in the 8-15 MW range) could be available by early 2001. The company is in the process of finalizing additional financing.
CONTACT:
Doug Jewett, President and CEO djewett@ramgen.com
Glenn Smith, VP Sales & Marketing gsmith@ramgen.com
RAMGEN Power Systems, Bellevue, WA 425-828-4919
Company website: http://www.ramgen.com

Alchemix – Two Emissions Control Breakthroughs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Either one of this company’s two technologies are revolutionary. While they both sound too good to be true, it’s just possible that they’re for real. The company’s president, Robert Horton understands that people will be skeptical–he is himself, but takes the view that these things will either work or not. If they do, the implications are extraordinary.

They aren’t asking anybody to give them money until/unless the proof of the technology has been demonstrated. They’ve raised $2M already, have 13 employees, and tests are scheduled next month at AEP and Southern Co.

We first heard about this company at the Environmental Capital Network Forum in San Francisco last winter. At that time, they had planned to discuss only the first technology, but decided at the last minute to present the second one also. There has been a lot of progress since then. The text presented here is adapted from company materials.

The two technologies are:

1. Ash Conversion Technology (ACT) ? aims to produce a range of cementitious products from coal ash inside coal-fired utility boilers.

2. Catalytic Reduction Technology — Raphite™ is a naturally occurring low cost volcanic material which acts as a catalyst at elevated temperatures. Combustion gas oxides including SO2, NOx and possibly CO2 have been demonstrated to be substantially reduced after contacting Raphite coated surfaces at a temperature of approximately 900 F. It has the potential to reduce dramatically the cost and complexity of emissions control.

In the year 2000, Alchemix expects to offer coal-fired boiler operators turnkey services which will reduce ash disposal costs for clients and bring combustion gas emissions into regulatory compliance for a fraction of the cost of alternative approaches. At the same time, new liabilities to plant operators from ponded or solid refuse will be curtailed.

These services will be offered, on an intermediate to long term basis, on behalf of Alchemix by established and respected combustion engineering companies. Their incentive is compensation based on revenue rather than time, and the ability to offer low cost, long term services to a much expanded customer list.

Contact: Robert Horton, Chairman
Alchemix Corporation, Carefree, AZ
480-488-3388 alchemix@att.net

——————————–
More Details

1. Ash Conversion Technology (ACT)

ACT aims to produce a range of cementitious products from coal ash in coal-fired utility boilers. It converts a waste stream with an average disposal cost of $16/T to a cement additive having a market value exceeding $40/T.

The process eliminates the need for calcining, the heating process usually required for cement production which produces great amounts of combustion gases and CO2 . This is significant, as the cementmaking is reported to be, per pound of product produced, the most polluting industrial process. The calcining of lime associated with cement production accounts for four percent (4%) of all CO2 released to the atmosphere worldwide. When demonstrated at bench scale, a five percent (5%) increase in energy efficiency has also been observed from the application of the ACT.

While characterization and acceptance of new cements may take years, an intermediate product, low carbon fly ash, can be produced now from the application of ACT.

Alchemix has an agreement with R.W. Beck, a leading combustion engineering company, and has ongoing discussions with Essroc Cement Corporation, the sixth largest cement company in the U.S., to fund the development and commercialization of the ACT. These agreements call for R.W. Beck to install and operate ACT. Essroc’s role would be to buy and distribute the products produced. To date, technology verification work conducted in June and July of 1999 at Pennsylvania State University has demonstrated the ability to produce low carbon fly ash. Data are not yet available indicating the quality of higher value products.

ACT is implemented by injecting supercritical water into the combustion gas stream in the boiler, downstream of the combustion zone, while combustion gases and the minerals they contain are still at high temperatures.

– Carbon present in the fly ash reacts with the water to form Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen.
– The Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen burn.
– Ash minerals become highly reactive and cementitious.
– Combustion of unburned carbon reduces particulate pollution significantly.
– Low carbon ash or various geopolymer cements can be selectively produced.

ACT makes it possible for coal-fired utility boilers to perform as mineral conversion devices simultaneously with their designed use as electricity generators. ACT is easy and inexpensive to employ as it involves only the measured injection of water into the combustion gas stream. The process converts directly — within the utility boiler — inorganic minerals which are usually emitted and collected as fly ash, into a salable low carbon fly ash cement additive or a variety of cements.

2. Catalytic Reduction Technology (Raphite™)

Raphite is a naturally occurring volcanic material which acts as a catalyst at elevated temperatures.

– Raphite would be installed in and on exhaust ducts leading from combustion zones of coal-fired boilers (quickly and at low cost).
– Raphite has been shown to substantially reduce combustion gas oxides including SO2, NOx and possibly CO2 when contacting Raphite coated surfaces at a temperature of approximately 900 F.

No other single control technology effectively reduces both SO2 and NOX, and there is no commercial technology claiming measurable CO2 reduction. Where elemental carbon can be captured or reburned, added fuel efficiency is possible.

The cost of implementation will be low. Raphite’s active ingredients are combined in nature, so it requires only low cost mining and grinding prior to application, unlike other catalyts which require a combination of refined and rare metals.

Alchemix will offer Raphite technology, through an established combustion engineering partner, as a turnkey service. Alchemix is considering an exclusive engineering contract with a leading combustion engineering firm. That firm would advance necessary funds for commercialization and support Alchemix until financeable contracts are in hand. Alchemix has exclusive rights in the US for all uses of Raphite related to coal combustion.

Independent proof of concept testing at Four Corners by APS indicated 83% SO2 reduction and complete elimination of NOX. A measurable reduction of CO2 was also indicated. These excellent results were from field tests which were not optimized. Additional work towards commercialization at Four Corners is anticipated.

Additional work will be required to identify and understand all of the variables impacting the performance of Raphite.

The combined cost of available SO2 and NOX reduction strategies typically range from $20 to $45 per ton of coal burned. The prospective capital and operating cost to implement Raphite is expected to be less than $5 per ton.

More comprehensive field tests are now scheduled at Southern Research Institute and the 1300 MW Mountaineer plant of AEP. A portion of the costs of these tests are being paid for by Southern Companies and AEP, the two largest investor owned electric utilities in the world. Together they represent thirty percent (30%) of the coal fired utility capacity in the US, and are aggressively seeking lower cost solutions to multibillion dollar compliance issues.

Fwd: McIlvaine Co. offer

/0 Comments/in , /by

McIlvaine Company
ANSWERS TO IMPORTANT POWER PLANT QUESTIONS OF THE MONTH

Here is a copy of our “Power Plant Questions of the Month”. We propose to email it to you each month for the next year free of charge. We believe if we can demonstrate the value of our information you will want to know more about our Power Plant Knowledge system. We think that one of these months you will find one of these subjects to be important enough to want to explore it in depth and then we can make our sales pitch.

To sign up for your free subscription just click on the reply button on your browser and reply to this e-mail with a “yes” typed in the response.

For more information on the McIlvaine Company see our web site at: http://www.mcilvainecompany.com

POWER PLANT QUESTIONS OF THE MONTH

WILL POWER PLANTS HAVE PROBLEMS MEETING THE 2003 NOx REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS?
The answer is maybe. The bigger utilities with a number of affected plants are faced with only a few outages over the next three years. AEP and TVA have lined up partners in order to nail down the availability of engineering and equipment. But some of the mechanical contractors are already reporting full shops and a heavy workload. The secret is going to be maximum effort now to finalize plans and line up contractors. Those utilities who wait until 2001 are going to be out of luck.

WHAT KIND OF OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS COULD I HAVE WITH NOx CONTROLS?
Combustion modifications can result in accelerated tube wastage and unburned carbon in the fly ash. SCR problems include arsenic poisoning of the catalyst and ammonia slip. In fact, California and Massachusetts are toying with regulations to require zero ammonia emissions. But even absent regulations ammonia can cause problems. It can plug up your air heater and it can contaminate your fly ash. Buyers will definitely react negatively to ammonia contaminated fly ash? Some of the vendors say their methods of ammonia distribution and control eliminate this problem. Others say the answer is a staged system.

We are not going to devote too much attention to NOx issues in this Overview because we have a NOx Chat Room with detailed discussions of all these issues. It is free and easily accessible on our web site.

To go to the NOx Chat Room click here: http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/discuss.

IS THE AVERAGE UTILITY OVER REPORTING NOx AND SOx?
Many utilities are actually emitting less NOx and SOx than they are reporting. Flows are actually 5% lower than instruments are indicating. This could be worth $ millions per year to the medium size utility.

DO I HAVE TO CHANGE CEMS DUE TO PART 75 AMENDMENT?
EPA has amended sections of Part 75 to provide more accurate measurement of NOx mass emissions. The question is whether to upgrade from an emission rate monitoring system to a mass monitoring system or whether it is better to replace the system and start over. Newer analyzers do not confuse NO with total NOx . Keep in mind that the value of accuracy goes up substantially with the trading of NOx at $3,000/ton.

CAN YOU MEASURE MERCURY CONTINUOUSLY AND ACCURATELY ?
It appears that continuous emission monitors for mercury will be able to duplicate the wet chemistry methods within 20%. Don’t be surprised if within a few years both continuous mercury and mass particulate monitors are required for each power plant stack. Tests of mass particulate monitors on incinerators have been positive. A number of power plants in Europe are already using mass particulate monitors of the tape sampler type.

ARE PRECIPITATOR PARTICLE EMISSIONS PRECURSORS OF PM2.5?
One of the problems in quantifying PM2.5 emissions is going to be semantics. How is a large agglomerate of small particles which is emitted when rapping the precipitator classified? If it quickly disintegrates when it loses its electrical charge, isn’t it all small particles?

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
How important advances in IT instrumentation, controls, automation, monitoring and process optimization are changing the very nature of electric power generation. Jason Makansi advises that the individual information technology functions must be integrated into a cohesive system that communicates seamlessly with IT networks external to the plant. The ultimate goal is economic optimization.

IT changes and is integrated into the personnel organization and cultures-minimizing people, making work safer, focusing on results, moving towards predictive maintenance, pushing the envelope on operations and performance, breaking down barriers between departments (i.e. maintenance and operations). It will create “virtual plant staffs, crews and teams” responsible for multiple plants and will facilitate third-party service contracts. A 1400 MW coal-fired plant in Australia is supervised by two people on site during the second and third shifts. This will become commonplace in the future.

SHOULD YOU REPLACE PRECIPITATOR INTERNALS WITH BAGS?
The replacement of precipitator internals with bags at the State Line plant is a significant event. While other bidders were following the specs with bids on precipitator internals, Wheelabrator bid a conversion to a baghouse. The flexibility to burn a greater variety of fuels led Southern to select the baghouse conversion. This decision was followed by the Sheldon station award to ABB to replace the existing precipitators with fabric filters.

DO YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TITLE V AND THE TOTAL PARTICULATE EMMISSIONS?
The problem is that your present opacity monitor doesn’t tell you how much particulate is emitted during excursions. So it is going to be difficult to verify total mass emissions. Unfortunately your Title V permit probably limits you to a specific tons per year of particulate. But there are some simple steps to take to protect yourself. One is to do some stack testing during upset or start up and shut down conditions. If the emissions are only slightly higher than normal then you have some supporting evidence.

IS THERE A ROLE FOR WASTE BURNING IN MY PLANT?

While coal gasification is still a questionable option from a cost standpoint, the gasification of waste can be quite attractive. In parts of Europe power plants are forced to burn 10% biomass in each coal-fired boiler. Gasifying waste and using it as a reburn fuel provides both the economic benefits plus the reduction of NOx. But just simple fuel blending is in vogue. Connectiv is fueling one plant with chicken manure. Illinois Power will burn all the plastic pellets it can find.

WHEN IF EVER IS COFIRING GAS ATTRACTIVE?
The answer is that there are many situations that favor cofiring. In the ozone season it is a way to reduce NOx. During low load conditions the use of gas may be more economic than running the pulverizers and burning the lower cost coal. Most importantly you have a back up if your air pollution control or coal handling equipment fails at a time of high demand. Mississippi Power found that they could burn a combination of petroleum coke and natural gas more inexpensively than coal.

WHAT’S NEW IN GAS TURBINE COMBINED CYCLE SYSTEM COMPONENTS?
There is probably more new and useful technology being developed to improve the complete combined cycle system than there is in the turbines themselves. This is a pretty expansive claim since the new series of turbines has substantially higher output and efficiency. But a substantial part of the output and cost is found in the other components. New ways to cool and purify the intake air can substantially improve output and lower life cycle costs. As they say the devil is in the details. The disc centrifuge manufacturers have MADE improvements in fuel purification. The cooling tower people have more efficient packings.

There is even a better access door you should consider rather than let each component supplier furnish a hard-to-open home grown design.

For more information on the Power Plant Knowledge System click here: http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/PPKS.htm

To sign up for your free subscription to the Power Plant Questions of the Month just click on the reply button on your browser and reply to this e-mail with a “yes” typed in the response.

McIlvaine Company
2970 Maria Avenue
Northbrook, IL 60062
Ph: 847 272-0010
Fax: 847 272-9673

The RAMGEN Engine

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Ramgen engine is based on the ramjet, the earliest form of jet engine and one still used on missiles. A ram jet gets its thrust from burning fuel in air compressed by its forward motion, then expelling the exhaust to create a forward force.

In the Ramgen engine, two ramjet thrust modules are mounted opposite each other at the perimeter of a 6 foot diameter rotor, in a kind of pinwheel configuration. The rim speed exceeds Mach 2.5. The engine’s axle then drives a generator through a gearbox.

Ramgen Power Systems, Inc. (WA) has just begun full testing of a full scale prototype, following ten years of work by its inventor, and the infusion 2 years ago of over $6 million from private investors. On February 2, 1999, the engine was the successfully ignited for the first time. It is currently generating compression at or above projected values; it is starting reliably and is creating combustion and power as anticipated; it is maintaining combustion after ignition; and the air film and other cooling systems are functioning effectively at current fuel loads.

The magnitude of the centrifugal forces generated at these speeds requires advanced, high-performance materials, which have only recently become commercially available (i.e. declassified), as have the computer modeling and machining techniques to manufacture the rotor to required tolerances. While sophisticated in design and modeling, the Ramgen has only a single moving part, the rotor and axle. It is designed to be maintained and work reliably in developing countries and isolated areas.

The Ramgen engine is a Brayton cycle engine that uses compressible gas dynamic phenomena and replaces the mechanical compression and expansion systems of conventional combustion engines with oblique shock wave and supersonic processes. In the Ramgen engine, the fuel and air mixture is compressed as it enters the thrust module, thereby removing the need to mechanically compress either the fuel or the combustion air. The engine’s burner operates on lean premix combustion to minimize NOx formation.
US Patent No 5709076 was awarded on Jan 20, 1999, and others are pending.

The performance of the Ramgen engine results from its efficient compression and expansion of the air/fuel mix within the thrust modules. The Ramgen engine’s inherently simpler design makes it less expensive to construct, operate and maintain than competing systems for electric power generation. The company anticipates that Ramgen will have:

– $400-450/KW capital cost (excluding site/development costs)
– 40-50% simple cycle efficiency
– around 2% efficiency loss down to 20% part-load
– very low emissions (NOx below 5 ppm)
– ability to operate on a wide range of fuels
(including oilfield and platform flare gases,
or caustic gases as low as 4% fuel by volume)
– small footprint (8-10 MW engine fits on a standard truck trailer)

With cooling by water-jacket and supercooled air, parts experience temperatures around 300 deg F. The exhaust is at 1230 deg.F, enabling combined cycle or cogen applications.

The prototype currently operating at a test facility in Tacoma, WA, can be configured to produce up to 15 MW. The company believes that the Ramgen engine can be scaled to produce electrical output ranging from 1 to 40 MW. The first commercial units (in the 8-15 MW range) could be available by early 2001. The company is in the process of finalizing additional financing.

CONTACT:
Doug Jewett, President and CEO djewett@ramgen.com
Glenn Smith, VP Sales & Marketing gsmith@ramgen.com
RAMGEN Power Systems, Bellevue, WA 425-828-4919
Company website: http://www.ramgen.com

New NOX Knockout, Plus Heat Recovery and Emissions Control

/0 Comments/in , /by

Thermal Energy International, near Ontario Canada, has made even greater progress in the year since the last UFTO note about them (see below).

The company “has received international market patent protection for its revolutionary 90% reduction “Low NOx” FLU-ACE Air Pollution Control and Heat Recovery technology, for application to all natural gas, oil, and coal burning energy process waste exhaust gases.” (from a company press release)

The Low NOx process oxidizes NO into NO2, which can then be absorbed by any wet scrubber. If FLU-ACE is used as the scrubber, the additional benefits of heat recovery and removal of other emissions can also be accomplished.

The Low NOx technology achieves 90% NOx removal at 30% to 50% lower cost per ton removed than the competing (currently accepted) reduction methods (SCR, SNCR). Other advantages are that the Low NOX does not produce hazardous byproducts, does not adversely affect the energy efficiency and operating cost, and does not suffer from an “ammonia slip” concern; which are all documented disadvantages of SCR technology.

The Low NOx process is a simple phosphorus (P) additive atomization and injection into the flue gas; which initially creates Ozone (O3) which then reacts with NO to produce NO2, and then the NO2 is easily 90% removed through a standard wet scrubber, or 98% removed through a FLU-ACE condensing & reactive scrubber.

Adding phosphorus is not a new idea. Years ago, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley Lab worked on putting it into the scrubber slurry (see UFTO Report, June ’95) , but weren’t able to get the performance to make it practical. Thermal Energy’s chief scientist was able to figure out the complex series of chemical reactions and determine that the best way to inject phosphorus was directly into the flue gas, as it leaves the boiler.

Installation is not complex, and can be readily done as a retrofit on almost any kind of exhaust system, with only a moderate degree of site-specific engineering.

To recap–there are two stories here. One is FLU-ACE, and the other is Low NOx. They can be used together or separately.

Low NOx provides significant cost savings over available technology. If a wet scrubber is already in place, costs can be 65-75% less expensive than SCR, at 90% NOx removal. As mentioned earlier, if FLU-ACE is installed as the scrubber, then NOx removal can approach 98%, and provide heat recovery and removal of other pollutants, with costs 30-50% cheaper than SCR alone.

Notably, FLU-ACE can remove multiple emissions at the same time, including fine particulates, hydrocarbons, heavy metals and VOCs, in addition to HCl, SOx, NOx, and CO2. The system replaces the smoke stack, with a smaller foot print and lower height.

It’s also worth noting that FLU-ACE qualifies under Canadian government export support programs that can provide low interest financing and performance guarantees.

The company is seeking to raise $12 Million in debt and equity capital, and has a business plan that they will share with qualified investors or potential partners. (I have a pdf copy of the Plan Summary, which I can forward on request.)

For further information:
Thomas Hinke, President
Thermal Energy International Inc.
Neapean (Ottawa), Ontario, Canada
613-723-6776 Fax: 613-723-7286 E-mail: thermal@istar.ca
Web Site – http://www.thermalenergy.com/

====================================================
–previous UFTO NOTE —-
====================================================
Subject: UFTO Note – Flue gas heat recovery and air pollution control
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998

————————————————————–
Flue gas heat recovery and air pollution control

Simple in concept, FLU-ACE has accomplished something that many others have tried unsuccessfully to do for a long time, and they have plants that have been operating for over 10 years. Their condensing heat exchanger system replaces the stack in combustion systems, recovering almost all of the waste heat, and removing most of the emissions. With modifications, it even can remove up to 50% of the CO2.

It can be thought of as pollution control that pays for itself in fuel savings–or visa versa. Water is sprayed into the hot flue gas, both cooling and cleaning it. The water is then collected, passed through a heat exchanger to recover the heat, and treated to neutralize the acidity and remove contaminants.

Condensing heat exchangers aren’t new, but they normally can be used only when the hot gas is reasonably clean. FLU-ACE can handle any kind of gas, even if it contains particulates, acids and unburned hydrocarbons. Conventional wisdom holds that corrosion, plugging and clogging should defeat this approach, but FLU-ACE has overcome problems with its patented design. Systems show no degradation after years of operation. It has even been qualified for use with biomedical incinerator exhaust.

Industrial boilers and cogeneration plants are ideal applications. The installed base includes district heating systems, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, pulp and paper mills, and university campuses. Heat recovery is even greater when the exhaust gas is high in moisture content, e.g. in paper mills and sewage treatment. The largest system to date is 15 MW thermal, but there is no limit on the size.

A fossil power plant could use about 15% of the recovered heat for makeup water heating, so the economics are better when there are nearby uses for the heat. The company really wants to do a coal burning power plant–a slipstream demo could be the first step.

The company is a small publicly traded Canadian firm (symbol TMG – Alberta Stock Exchange). They have a dormant U.S. subsidiary, and are seeking U.S. partners, joint ventures and alliances for market expansion.

(UFTO first reported on FLU ACE in October ’95)

———————————————————-
The following materials are excerpted from the company’s materials:

The unique FLU-ACE technology is a combined heat recovery and air pollution control system, which recovers up to 90% of the heat normally wasted in hot chimney flue gases. FLU-ACE substantially reduces the emission of “Greenhouse Gases” (including C02), “Acid Gases” (including SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), unburned hydrocarbons (such as THC and VOCs), and particulates (such as soot and fly ash). It eliminates the need for a conventional tall smoke stack or chimney.

Thermal Energy International Inc. has built eleven FLU-ACE Air Pollution Control and Heat Recovery Systems in Canada. All of Thermal’s FLU-ACE installations in Ontario have been approved by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. The life expectancy of the FLU-ACE system is at least thirty-five to forty years. In December 1997, the company received patent protection in 42 countries; the US patent is expected early in 1998.

Low NOx FLU-ACE provides a payback on investment and is self financing from the savings that it generates for the industry user. The company is able to provide “Off-Balance” Sheet financing or 3rd party financing options for acquisition of its FLU-ACE technology by industrial and institutional buyers.

Using a direct-contact gas-to-liquid mass transfer and heat exchange concept, the system is designed to process flue gas from combustion of fossil fuels, waste derived fuels, waste, biomass, etc. The FLU-ACE System is configured as a corrosion resistant alloy steel tower at a fraction of the size of any conventional stack. All of the hot flue gas from one source or multiple sources (including co-gen and boilers) are redirected into the FLU-ACE tower, where it is cooled to within one to two degrees of the primary water return temperature, which enters the tower typically at between 16¡C (60¡F) and 32¡C (90¡F) depending on the season and outside air temperature. The heat (both latent and sensible) from the flue gas is transferred to the primary water which then reaches up to 63¡C (145¡F) and with special design up to 85¡C (185¡F), and circulated to various heat users.

FLU-ACE most sophisticated version (HP) reduces air pollutant emissions by over 99% including particulate down to 0.3 micrometers in size, and simultaneously recovers 80-90% of the heat in the flue gas normally exhausted into the atmosphere. This results in a reduction of fuel consumption by the facility up to 50%.
====================================================

Argonne Visit notes

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is a quick highlights memo about the UFTO visit to Argonne, July 15, 16. A full report will be forthcoming early this Fall.

For the first time, a sizable contingent of UFTO member companies was present for the whole visit. I hope this can become our standard practice, with even a bigger attendance. Argonne made excellent presentations for us. We all agreed that it was a good *beginning* of what must become an ongoing dialogue.

If you want a headstart on some of Argonne’s work, here are a few things we heard about that really piqued the group’s interest:
———————————-

— GASMAP
Comprehensive GIS with massive data on gas system. See separate NOTE, or go to this webpage: http://www.dis.anl.gov/disweb/gasmaptt
**User Access is available on request, on a collegial basis.** The limitation is server capacity, so ANL is not in a position to throw it wide open. They are also very open to any companies that want to provide better data on their own gas T&D systems–which can be kept confidential.
Contact Ron Fisher, 630-252-3508, refisher@anl.gov
———————————-

— Ice Slurry District Cooling
UFTO reported on this back in 93/94. It is now privately funded, and has advanced considerably. Ice slush dramatically increases the capacity of new or retrofitted central cooling distribution systems.
Contact Ken Kasza, 630-252-5224, ke_kasza@qmgate.anl.gov
———————————-

— On-Line Plant Transient Diagnostic
Uses thermal-hydraulic first principles, along with generic equipment data, in a two-level knowledge system. Neural net models of the system can rapidly indicate what’s causing a transient, e.g. water loss, heat added, etc., and identify where in the system the problem lies. The system wouldn’t need to be custom built for each plant, except to incorporate the plant’s schematics. It’s been run in blind tests at a nuclear plant. Next step is to hook it up to a full scale simulator, and then go for NRC approval. A fossil application would be much easier.
Contact Tom Wei, 630-252-4688, tcywei@anl.gov
or Jaques Reifman 630-252-4685, jreifman@anl.gov
———————————-

— Advanced NOx Control with Gas Co-firing
Closed-loop controller adjusts furnace control variables to get optimal distribution of gas injection to yield greatest NOx reduction. Typical systems use gas at 20% of heat input, but this system gets same or better NOx levels with only 7%. Joint effort with ComEd, GRI, and Energy Systems Assoc.
Contact Jaques Reifman 630-252-4685, jreifman@anl.gov
or Tom Wei, 630-252-4688, tcywei@anl.gov
———————————-

— MSET
Sensor monitor and fault detection system knows if the system is misbehaving or the sensor is wrong. Can see slow drift, signal dropout, and noise, giving early indicators of sensor failure, and providing assurance that the process itself is operating normally, thus reducing unneeded shutdowns. It also can monitor the process itself, for wide ranging quality control applications. MSET stands for Multivariate State Estimation Technique. A model learns expected relationships among dozens or hundreds of sensor inputs, and makes predictions for what each sensor should say, and this is compared with the actual sensor signal. Argonne has patented a unique statistical test for residual error (the difference) which replaces the usual setting of fixed limit levels. There are also important innovations in the neural net modeling, which is completely non-parametric.

Applications range from the NASA shuttle engine, to several power plants, to the stock market.
ANL contacts are Ralph Singer, 630-252-4500, singer@ra.anl.gov
Kenny Gross 630-252-6689, gross@ra.anl.gov

A spin off company is doing applications in everything else but electric generation. (Think of the possibilities in T&D!!) They call the product ProSSense. Website is at http//:www.smartsignal.com.
Contact Alan Wilks, Smart Signal Corp, Mt. Prospect IL 847-758-8418, adwilks@smartsignal.com).

———————————-

–TOPIC CAPABILITY SHEETS
Here is the text of ANL’s overview “Topic Capability Sheet”. Many of you got hardcopies of the complete set in the mail. They’re still available from Tom Wolsko (tdwolsko@anl.gov). I’ve also posted them on the UFTO website, until Argonne puts a final verion up on their own website.
———————————-

Argonne National Laboratory:
A Science and Technology Partner for the Energy Industry

Argonne is a multidisciplinary science and technology organization that
offers innovative and cost-effective solutions to the energy industry.

— Introduction
Argonne National Laboratory understands that energy companies must meet growing customer demand by creating, storing, and distributing energy and using the most efficient, cost-effective, environmentally benign technologies available to provide those services. We also understand that they must use increasingly more complex information for decision-making, comply with a multitude of environmental regulations, and adjust to a rapidly evolving marketplace.

Argonne has more than 50 years of experience in solving energy problems and addressing related issues, for both its customers and its own needs. Combining specialities such as materials science, advanced computing, power engineering, and environmental science, Argonne researchers apply cutting-edge science and advanced technologies to create innovative solutions to complex problems.

— Argonne Solutions
Recent applications of that expertise include
– A Spot Market Network model that simulates and evaluates short-term energy transactions.
– A “fuel reformer” that allows fuel cells to use a wide variety of hydrocarbon fuels to make electricity.
– Advisory systems for plant diagnostics and management based on sensors, neural networks, and expert systems.
– MSET, a real-time sensor validation system that provides early warning of sensor malfunction.
– Decontamination and decommissioning techniques developed for Argonne’s own facilities.
– Advanced materials for system components, batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels, and hazardous waste encapsulation.

— Contacts
Argonne’s Working Group on Utilities:
– Dick Weeks, 630-252-9710, rww@anl.gov
– Tom Wolsko, 630-252-3733, tdwolsko@anl.gov

For technical information, contact the person listed under the category of interest.

Nuclear Technology
David Weber, 630/252-8175, dpweber@anl.gov
– Operations and Maintenance
– Materials
– Reactor Analysis
– Safety
– Spent-Fuel Disposition

Fossil Technology
David Schmalzer, 630/252-7723, schmalzer@anl.gov
– Basic and Applied Research
– Technology Research and Development
– Market, Resource, and Policy Assessments

Transmission and Distribution
John Hull, 630/252-8580, john_hull@qmgate.anl.gov
– System Components
– Energy Storage
– Distributed Generation
– Data Gathering and Analysis
– Biological Effects

Energy Systems and Components Research
Richard Valentin, 630/252-4483, richv@anl.gov
– Component Reliability
– Sensors
– Systems Analysis

Materials Science and Technology
Roger Poeppel, 630/252-5118, rb_poeppel@qmgate.anl.gov
– Materials Characterization
– Modeling and Performance
– Advanced and Environmental Materials
– Materials Properties
– Superconductivity

Fuel Cell Research and Development
Walter Podolski, 630/252-7558, podolski@cmt.anl.gov
– Fuel Processing
– System Design, Modeling, and Analysis
– Testing
– Energy-Use Pattern Analysis

Advanced Concepts in Energy Storage
K. Michael Myles, 630/252-4329, myles@cmt.anl.gov
– Secondary Batteries
– Ultracapacitors and High-Power Energy Storage
– Flywheels
– Superconducting Magnets

Information Technology
Craig Swietlik, 630/252-8912, swietlik@dis.anl.gov
– Computer Security and Protection
– Independent Verification and Validation
– Information Management
– Advanced Computing Technologies

Environmental Science and Technology
Don Johnson, 630/252-3392, don_johnson@qmgate.anl.gov
– Environmental Characterization
– Process Modifications
– Emissions Controls
– Waste Management
– Site Management

Environmental and Economic Analysis
Jerry Gillette, 630/252-7475, jgillette@anl.gov
– Electric System Modeling and Analysis
– Risk Assessment and Management
– Environmental Assessment
– Cost and Economic Analysis
– Legal and Regulatory Analysis

Decontamination and Decommissioning
Tom Yule, 630/252-6740, tjyule@anl.gov
– Operations
– Technology
– Technical Analysis

End-Use Technologies
William Schertz, 630/252-6230, schertzw@anl.gov
– Plasma Processes
– Ultrasonic Processing
– Electrodialysis Separation Processes
– Recycling Technologies
– Aluminum and Magnesium Production

Thermal Energy Utilization Technologies
Kenneth Kasza, 630/252-5224, ke_kasza@anl.gov
– Compact Heat Exchangers
– Ice Slurry District Cooling
– Advanced Thermal Fluids

For information on working with Argonne, contact Paul Eichamer, Industrial Technology Development Center, Argonne National Laboratory, Bldg. 201, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439; phone: 800/627-2596; fax: 630/252-5230, pdeichamer@anl.gov

E-Beam Stack Gas Scrubbing

/0 Comments/in , /by

This might be titled, “Son of Ebara”, for those of you familiar with the history. It appears that dramatically better performance may be possible.

This text was provided to me by a private development group with access and connections to the new e-beam technology that is mentioned. I’ve edited the letter to remove some of the proprietary details. Even so, important ideas are disclosed. I would ask that you be especially careful not share it with anyone outside your company (as with all UFTO materials). If you’re seriously interested in pursuing this, I will put you in touch with the sources.

———————————————-

Below, please, find a short overview of both old and new developments in e-beam processing of industrial exhaust gases.

E-Beam Processing of Industrial Exhaust Gases

— Background
In the past few years new methods of decomposition of VOCs as well as inorganic compounds in flue gases have been developed, primarily involving low-temperature, non-equilibrium plasmas used to selectively decompose organic molecules. The high concentration of electrons, ions, excited species and radicals make these plasmas well suited for driving decomposition reactions that otherwise could be initiated only at very high gas temperature.

Such plasma methods are of particular interest in the decomposition of dilute concentrations of halogenated organic compounds in carrier gas streams such as dry or wet (about 10% relative humidity) air. This type of gaseous waste stream is encountered for example in vapor extraction from soil, air stripping from contaminated water and air pollution control.

Low temperature, non-equilibrium plasmas can be generated by electron beams. They operate at atmospheric pressure in large volumes and in a highly controllable fashion making very high throughput possible. It has been also demonstrated that electron beam becomes even more efficient in decomposition of certain VOCs when combined with certain type of electrical discharge.
Advantages of e-beam induced decomposition over thermal processes become even more pronounced at dilute concentrations of VOCs in the exhaust gases. Because of the high non-equilibrium level of ionization and the selectivity of plasma-chemical decomposition processes the energy required for a given decomposition of dilute concentrations of “electron hungry” VOCs can be 10 to 100 times less than in thermal processes such as incineration, where energy is channeled to all molecules in the gaseous waste stream.

— The EBARA Experience
The Electron Beam Dry Scrubbing (EBDS) process has been first proposed as an efficient method for the simultaneous removal of SO2 and NOx from industrial flue gas in early 1970s. In this process, the e-beam energy generates high concentration of oxidants (OH, HO2, O3) converting SO2 and NOx to nitric and sulfuric acid which in turn form solid powder of ammonium nitrate and sulfate in the presence of added ammonia (NH3).

The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute and the University of Tokyo have carried out the first research on EBDS in 1970. Follow up technical development by EBARA Corporation lead to the first 10,000 Nm3/hr pilot plant built for a sintering plant at Yahata Works Nippon Steel Corp in 1977. At this plant a flue gas at temperatures T=70-90 C containing 200 ppm of SO2 and 180 ppm of NOx has been treated by 2 x 750keV/45kW e-beam accelerators.

In the US the first and only EBARA-process demonstration unit with a maximum flow rate of 30,000 Nm3/hr has been put in operation in June 1985 at a coal fired power plant in Indianapolis, Indiana. At this plant 2 x 800 keV/80kW electron accelerators has been employed treating 1,000 ppm of SO2 and 400 ppm of NOx in a flue gas at temperatures T=66-150 C.

In December 1985 a 20,000 Nm3/hr pilot plant has been built at Badenwerk, Karlsruhe, FRG at 550 MW coal fired facility employing two 300KeV/90 kW accelerators to treat 50-500 ppm of SO2 and 300-500 ppm of NOx in 70-100 C exhaust gas. In early 1990s similar e-beam treatment pilot units have been built in China, Poland and Russia.

One of the main limitations of EBARA process has been a considerable energy requirement for oxidation of SO2/NOx in an air stream, which amounts in average to about 10 eV/molecule. For a coal fired 300 MW electrical power plant this translates to 12 MW (4% of the electrical power generated by the plant required e-beam power. Back in 1980s the most powerful accelerators were below 100 kW, so 12 MW installation would require 120 x100 kW accelerators and the total accelerator costs in the access of $180 mln. were prohibiting.

— What’s New
A new generation of powerful accelerators manufactured in Russia which can deliver 1MW of e-beam power for the cost of about $1.5 million per unit, can already reduce cost of EBARA process by order of magnitude.

Moreover, a synergetic approach combining electrical discharge and electron beam may allow another tenfold decrease in flue gas processing cost. This is done by essentially substituting much less expensive power of corona discharge for most of the expensive e-beam power. This process maintains all the advantages of e-beam processing such as stability of operation and uniform treatment of large volumes and high mass flows of flue gas — for a fraction of cost compare with e-beam treatment alone. Note that corona discharge alone, without e-beam stimulating effect, suffers from intrinsic non-uniformities and instabilities which greatly reduce its efficiency for industrial scale applications.

Experiments on SO2 oxidation in e-beam stimulated corona discharge have been conducted. We were investigating the plasma chemical processes in an electron beam driven plasma reactor for efficient decomposition of SO2 , NOx or any VOC in carrier gases at atmospheric pressures.

The reactor used an electron beam to stimulate corona discharge at sub-breakdown pulsed electric field. A combination of e-beam and superimposed electrical field in the form of stimulated corona discharge creates plasma with highly controllable electron density and temperature and therefore highly controllable chemical reaction rates.

Synergetic effect of SO2 decomposition by the combined action of e-beam and corona discharge was estimated by the coefficient K equal to the ratio of the discharge energy Wc, consumed from high-voltage source, to the energy Wb deposited by electron beam within the volume of the discharge:
K = Wc / Wb

It has been demonstrated that under certain experimental conditions the energy of discharge consumed from high-voltage source can exceed e-beam energy input by more than 300 times. In other words, a low cost high-voltage rectifier instead of a high-cost electron accelerator provided about 99.7% of the flue gas ionization energy. As a result the same SO2 decomposition effect in e-beam stimulated corona discharge can be achieved with 300 times lower e-beam power compare with irradiation by e-beam alone.

There some indications that shorter e-beam pulses and higher discharge threshold voltage Umax may also lead to the significant decrease of energy cost per oxidation of one SO2 molecule from a typical value of 10 eV/mol down to 3 or even 1eV/mol. However, even at the lower Umax values rather efficient SO2 oxidation process is taking place.

The main purpose of these initial experiments on SO2 oxidation was to demonstrate significance of synergetic effect in e-beam stimulated corona discharge. Discovered synergetic effect allows efficient SO2 decomposition under the conditions when only 0.3% of the total ionization energy is provided by an electron beam with the rest coming from a low cost electrical discharge. Further experiments are necessary to determine the optimum conditions for most efficient decomposition of SO2./NOx mixtures, as well as VOCs in industrial exhaust gases.

We are open to any form of collaboration with a US utility company or research organization, which would enable us to continue these very promising experiments.

I look forward to your comments and suggestions.