Mercury Emission Control Utilizing the Chem-Mod Process

Mercury Emission Control Utilizing

the

Chem-Mod Process

Chem-Mod International LLC

INTRODUCTION

• Chem-Mod International LLC is an advanced clean coal company which has developed a sorbent-based, multi-pollutant control technology called The Chem-Mod™ Solution

• Chem-Mod International is a privately held corporation

Company Overview

• Chem-Mod International was founded in 2004 with the purpose of promoting the use of the Chem-Mod technology internationally

• The technology is jointly owned with Chem-Mod LLC which provides emission control in the United States and Canada

Company Overview

• Chem-Mod’s technology substantially reduces emissions at coal-fired power plants:

– Mercury

– Sulfur Dioxide

– Nitrogen Oxide

– Heavy Metals

– Light Metals

– Chlorides

Company Overview

The Chem-Mod™ Solution

• Dual Reagent System

– MerSorb for Oxidation of Heavy Metal including Mercury

– Low maintenance, cost effective, easy to operate

• Reagents can be added to the boiler at three points:

– Before combustion

– During combustion

– After combustion

• Harmful emission contaminants are captured in the fly ash and permanently bound in a ceramic matrix

– Resulting fly ash is non-leachable

• Reagents are non-hazardous materials which require no special shipping or handling requirements

Intellectual Property

• Multiple US and International Patents Issued• Five Patent Families Applied for in China

Case No.

International Application

Chinese Application, Date

Claims Status

1 WO2006/006978200580028759.X,

3/8/2007Sulfur sorbents

Under prosecution

2a WO2006/101499200580049750.7

11/9/2007Mercury sorbents

Under prosecution

2b WO2006/0996112006800169600

11/15/2007Mercury sorbents

Under prosecution

9 WO2007/0845092007800032903

1/17/2007Business methods, NOx reduction

Awaiting examination

11 WO2007/0925042007800046427

8/6/2008Cementitious ash; non-leaching ash;

use of combustion by-productsAwaiting

examination


Pilot Scale Testing

Pilot Scale Testing

Pilot Scale Testing was performed at the

Energy and Environmental Research Center

of the

University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, ND, USA

Pilot Scale Testing

• Schematic Diagram of the Combustion Test Facility (CTF)

Pilot Plant Operating Conditions

• 575,000 – 700,000 Btu/hr• XS Oxygen – 2.75% to 3.5%• 20% Over-fire Air• ESP for Particulate Control

– 300°F - 325°F, 360°F

• Other Equipment Utilized– Wet Scrubber– SCR– Baghouse

Section 45 Test ResultsCoal Source

Test Date

Chemical TreatmentRates

Emission Reductions

Mercury

S-Sorb MerSorb Sulfur Baseline Overall NOx

Columbian Bituminous Coal June 18, 2009 0.50% 0.05% 1.24% 42.78 66.58 29.71

CAPP Bituminous Coal August 4, 2009 0.785% 0.05% 5.86% 58.04% 61.54% 21.37%

NAPP Bituminous Coal August 5, 2009 0.785% 0.10% 2.92% 69.81% 85.10% 23.93%

PRB Subbituminous Coal August 6, 2009 0.50% 0.03% 0.00% 48.44% 72.26% 28.49%

CAPP Bituminous Coal September 28, 2009 0.50% 0.10% 0.00% 65.80% 94.94% 20.90%

CAPP Bituminous Coal September 29, 2009 0.50% 0.10% 3.25% 41.60% 64.22% 22.20%

PRB Subbituminous Blend October 19, 2009 0.50% 0.02% 0.00% 45.57% 85.93% 22.42%



SAPP Bituminous Coal October 27, 2009 0.50% 0.10% 0.00% 51.37% 51.49% 22.19%

CAPP Bituminous Coal November 23, 2009 0.50% 0.10% 0.00% 67.74% 82.38 26.92%

CAPP Bituminous Coal November 23, 2009 0.50% 0.05% 0.00% 55.20% 75.75 26.92%

CAPP Bituminous Coal December 17, 2009 0.50% 0.10% 0.00% 42.66% 66.72% 22.08%

CAPP = Central Appalachian

NAPP = Northern Appalachian

PRB = Powder River Basin

SAPP = Southern Appalachian

CAPP Case Study - Operating Conditions

• 0.614 – 0.637 MMBtu/hr• FEGT = 2200°F• Excess Air = 18% to 20%• Over-Fire Air = 20%• ESP Temp = 310°F• Wet Scrubber = 290°F

• MerSorb = 0.10%• S-Sorb = 0.5%

CAPP Case Study - Fuel Analysis

Test NumberDate

AF-CTS-1067September 28, 2009


Fuel DescriptionCAPP Bituminous

Feedstock CoalCAPP Bituminous

Refined Coal

As-Fired H2O-Free As-Fired H2O-Free

Proximate Analysis, % Moisture Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash

2.8033.0754.889.25

–34.0256.469.52

2.8032.9654.2210.02

–33.9355.7610.31

Ultimate Analysis, % Hydrogen Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Oxygen Ash

5.2475.681.421.736.689.25

5.0777.861.471.784.319.52

5.1575.091.361.776.6110.02

4.9877.291.401.824.2010.31

Heating Value, Btu/lb 13,022 13,397 12,868 13,245

Mercury, µg/g, dryMaximum Flue Gas Hg µg/dNm3, @ 3.5% O2

lb/TBtu

0.116

11.538.91

0.126

12.649.79

CAPP Case Study – Emission Reductions

Test NumberDate



Fuel DescriptionCAPP Bituminous

Feedstock CoalCAPP Bituminous

Refined Coal

Corrected to 3.25% O2 Furnace Scrubber Out Furnace Scrubber Out

NOx, ppm

Hg, µg/m3

305 2981.84

241 2300.607

Mass Emission Rates Scrubber Out Scrubber Out

NOx, lb-NO2/hr

NOx, lb-NO2/MMBtu

NOx reduction, %

Hg, lb/hr Hg, lb/TBtu Hg Reduction, % From Baseline From Coal

0.2710.426

–

9.13 x 10-07

1.43

–83.95

0.2070.33720.90

3.01 x 10-07

0.490

65.7394.99

PRB Case Study - Operating Conditions

• PRB Blend Produced at Section 45 Production Facility

• Treatment Rates– MerSorb = 0.021%– S-Sorb = 0.51%

• Operating Conditions– FEGT = 2200°F– 20% XS Air (3.5% Flue Gas O2)– 20% Over-Fire Air– ESP = 310°F

PRB Case Study – Fuel AnalysisRun Number:Date:

AF-CTS-1126April 20, 2010


Fuel Description:Date Sampled:

Feedstock CoalMarch 31, 2010

Refined CoalMarch 31, 2010

As-Fired Moisture-Free As-Fired Moisture-Free

Proximate Analysis, wt% Moisture Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash

18.1029.0744.768.07

–35.5054.659.85

20.3029.1543.776.78

–36.5654.948.50

Ultimate Analysis, wt% Hydrogen Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Oxygen Ash

5.8554.850.750.3530.418.07

4.6966.640.910.4317.489.85

6.0153.390.760.38

32.696.78

4.7166.960.950.47

18.418.50

Heating Value, Btu/lb 9351 11,418 9276 11,634

Hg Content, µg/g, dryTheoretical Flue Gas Hg @ 3.5% O2, µg/dNm3

lb/TBtu

0.0549

7.9325.871

0.0539

8.0225.811

PRB Case Study – Corrected Hg Emissions

PRB Case Study – Test Results

Run Number:Date:



Fuel Description: Feedstock Coal Refined Coal

Corrected to 3.5% O2: Furnace ESP Furnace ESP

NOx, ppm SO2, ppm Hg, µg/dNm3

202320

195319

3.363

135310

138309

0.836

Mass Emission Rates: ESP Out ESP Out

NOx, lb NO2/hr NOx, lb NO2/MMBtu SO2, lb/hr SO2, lb/MMBtu

Hg, lb/hr Hg, lb/TBtu

0.1770.272

0.4040.620

1.64×10-6

2.525

0.1290.195

0.3850.583

4.15×10-7

0.629

Emission Reductions, % NOx

SO2

Hg

From Coal–

17.1857.76

From Baseline28.315.97

77.51

From Coal–

22.1289.18

Pilot Scale Testing

• Energy & Environmental Research Center• University of North Dakota• 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018• Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202-9018

• World Wide Web: www.undeerc.org• Telephone No. 1 (701) 777-5258• Fax No. 1 (701) 777-5181

• Jay Gunderson, Research Engineer• [email protected]


Full Scale Testing

Full Scale Test Program

ORIGINAL TEST PROGRAM 2004 – 2008

• Testing to demonstrate multiple emission controls– Sulfur– Mercury– NOx

• Application rates of reagents were significantly higher than current program standards

Full Scale Test Program

• Seven Full Scale Burn Tests Conducted Over Four Year Period

• Five different Utility companies involved

• Unit sizes range from 30 to 190 MWe (net)

• Multiple injection points utilized

• Multiple reagent formulas tested

• Multiple application rates tested

Reagent Injection Options

Fuel flow

Dry chemical

Liquid chemical

Control circuit

Various points of CMA injection1. Blending point on coal bunker feed conveyor2. Platework area at bottom of coal bunker3. Coal feeder prior to mill/pulveriser4. Furnace door openings/upper level fire area5. Ash refiring distribution lines

Various points on coal bunker feed conveyor6. Blending point on coal bunker feed conveyer7. Platework area at bottom of coal bunker8. Coal feeder prior to mill/pulveriser

Feed coal pile

Coal feed conveyor

Coal bunker

7

1

6

8

3

2

4

5

Ash collection

Marketable ash to sales

Liquid delivery, Storage, distribution

Ash bin

CMA delivery, mixing, storage, distribution

Mill /pulveriser

Coal feeder

Coal injectors

Furnace

Optional coal feed

Furnace door opening

Upper level of furnace

Ash refiredistribution

Totes Totes

Computer interface regulates chemical distribution to coal fuel feed

to furnace

Containment area Liquid chemical delivery

Chemical distribution

pumps

Large volume storage tanks

Dust collector

Storage bin

Pnumatic distribution system

Dry chemical delivery by trains

cars or tractor trailer

Premixed silo/equipment

Mix on site silos/equipment

Reclaim tunnel and conveyor

Full Scale Test Equipment

Reagent Injection Points – Coal Feeders


S-Sorb Day Bins


MerSorb Storage Totes and Pump Station


S-Sorb Bulk Storage

Full Scale Test Results

Date Plant Location Plant Size / Type Coals Burned

Chem-Mod Reduction from Baseline

Hg(%)

Sulfur(%)

NOx(%)

Oct 2005 Michigan30 MWe StokerDry Scrub

Mixed fuel blend (e.g. PRB, Illinois Basin)

98% 40% 21%

Nov 2005 Missouri160 MWe T-Fired ESP

PRB (Powder River Basin Subbituminous)

90% 75% 10%

Dec 2005 Montana160 MWe T-Fired ESP

PRB 86% 48% 18%

Aug 2006 Illinois80 MWe T-Fired ESP

PRB 87% 68% 31%

Illinois Basin 76% 20% 15%

Oct 2006 Missouri160 MWe T-Fired ESP

PRB 98% 65% 13%

Dec 2007 Maryland135 MWe Wall-FiredESP

NAPP (Northern Appalachian, Bituminous)

97% 14% 33%

Dec 2007 Maryland190 MWe Cyclone Baghouse

South American (Bituminous)

98% 44% 20%

Jun 2008 Montana160 MWe T-Fired ESP

PRB 91% 30% 20%

Full Scale Test - Other Benefits

• No issues were identified in power plant operations• Particular care was taken in observation of:

– Pulverizers– Burners– Boiler Water Walls– Tube Pendants– Air Heater Sections– ESPs– Baghouses


• Improved Fly Ash characteristics

• Improved heat rates due to reduced fouling

• Potential reduced CO2 Emission due to more efficient operation and possible carbonate formation

• Reduced emission of heavy metals other than Hg

• Potential increase in SCR catalyst life due to Arsenic removal

• Decreased scale buildup on boiler tubes


Buildup of slag between the boiler tubes Notice how you can see all the way back to the brick wall

Notice how clean the area closest to the injection point is

Boiler Tubes from PRB burning plant after furnace injection of S-Sorb at 5 to 6% for five days.

Full Scale Test Program – Section 45

• United States IRS Code Section 45– Reduce NOx by 20% from baseline emission– Reduce Hg or SO2 by 40% from baseline emission

• Pilot Scale Tests Successful for NOx / Hg Reduction– Reagent Formula Modified– Application Rates Significantly Reduced

• Vehicle for Initial Commercialization

Section 45 Full Scale Test Program

• Section 45 Tests performed 2009 to present

• Tests Performed with Three Utilities at Four Sites

• Demonstrate Compatibility With Power Plant Systems “DO NO HARM”– Boilers– Burners– Pulverizers– ESP– SCR– Scrubber– Baghouse

Section 45 Full Scale Test Results

Date Plant LocationPlant Size /

TypeCoals Burned

HgT

Baseline(µg/m3)

Chem-Mod(µg/m3)

Reduction (%)

Jan 2009 Michigan120 MWeFront WallESP

80% PRB,20% CAPP

5.58 1.94 65.8%

Jun 2009 Maryland300 MWeOpposed WallESP, SCR

CAPP 4.56 1.99 56.4%

Mar 2010 Florida440 MWeT-Fired ESP

CAPP 1.50 0.71 53.9%

Oct 2010 Maryland

600 MWeOpposed WallESP, SCR,Wet Scrub

CAPP 0.98 0.64 34.8%


Commercial Operation


• Section 45 Refined Coal Program

- vehicle for commercialization

• Chem-Mod Solution licensed to four companies

• Refined Coal Facilities running at 8 power plants owned

by three different utilities

• Twenty additional Refined Coal Facilites in the

installation process at other sites

• Initial startup of facilities occurred in December 2009

Generating Stations with Section 45 Facilites in Operation

StationNo of

BoilersBoiler Features Fuel Emission Controls

CR 4600 MWe

(3) Tangential, (1) Opposed Wall(2) CAP/NAPP/IB Blend

(2) CAPESP, SCR, Wet Scrub

WY 4300 MWe

4 Opposed WallCAPP ESP, SCR, Wet Scrub

MM 2130 MWe

(2) Tangential CAPP ESP, SCR, Wet Scrub

UA 1100 MWe

(1) Front Wall CAPP ESP

CA 3(2) 130 MWe Tangential(1) 225 MWe Tangential

CAPP(2) ESP

(1) Baghouse

SC 5(4) 120 MWe Front Wall(1) 300 MWe Tangential

PRB/CAPP Blend ESP

BR 2600 MWe

Opposed WallPRB ESP

JF 2130 MWe Tangential

CAPP ESP

TOTAL 23

Typical Chem-Mod Section 45 Process Flow Diagram

Typical 3000 ton/hr Chem-Mod Refined Coal Production Facility

S-Sorb Bulk Storage Silo

MerSorb Bulk Storage Tanks

Twin 1500 ton/hr Pug Mill type Mixers

Hg Emission From Power Plantswith Section 45 Chem-Mod Refined Coal

Station Boiler Emission Controls

2010 AverageHg

Emission(µg/m3)

ReductionFrom

Theoretical(%)

CR Unit 1 600 MWe T-Fired ESP, SCR, Wet Scrub 0.234 97.8%

CR Unit 2 600 MWe Opposed Wall ESP, SCR, Wet Scrub 0.373 96.5%

WY Unit 1 300 MWe Opposed Wall ESP, SCR, Wet Scrub 0.415 96.1%

UR Unit 3 100 MWe Front Wall ESP 4.637 56.7%

CA Unit 1 130 MWe T-Fired ESP 3.322 69.0%

MM Unit 1 130 MWe T-Fired Baghouse 0.137 98.7%

Notes:1) Theoretical Hg value estimated from fleet average as fired Hg content of coal at 0.126 µg/g (ppm) at 12,000 BTU as fired.

When Corrected to 6% O2, this yields a standard Hg flue gas concentration of 10.707 µg/m3.

2) Only units with installed Continuous Mercury Monitors appear in this table.

Commercial Operation Further Development

• Baghouse and Scrubber equipped units approach or

achieve 90% Hg reduction from theoretical emission

• ESP equipped units are significantly improved from

baseline, but have yet to achieve 90% theoretical capture

• Case study under way to improve Hg capture on units

which are only equipped with an ESP

• S-Sorb reagent formula modifications in progress

• Altered application rate of MerSorb and S-Sorb to

increase capture effectiveness

Section 45 Case StudyInitial Test Hg Results – PRB Coal


• To date, utilities have burned more than 8 Million Tons of

Chem-Mod Refined Coal

• Several units have operated on 100% Chem-Mod

Refined Coal since February 2010

• No units have reported any operational issues

associated with handling or burning Chem Mod

Refined Coal


Conclusion

Chem-Mod’s Many Advantages

• SO2, Hg, Heavy and Light Metals, and Chlorides

• Removes Elemental Mercury

• Permanently locks contaminants in ash

• Creates saleable fly ash

• Avoid Scrubbing

• Low capital and maintenance costs

• Minimum downtime

• Small footprint required for equipment

• Minimal parasitic load

Effective Multi-Pollutant Control

Low-Cost Solution

• Readily available chemicals that require no special handling

• No toxic waste created

Environmentally Sound

Conclusion & Questions

Further information can be found at: www.Chem-Mod.com

or email us at:[email protected]

Chem-Mod International, LLC3745 East Overlook Drive

Port Clinton, OH 43452

1-419-497-4897 (office)

Documents

Mercury Emission Control Utilizing the Chem-Mod Process