English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The injection of sorbents upstream of a particulate control device is one of the most promising methods for controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired utility boilers with electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters. Studies carried out at the bench-, pilot-, and full-scale have shown that a wide variety of factors may influence sorbent mercury removal effectiveness. These factors include mercury species, flue gas composition, process conditions, existing pollution control equipment design, and sorbent characteristics. The objective of the program is to obtain the necessary information to assess the viability of lower cost alternatives to commercially available activated carbon for mercury control in coal-fired utilities. Prior to injection testing, a number of sorbents were tested in a slipstream fixed-bed device both in the laboratory and at two field sites. Based upon the performance of the sorbents in a fixed-bed device and the estimated cost of mercury control using each sorbent, seventeen sorbents were chosen for screening in a slipstream injection system at a site burning a Western bituminous coal/petcoke blend, five were chosen for screening at a site burning a subbituminous Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, and nineteen sorbents were evaluated at a third site burning a PRB coal. Sorbents evaluated during the program were of various materials, including: activated carbons, treated carbons, other non-activated carbons, and non-carbon material. The economics and performance of the novel sorbents evaluated demonstrate that there are alternatives to the commercial standard. Smaller enterprises may have the opportunity to provide lower price mercury sorbents to power generation customers under the right set of circumstances

ASSESSMENT OF LOW COST NOVEL SORBENTS FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT MERCURY CONTROL