EMPIRICAL MODELS OF EMISSIONS
AND ENERGY EFFICIENCIES OF COAL-FIRED
FLUIDIZED BED POWER PLANTS
J. Gruhl
J.D. Teare
Energy Laboratory
Report No. MIT-EL 78-015
September 1977
Empirical Models of Emissions and Energy Efficiencies
of Coal-Fired Fluidized Bed Power Plants
J. Gruhl
J. D. Teare
September 1977
MIT Energy Lab
Cambridge
MA 02139
NOTICE
This report was prepared at the M.I.T. Energy Laboratory, Cambridge,
Massachusetts as an account of a portion of work performed on a subcontract
to Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Linden, New Jersey, as part of a
program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. None of
these organizations nor any person acting in behalf of these organizations
(a) makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect
to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained
in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or
process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights;
or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report.
EMPIRICAL MODELS OF EMISSIONS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCIES
OF COAL-FIRED FLUIDIZED BED POWER PLANTS
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Plant Design Configurations . . . . . . . . ...
3.1 Fluidized Bed Combustion Programs in Progr
3.2 Basis for Comparison . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Operating and Design Parameters . .
3.2.2 Atmospheric FBC Designs . . . . . .
3.2.3 Pressurized FBC Designs ....
3.2.4 Potassium Topping FBC Designs
. .
3.3
Energy Balance Evaluations . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Comparison of Fuels . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Atmospheric FBC Energy Balance. . .
3.3.3 Pressurized FBC Energy Balance. ..
3.3.4 Potassium Topping FBC Energy Balance
4. Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
4.1 Air Emissions of Atmospheric FBC .
4.1.1 Air Balance . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 Flue Gas Emissions . . . . . . . .
4.1.2.1 Sulfur Oxides . . . . . . .
4.1.2.2 Nitrogen Oxides . . . . . .
4.1.2.3 Hydrocarbons
. . .. . . .
pages
4.1.2.4 Trace Metals .
..
9)
3
. 4
.
6
7
, r
B's;
7
35
36
43
51
51
58
58
66
90
113
125
125
125
125
128
156
187
195
205
.
4.1.2.5 Particulates . . . . . . .
4.1.2.6 Carbon Monoxide . . . . . .
4.1.2.7 Other Fuel Gas Emissions..
4.1.3 Other than Flue Gas Air Emissions .
4.2 Air Emissions of Pressurized FBC .
...
4.2.1 Air Balance ...........
4.2.2 Flue Gas Emissions
........
4.2.3 Other Air Emissions . ......
4.3 Air Emissions from Potassium Topping FBC.
4.3.1 Air Balance . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Flue Gas Emissions
........
4.3.3 Other Air Emissions . . . . . . . .
4.4 Emissions to Water . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Solid Effluents .
. . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Noise, Odor, and Aesthetics ......
4.7 Other Fuel Cycle Effects . . . . . . . .
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. References and Bibliography.........
.
O
220
O
225
225
226
226
226
248
248
248
249
O
250
.
251
251
262
263
267
269
ABSTRACT
*
.Mass and energy balances of fluidized bed energy technologies are to a
significant degree dependent upon the specific design being investigated.
It
is difficult to make any generally accurate comments.about these balances.
This
study attempts to solve this difficulty by displaying a large amount of available
data, especially on parametric experiments, for the specific designs. To the
extent that generalizations about the efficiencies and emissions of these cycles
are possible empirical correlation models have been developed, along with
measures of the predictive quality of these models over existing data bases.
These empirical correlations consist of probabilistic models that have been
fit to published experimental data. In several instances, there have been
comparison of these empirical models with available analytic models.
In
the cases of unavailable experimental data, such as for the potassium
topping cycles, models have been fit to analytic data. Although the
overall scale of this effort was very small compared to other fluidized bed
reviews, such as those performed at Babcock and Wilcox, Burns and Roe, and
Battelle-Columbus, the empirical models are new and in the narrow scope of
this study some of the literature reviews are more comprehensive than
others available at this time. Extensive bibliographic research and
identification of on-going projects is also included in this report.
'2
1.
Summary
This report
and emissions of
configurations.
the primary ones
contains probabilistic models of the energy efficiencies
various fluidized bed coal (FBC) combustion
There are several intended uses for these types of models,
being:
1. a means of generating information on FBC performance that can
be useful in larger models that investigate national policy
questions,
2. an input to an assessment of various energy cycles on a
comparative basis,
3. a method for measuring the gap between analytical
models and empirical models,
4. a method of directing the search fr the most
attractive values of design and operating
parameters, and
5. a systematic method of identifying and quantifying
the extent of need for key pieces of information
that are now inadequately known.
There are still a number of conceptual uncertainties with respect
to the "overall best" design, conceptual uncertainties that
examinations with models can be helpful in resolving; some of these
are shown in Table 1.1. In the final analysis, however, it will be
a complex evaluation of tradeoffs that will determine the efficiency
and emissions of the "optimum" system, and in this effort the modeling
will be indispensible.
I
I
e
:
*
C
VI
4'
I.1...
t)°
·
O*
t,-Im
0
L
.C0.0
0
>
C'0.
-
0
-,
=~~~~
C -O
-
o"
0
m
l
Ai
O
-*WI
-
4'
1I)
4'
.-
0
C.
C .VI -O
04)-MI
~..m
Y
Ai
1
,0'1
O
1-
. , .
:2 -
X-
C
1-
0
>
*
.'
c
0)
10
V' o0
-4
14
_0
o
C4'
'
a
'-
-
C
C
,,
-
U0
>
VI
I
10
C0.Q
C
t _ '
0
*-
0@
5
C JC
' 0 0 0
S V
4)
t=£
0.
-1
..
101
C '-5
*
U'
5
'0
-
'0
> :
~
Ui
3
0
'
4'1
-
VI
zSV IUE
0
- L4'i
VI
_
D
E0
CJ
0
.cLi
in
*
L
C 0tJ-1
0
0
C
to
'
1.3
C
01
E
61
-
L
.: V-W
0.0
_ u0
0.)
'00
0.
0
0
-
-
00
-. 0
4'
-0
@
U V
C
- 0
0
. 0 14
> 0
_ 0 1 4.
.C
I
D
3. 4
'
%t
-'
.1 0
61.
N
0
0
0
_)
C
*-C O
L i-
O.
0s
L.
1-C
1 4O
, . 01£1 0
0)
C
0
-
0.
X-
*.
C
0
10
1)3
-1
'.0.
-
L
>0
.
.-
_
61
.0
-w
.
L
.--. S .
c
.-.
0
o
-
I
O
00
01
-
£
8
o
CA
I*
0
) 0
VI
1 V
0
1 -C
L i-
-
1-
1
*. 0
0
D 0
2 D-0
0
0110
10
o- Li0
E0.'O
u-
4-
1 01 >
-
*.L
0
0
_
1*
0.
5 0 )
'C
L C)
C
OL-V
I.
' 0 C0
1O 0
.
v3
00
1-
c
10
_I>
- I
o
01
C
.IA
C
1-
4)-o
0
.0
.
10'
''
.0
U0.
U
U C)
*
-O - O.-.
0
.0-
-- I
1
0
c
c
u
-
~
0 "
Q '
CC
0 0.
C-
'0
4'a
o
10
C
0'
I-'-- ,4O
m
0
E0
L.
C 0C
O
°
1
,
4'
-
- 4'
VI
'1 0.
U
.
01
C
.C
"'5 . 4
0).-
~
4,~
0 0
U
5.
' 0.
.
00
0.0 CL
.
"'0
W~~~~E
20 .
0
C
t.)
z U
~~~~l
C
m
>
, 1O1
0 61
L iO
I
.
Ut
1- 1 0
0
I .
1v
'0
3.
L1-
z
3 m>
0
1
5C
O
.
0 40@
.
>
O
3.
-
3
..
- *
1 0>
r
-
I.> goC
0 10
1
. za
.
D' 4 . - i )
- 0
1
U S141E )
-
4'X
S
10
X U
0
2
2
0
4.
C~~~
C
ra
c~
0
0
(v
L.
In
*
*
9
.
9
~ ~ ~ .. CC~
.
3. lu
-
EC_
I.
0)
C
O V
CI.
0
'04's~
4.-
-
0.
o
,G)
r,0
I.-
E
~~~~o
~~
~
~
C
~
I--0
AtQ<o
" -
-
s
*
.--
01
--
_
-
-
4'
'10i
~~~0
I..
e
>>WI
0
.0
~0
'0
=
3.
e
-
*
~ ~ ~C
0¢0D
I0
C
I
-
'0
'
-
V_-I0
1
1
>
)
C .
rC
01
° 0-
= o2
E
-C
0
3
SC
.c.- 0 0..O
L.C
O .
1- U
O
P .
C0
O
~o
o
10-
E
V@4
V
C-
0C i
0V I.
C
- 04
-
_
1.-Li
*
0
(
-
0.;
.00
05
1
=e C
L.
I. m
1-*
O -
0.0
E
0
'c
0
.010O
4'
C
~~~~~~~~.
-V-
o3
5
.O
-
'0
C
,M0
0
0
0
-
s
-
0
~~~~~~~~~
*
4
-o'
0 0 0~~~~~~~~
61 _
C~~
.0
I.
o
10
0.
*
O
-E
0ER
Cm
.m
m0
°
_,i0
-
"0
I1
-,.
.'0
'O L
0
-
-
6
C
20
-C O
1
-
-
U@
EO
C'0
061
n
u1
01
C
-)4
E
_
Wff
10 _O0
C
0
-
E
r-.0
,m
c
.
0IC
E 2
Ca.
2 4'
.
1-'0
0
I,U
·-,
0
.D
-1-,~
cI'C
40~
-
0
E
EU=~~~
..-~~~~~
>
F--m
s
C~
51.
·
X:E- cC
Q1
C U4H
'0M~~~~~~~
~C~~
.0.
r-0~
e
4-
E
U)
S.-
o
1
'o
E
s.-
Z
4'
4o
v
10
I.
~_ _
5
-
61
.t
4'
o
10
1.
6VI~
1
V
C
0
"'0
-.,.
4'
Z
- VI
C
0
c
~~~~~~~
.J
- 0I .
0
fil
C
0
C
O-
3 c-
-
<C
E
4.
--.
o0
I- a
' )
0
v n
2. Introduction
The objective of this study is to develop probabilistic models of
the energy efficiencies and the emissions of the various fluidized bed
This is accomplished by fitting those
coal combustion configurations.
It is
models to the experimental data available in the literature.
not a difficult task to fit models to data, once format and parameters
have been decided; it is however a time consuming task. The amount of
experimental data available on the atmospheric and the pressurized
fluidized bed combustors now exceeds that which can be handled
effectively by manual efforts. Revisions of these analytic models
must be performed on a computerized data management system. EPRI has
sponsored a data base on atmospheric experimental results that is now
available (Strom, et al., 1976). No parallel data base is currently
available for pressurized systems, although one is presently being
undertaken at M.I.T. Energy Lab under DOE sponsorship.
This particular study has been kept tractable by focusing only on
the endpoints of efficiencies and emissions; internal modeling efforts
which do not aid in efficiency and emission characterizations, as
interesting as they may be, are not included. An attempt has been
made to mention analytic modeling efforts whenever these have been
found, and to describe the gaps that exist between their predictions
and the actual experimental results.
Clearly, the fact that experimental data have been used does not
assure that these results are correct, or that they have been
interpreted properly. Where conflicts in information have been found
these are noted. An additional confounding difficulty is caused by
the fact that much of the available data, particularly the earlier
data, is far from the range of current interesting operating
conditions and was often obtained on designs that are well below the
It is difficult or impossible, on sight, to
current state-of-the-art.
determine the degree of validity of available results. Since there is
continuing interest in improving the empirical models that are
presented, it would be very helpful if experts in this field could
forward critical responses. In addition, the sheer size of the
bibliography is no guarantee that the important sources are included
and additions would be appreciated.
3.
Plant Design Configurations
Even within the categories of atmospheric, pressurized, and metal
topping fluidized bed combustors there are considerable variations in the
designs of the facilities. Variations occur, for example, in the placement
of the tubes, shapes and size of combustion chamber, number of reheats,
methods of returning fines, and so on. Some of the resulting differences
in performance are not striking and the efficiency and emission information
from these variations are comparable. Some variations are amenable to
quantification such as cross-sectional area of combustion chambers.
Unfortunately, however, some of the variations in configurations are not
comparable or quantifiable and must essentially be accounted separately.
After a description of FBC programs in progress, the design variations are
enumerated.
3.1 Fluidized Bed Combustion Programs in Progress
The greatest advances and attention have revolved around the larger
sized experimental facilities. The same organizations that have been
involved in FBC research in the past have worked with these larger
experimental rigs. New organizations have been introducing themselves to
the field by way of paper studies.
In terms of analytic studies at the most general level, there are
several programs that propose comprehensive across-the-board assessments of
environmental aspects of energy technologies. These general assessments
require results of analytic engineering evaluations such as those presented
in this report and, in turn, these narrower scope studies must direct their
search for information to be of most use to those broader programs. DOE
sponsored overview programs include the National Coal Utilization
Assessment being carried out by Argonne as part of their Regional Studies
Program and the Environmental Control Technology Program also at Argonne
[see (Gruhl, et al., 1976)].
Most of the more important of the other overall assessments have and
are being developed with EPA sponsorship. One of the initial programs,
conducted at EPA with help from Battelle-Columbus was completed in 1974
(Hall, Choi, and Kropp; 1974). This was one of the original projects to
use modularization of fuel types, combustion types, and abatement types.
The information from the module for high-pressure fluidized-bed combustion
with combined cycle is shown in the following table and footnotes.
7
Table 3.1-1
Environmental Data for Module (Hall, Choi, Kropp, 1974).
Module - Fluid-Bed Combustion Plus Combined Cycle Unit - 106 Btu
(input to combustion cycle).
_
~,
_
Fuel Input, Coal,
Parameters
Environm-.ental
._NOx,lb
----
0.14(1)
0.7(2)
lb
S02
CO, lb
-
o
Particulate
.02(3)
lb
Total organic material, lb
eat, i0 --Btu
-
ast
0
. 0.62(4)
Ilater
lb
Suspcnded solids,
Dissolved solids, lb
Total organic miaterial, lb
Heat, 106 Bu
0
0
0
Negligible after cooling tower
lb
Acid (112504),
0
Slag, lb
0
Solid
'-.
17.3(5)
Ash, lb
Sludgc, lb
0
0
Hazardous, lb
0
Tailings, lb
1. 9(6)
.By-Products
Occupational
lealth
1.5 x 10 - 9 ( 7 )
Deaths
3.6 x 10 - o t )
1.4 x 10-5(9)
Total Injuries
-:an Days Lost
.ancl Use.
_U-e. acre-h-/10
7n
Approx.
r
I'a.,
6
Btu
ffiicinc
0.12(10)
,-,
Footnotes for Table 3.1-1
(1) a.
Average value of 0.07 and 0.22 lb/10 6 BTU reported in
Westinghouse Report.
(2) a.
b.
SO emission factor reported = 1 b/106 BTU.
Adjustment factor for sulfur content = 0.7 (i.e., 3.0/4.3).
(3) a.
Particulate emission factor reported = 0.02 lb/10 6 BTU.
(4) a.
Efficiency of the module (assumed) = 38%.
(5) a.
b.
c.
Ash content of eastern coal (assumed) = 1 .4%.
Heating value of coal (assumed) = 24 x 10 BTU/ton.
Limestone requirement per pound of sulfur = 1.75 lb.
(6) a.
b.
c.
d.
The sole by-product is elemental sulfur.
Sulfur content of coal (assumed) = 3%.
90% of sulfur is collected by limestone gassumed).
Sulfur loss from Claus unit = 0.35 lb/10 BTU.
(7) a.
Injuries calculated from fluid-bed combustion plant and gasfired power plant operations.
40 men operate a 500 ton coal/hr capacity combustion plant
(assumed).
Using chemical industry data fr gasification plant, injuries
per man hour = 8.1 injuries/10 man hours
Death rate (assume) = 5% of injuries.
Death attributed to a 100 MW gas-fired power plant = 0.01
deaths/year
b.
c.
d.
e.
(8) a.
Injuries attributed to a 1000 MW gas-fired power plant = 0.6
injuries/year.
(9) a.
Using chemical industry data fog gasification plant, man-days
lost per man hour = 528 days/10 man hours.
Man days lost per death (assumed) = 6000 days/death.
Man days lost attributed to a 1000 MW gas-fired power plant =
197 man-days/year.
b.
c.
(10)a.
b.
Land requirement for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant
(assumed) = 800 acres.
Additional land requirement for fluid-bed combustion unit
(assumed)
(11)a.
Efficiency
= 150 acres.
38%.
Q
Table 3.1-2
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
(by Teknekron, Inc.)
Program: 1976-1979 to study 1975-2000
Initial Task Emphasis:
-
Fossil fuel electricity generation
Primary and secondary air pollutants
Short-range and long-range dispersion of air
Human populations exposed to air pollutants
Next Task Examines:
- Key assumptions
- Reliability of data
- Accuracy of models
Levels of confidence on economic and
environmental impacts
In terms of ongoing electric power assessment programs the Teknekron
project is currently the most detailed under EPA sponsorship. Above is a
brief description of the emphasis of that ITA program. A number of
different assumptions will be used to create the inputs to many sensitivity
studies planned for the ITA. The variables for these different scenarios
are shown on the following page. The flow chart for the ITA mechanism is
shown on the next following page in Figure 3.-1.
It is important to note
that the ITA goes through the physically significant environmental modeling
process and thus will require some kind of duration models for the
emissions to make possible the exposure computations shown as an ITA
module.
11
0
u
QR.
0
-i
00.
u "0
(a
0 C:0 US "C
E
'2
Q4-i
C
0
C
0
4-i
L
0
Q
'a)o 4"40
_
OL
30o
oaO
I-
C
4'4)
- 0
C
o
_ tn
)C
4.'-0C
0
C.0
Co
5w
>'00
- o= --
I)C
1
C4iU)
E 0
'ON
41 4
CL L
On
.r*0
0o'
CC..:
C
-u
C
m
4)
0
0.
4 I.'-cC 4
04-
G) a
LC
4)CO
00
_E Q
W n
I.L-
4
0 0
0C C0
'-_a
(0"X L"
Li Li
0
4-;
CL
CM
0
..4-i
o~~~~~
I.-
- .o
z
a1
0
0a
SIC
4)
Gi
-0
04 4-
4
4i
(A
~0
-C
ca
4-
C
C
ci
1-1
r-_
f-
I_
-
.
0
C
.
S-
Q-
CY
4)
4-
0
C
di
I
0
0
~0
t%
Cc--
4-,-
oC
a0
0
c
<C
'-C
C
I-
o3
wn
o
C C
roro'-
0-
in
>E
Z 41 <
4
in
0-
-C
C
c
C
0
SC'.C
n 0
C
U4- --0> i11
o._ _FV4)'-
4)
CD
,0
c-.ro
0
4.1
Ca
F-
LUJ
0'-
CO 4..
C 4-L
Cq'-
0 C ,-
0
4)4.1
I-
0 - =_0
o_
0
4-)
..
4)>,
C
50
'S
f
in
0 - <-C4). 0L 40
0 X . Co
C
X
Q
N4
0
O L
(i 44
a
^-0
O CCoin
._
0
tal
C
ro
-.0
4-
"-4._
m
e-0
_:
4Ji
'
CL
U
> E
L
,,: -
S.*
*
C
-
(1J
C
I-
C
I- 0-
04-
Li
C
0
in
L
t4i
4J1
4-i
in
C
-0
C
4-
0
oz
o
41
WC-)
L.
Lu
co
C
4)
4-
u-i
. O aLc .
lu
I
=
N
CL 1- C
_-
L
0
-0
0
4)
CO
zS-
4)
C
0O LU
C
C
4)j
'a
C
IC
-
- .-
0
4-'
C->-.z oC 0
0 ,-0
CL.
.-C
EX
.:) Co 0 Co
L-
(D a.
12
0
E
*E C)
.L.
X 4
Z 4o
a,
.
I
9-
I-4
C)
4-)
L
0:n
19
4-)
.9-
0
c
ED
l_
1.
4-3
ou
-
.3
E;
I-
o
C
0
C~
0
0,
S-
0o
a
9-
_
u
0
5.-
0
4-
L-j
la-
I
r
I
Ad '
I
I
AdI
I
--
I-
I
t_
I.,r
0
I
U
I
..-9, Z
-_-
Ad:: I
V.-
I.,
-U v
:Z
9
l
I
I
13
t
Table 3.1-3
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Program: in modules
1974-1976 combined 1977-1980
for period 1975-1985 (eventually 1990)
Purpose: tool for assessing the potential impact of existing and
proposed:
- environmental
regulations
- environmental and energy policies
based on alternative
sets of assumptions for:
- economic trends
- demographic trends
The SEAS project, initiated at EPA and later receiving considerable
revision from DOE, is briefly described in Table 3.1-3. It is a model of
the interaction of energy and environmental problems with the entire
national economy (modelled using a large input/output scheme). Thus, SEAS
takes into consideration material and resource availability,capabilities of
supportive industries, and so on. The list of atmospheric pollutants
collected in SEAS is given on the following page, and the flow chart for
SEAS on the next page after that. There may soon be revisions to the list
and setup of SEAS pollutants, and anticipating these as near-future changes
could be worthwhile.
First, since respirability of particulates is
strqngly dependent upon particle size (around one to one-half micron being
most deposited on lung surface) it would be useful to collect spectra of
particle sizes. Hydrocarbons definitely should be split to inert,
reactive, and different strengths of carcinogenic potential. These are
areas where research on the emissions from FBC technologies is just now
underway.
SEAS as shown in Figure 3.1-3 uses the shortcut of emission-to-ambient
scaling rather than dispersion modeling, and uses emission-to-damage
16
i
.
~!
--.
,-. r-1
-..
I
ri-i
i
I. ,
1:!
a
P
I
Ii
*
9
'
*!
i * * r t-,-.:,o - f
3
:.
:.;-
r
j-t 1!
.td ..
. -;t
, ·
.tt
... .. .-I,
- e
!. . _
:;I
I.--.
.-
.:
I
.
.; -
I
z__6
I -
I
*''
._ - ;_:
-
.
I
_
1
;
i, J
_
-
^.
,4i
;
.
_ ,
S,;
. .-..-
-1I-
: ;
E.
.ai:.!~
:_¢
.-- -I
.
jr!'.
0 *
*
n.
.
-
· ...
a..
.
·..
'
't
~,[.'I~ 'I_
~~.
*~
'.:-
t
L
: e: i * .,.. . I
! aa~~~g
I:
_
*
,
_
;1~:: |
C~
9
I.
,-, ,. I :· I
..
L:
J~~~'
i
-i
fil'r-:.- ._4
.
,,-; ·
*444.
I''.T-;
&
.
*
F
!
_
.. . ;_
tl, !1
.' .
'! t~Z''; .-t- -,'-'e
'~L--
7
-1
I.. II
-
.*l*
;
.
i
t t-.,.
.....-]jL
'.
;,,
l,:
;
'
,
;
'
·
t;
r},. I/-~ t-. . I' I!?:i.
r
*.
.i
'I
II!
I!
'i
,
i -
I. ...
I
1 ! '
1
H*1
:
rr
j
j
.1
i
P
IrilS
-o.. .... .. I
O
'_o
i.':..E:.:._'_£..T
* .- t'
I a; -
-
I
· ;-
I
.
*-
..I , I , L
. -,
* * * LI Tr
w
9.
C
$,
T
a-
.-. , -r..
:'.! -I
.''f
;·I '., t,
....-': .L--.
-r:-Zl
jJ, !X
·
.
.
;..
-
cL
i
t: -t.J
!:: t-;I .;l'_L*
*
.
: !t :. i
.i, l@lII,
.
..
,-
.
·
".-I
o,
*
. '
' .I .I ,
*, . I...+.,,-.,--c.
.- ...,:!.
.
.
I.;' ,
.n .
. ;..;.
I
'
Iai
iII1.
:
'
·
'
I
·
I
l
I, - '''
le' ill
.L.
'
'-
cm
: .go
;I
: ':
*
411--
~I
_ i_
I9
_ '
I
.9 -* -
a-
*
I
a
-...
*1 --.
'
Y.
9-
a
66g
-f
rn
* a
.1-:
''. :.'-.
~.r,
.
41
A~~~ ~
69
I.
- A.-I
I I I '.
...
S
*'
'
|
,I
''
·
·
;'
elI
ei
m
.':-".- i:-..:.-.'' .1
I
$ a7.
gj.
-
*
-'.i- _r-~
;*~~~I'
· : x.:
I'
,t ·a-._.~ ,i,:m'.' '..! .....
!Stit -"
-
'
9.J...b.
-rT
!
j
t
·
I I '
n-I
.91-.
I
9.
*
I
..
._
;
--
-
*'
6
r | '
1;.!-,
I ~~ · i;T
I
!.;.1
.
.
> ,
W-;,J__.,_,
l, i ~ 1-'..@
Fa,.~~
lvt@_.§.;-:'.. |'*-'
-;!'""''
i
:
*
*4
.
,0
*:
l'
a.,.
9
9
;
I
._:
4
:. .
..
,s
: ;_'
.- -. : . .......
· .:LSTTT7..
:
*
*.
*
-r
*: a
-.
-
--*
...
~...
.
c
-
I
.u
"-e-
4.
!
!
-
CI.
I
.
.
I
: f..,...L.
·
,.
i
-
.-
i ;
. -7' '. . - -
.
'I I
I 0 -J
I
-
15
-
~~~
.
I
.'
!.' I
:J LJ ~ I
'. I. ''I| I -
!';
*
,.
.
f
l ,
,
[
r
I
·
III. ; .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.- Z
-
-
a-
9
a 4
I ~
-
,
'
I
scaling rather than dose-response modeling (the former using NEDS ratios of
1973 concentrations to emissions by industry and pollutant, and the later
using 1971 damage estimates by regions).
If policy decisions about fluidized bed energy technologies are to be
made using SEAS, then an updating of the FBC economics is necessary, as
well as a quantification of constraints (resource, manpower, fabrication,
and so on) to underscale FBC use. Retrofit potential of conventional
boilers to the fluidized bed technology will also be needed.
I.
Table 3.1.4
AIR POLLUTANTS IN SEAS
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Photochemical Oxidants
Other Gases and Mists
Radionuclides to Air
Antimony Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
P.
Intermediate between ITA and SEAS in the hierarchy of assessments is
the Energy Alternatives/EMDB/ MERES system. With initial sponsorship from
CEQ this system now resides largely in DOE-funded national labs. As a
resource to fluidized bed assessments, it is probably most useful as a data
base on emissions from all of the various steps in a fuel cycle, that is,
extraction, transportation, and so on. Figure 3.1-6 shows the fuel cycles
that are modeled in the MERES system. Figure 3.1-7 shows more specifically
how advanced cycles fit into the MERES schematic and the following page
shows Table 3.1-5 with some comparative results, including fluidized bed
cycle emissions. None of these overall energy assessment models have
Any research about
appropriate data about the fluidized bed technologies.
the economics, performance, and environmental effects of FBC's should at
some point make a conscious effort to get the appropriate information to
these data bases and models that may play a central role in decisions about
the research priorities and incentives accorded to the use of fluidized bed
:
energy-cycles.
ExDerimental Studies
Leaving these across-the-board assessments there are several projects
that have been specifically designed to deal with fluidized-bed combustion.
The experimental studies are treated with a sharp emphasis on recent
The often seen table of current facilities is expanded in Table
research.
3.1-6. The larger the facility the closer analogy it is to a commercial
plant and in that light the Woodall-Duckham (formerly Babcock and Wilcox)
10 foot by 10 foot plant is of most interest. There is apparently no data
yet from that plant. The DOE schedule for gradually scaling up from
17
up~~~~~~B
..
.
-
,
-d
4
~
g1
.
eL
I-
V
-.
.
K
~
-'&-
-
_<E
0 S
c~
2
I-C
z
L)
U,
0
zw
Cv
Ln
LiJ
Sw
4.)
0,
S-LU
4J
4.)
cQ)
4.
CU
03
S.-
..
SJw
0)
x~~~~~a
L
U
-
D >1
S-
-J
)
_7 )
c:
W
2-I .
C
-J
J
-
A
= ~
~~~
C::
*:-
,
,
_C
U
In
a
(J
_r ,~
=0
_
W
H
-
II
-I
12.2
Boiler- Fired Power Plants
-Boilers
---TItl ines
-
-Ge.nerators
--
-Stack Gas Cleaning
4
I
./
^In I
jIjI 1
I
Solids
e
I
I
...
o
~~,
;Turbine
)wer Plants
12.7
Dist.& Trans.
. o.
I
.
._
O
I
I19
.1I
I
I
ibined --Cycle
-1;ve
I
/
Plants
Pumped Storage
(See ydro-
Electric)
Gaises
c Liquids
I Cell
wer Plants
........
DI. ~1/f
Lines
Transoortotion
r
.
j,,
InvolvesTransportation
|_
---- Does
Power Plants
N ot
Involve
I
.I.~~~~~~~~~~
Figure 3.1-7
Electrical Generation System.
19
Trcns po.rtotion
0
4i
"'a1
J
-0
00
o
.3
5~
5~
-
0O
oA
o
0,"
4
c,
u'
0
V
..C
C
ac
N
0
CO
_1
c
_rM
a_
O
"O
E .0,*W
_i
_
C
-4.
3
'.
.
.i
04
1%
_-
-o
C
o.
o
~
.C
CW
-
zc_o
0
.
..
.
'O
N
.,
.
4-)
L.
0
U
C ~CC
n00
0
:0
~-
-0
0
_-
@
E'
0
0
0
P
,
,--.'
0
>
CJ
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~V
...
_ r~~~~~~~~~~~~~4I~~~~~~~~~~~
._
cm
.V
....-
O.
r_
4)
7,. O,.
.4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C .
_
M
·
ii
i.
0nn
4
C
S-
CC · .
0
'A)
E-o
C:
C
C
.
0
Z
U
.U
4
<.
. .C L
.
4"")"o
~n
0
__
I_
el
0
.4Eu
U,
-U C
0
0
o
40
(A
d
ii00
Eu
0
o
0.0~
EUS<
-'0
00.
0OCC
_U
_
U
1)
ii
O=
00
u
-e
N:
44
>)
)1
C-- --
-U
04 ~.- -. C- '3:
- >"
E)
0c_ 0_
O)
0"o
C LIO 1.)s
-O aI'
O0
00 O
-
~t
~0
Eu
'0
4i
Ai
C=
>
-)
0
0C
VI
-0C -'---.
00
. -~ ~~
-00-*
'4
0CC-0 CC
_
--.)
C
VI
aIA
>.
.,-
..C
.
,
J~f
COO
U
0
.
_30.--Z2CI
>~~~~~~~~~
L~~~~~~~
CY
'.C
o
c4
Eu
r,
LLLL.
44ea
u - C.
o
-40
0
.Q
t
o
U
1co
- 4)4o.0
O 1
O~-
'0
.0
o
IA O
i
_
.0
.O
20
0. u
4-A'¢:
41
,0)
.
C,4N
4-._a4C,,
-0
L
0'4
42C
1'
oC
0
-LI"
0 L0
->e s
c
.0^
lo
C.a
O-3
O-
)
0
.us
~~~
-4)--
C4) I.
O
ifl4
.
Q
0
-
Eu
M
0"
-4
-
O
4
*-
-
C
I'
C4.
, -01
.=.
- '
E
M
0t'<CO)
(.=
M
'
X-
>
00
*-
O1
U
to0c
sX
-
0-
= c
.
e
.
-'a
l
s00.I ..E,
--
Co O
h3
0
*3e<
.
000
EU
O
.C-
.M
Ln..
JL
M
-w
0."1
EU
.
'a--- GUO- <-~~
2
-C
420.<_ 00C
C~
.i
V
11
c
Eu
C
~
t
- rnr-rl -1z §§~Tr
-4
/~~~~~~
s~ea-U4
Iso'l
~~~~~
1
c
v.,eG
O _s
W^
0
(4
(s -
C:
-
_ -
______
n
c
-
(4
c. o
|-
'
_
_
(0
SPTEOS
C
0
I
I
j uI4OkNO
0
C
sapXqaply
0
N
uoq
~-
00
| °~~~~~~~~~1
H|srueso|
o: oll
|oZ~/e~lq
.|
|o]ot ol
o o 14
o!
lo
|
0))C)r
asl
C
ol
co
l
lC
('.4
0
0
0
0)
Ia; ! I
aoa
V)o
O
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~
00
P-)H
~~~~~~
I
0
,.4-)
CO
4J
_-O
_
-
4I
,
(:)
|
|o ol
l
l
!
I
0
00
.'
C)
I
1
C'
.-
r-
oI
5|
i
-
s.nfl 4_Z7Tt
_
_,
o o
o
0
.tUI_::__g
iz I
0
0 OCo
G
I('J1C'ro
o
-S0
0
OI/so)
0sp$
c
o
o
s nls zlol
0
-.-
-
·
LI 1
14
____________
.54
I uX I'41a
l
spr'o.i
se4,e2l3T;=,z
l
r-§
l
l
U
eo
4C)
Tso e4.T
C .
>e
C
LO
-
o
l
|El|
r-0
SPTIOS
SDV
m
A IO S S [(
C
Pe
0
..
r
O
0-a--
C
1
T'1
ae
N
Las
0
00
0
.4.
4,
-t
-
-1
-1.
-
CC}
0
,4
C}
c4,
-
~[ ,-.I1
''
00
00
00
~ ~~ ~
~
~
~
0 0)<()§~
0
01
0'-Q|@I
01
o0
~
~
Z
~
0
0
C
.,C
_ 5
nE
00
l
o0
I4 0
~
~
U
OC
0 dN
'-,-
0)
0
0
~
G
;Xc3§'A
C .'s
0
0
0
~
-
cD
0 (
"(j'1
0: 0
0 0
.3Ea
O
OS
sase
O
q.-
0
00
00) 00
.,IeUO
j oj
papua1snS |
I~~~~~
5-.
r-O
0 0
00
4,
-4
0
C>
U
l
.-n
Cx
,U
U)
0Z.0
0
,~
I
..-
0
0
0
t,4
-,
-
C.
0
C
U
o
0
~~~~
~
N
'0
0 It
~- ,t I I[[- 1--l.0 t- I'
4
o
o o o
·
oo, ol oV .
0
U
0
o4r4,
N
0-
3
a.C;
I
0
43
0
C)~901 01'
C
~~fe'o
'0i~~~~
U
~
0
o-
.
.)
ID
I0
U
-'-'
.Z"
rL
21
-
o-
Z45
r
it
:1
O
1.S
CB
2
'.
a
.c
.
_e
0
4
tb
04
la
me
tC00
U
C
_a
C:
laS
#2
-,
_
0
0C
_ 24'.
-C
la
SitaS
2
¢
.1
M
O
-
-
0
Cl
0
C
0
~o
0
4o
0-
i
-
4)
ma
0
U
.0
U lalaS
E
5l%
I04
laOC
0
0
W
E
00
C
cma
0
L 0
0
-...
' ,, .....-.
q~~.
a
q*
oc
C
0
C
0
0
0 0l0
0~
'a't
0 Ud~
.o
'
ah
-14
ma
Lf
-
s i aaN
t
-
m
i
0
a
C~
C
C
0
.
04
d4
'0O
0 0'4
C
C 0
VSC C
C A.,.1o
ai.,
~0O
a' '
O*
0
C
m
0
U
..
O~
a
O
3
- P
C D OO0 D
602
" Er
0A0
U
N*- 4'. 5%
U
'
r_
-a Ca U
*
a. 0
*
I' fO I
o N N
.
15
at _
Z
'.<
~".j
0
%C
4 O't 0 Uu
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ - U~ ~ _~ - ~~~~~~~~~%....
W% A 1%
r. C fl.
0
o
.f
D O
0
cc 02 CD L^ a4
_
_
0
oo xa
-_4_
0 o
0 , 0o
0 ,m0
-
0 0,
a
0
I
C
,,
Iu 5u %~~~~~~~~
oo
a_
I
O oa
u 0
C
.^qr- r
.
a
00o0i
114d
a
E
V
0
.
4
C
0
4A MVSI
0
C0.0 .-
o0
C
'' o
C
a
-
U
C_
WO
-o_d 0_
'4
A
A-600 A
2
A
0,
a
VS
0
00
00
a
,
a,
0% L0 0
0
*%-
- 'a
M
qlm_
C
VS
2
,.G
A
4-)
q%
Ca
o,,o
C'_
"4
,
0
'0
0
a0C
Li
W..
-%
*
000
a
0 0
0
W~
41
*
.3
0
L.
!.
V)
0
A0
m
0
5%
la E
04
e
0
A0 m A
am
C4
;%
oX
eZX
C
0
"'
Vi
I
C
Vl,
'0S
a
..
U
0
_6--4'
1
4'
4a
',0
a4'10 )6
a0
_0
.0o
4O
C
001
f-
l
C
as
4
A
I.
*0
a CL
.4'
a
'0
-6
U '
1
a
C
a.
C
4
C
em
C
0
.
A
C
e
0 .a
V
'A.
VS
*_
O
4C
a
a.
01
'4M
4'
a
C
a
C
a._
C
a.
0
0
0...
0, 0
, ,0
C'4C'J- o0
-
-
a
aa
0
0 0o0o
,.0~~~
0
r"
N
o*ooo
0o_oooCN
0
Sr
__
oo
'a
U
I,1 1 CL
_.Io
Ur
_.,
S O1
C,
-.
a
o VD
"-
4.J
Ci0
.0
O
.
uu
44
4 1.
-
'U
(la as~~.
ccM
V"
P
I,,
ot
I
M
'U
F-
:z
M
(U
1
N
-
A .0
N
oat
2a
--
C
C
:-
~i ~
W~
0
--
*0
.'N
a
,
r4
-
.
'0
4PD
4~
'
Ut<^^^-_"U
-> t
Vf>
mO
_
.
*
N-3~--. ."'3 .'
.'
.
:
-'
'0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
j
_-
' t: _
-
,
'
X
'*'---
*-
*- - -. *
'1
:
:
-
--X
X
j
_'-.
-
S.
'a-
=
F-
"'LA.
C
.
q0-US
4'
50
C,-
::::0 - :11
r@
V0
US
C
C-!
_4
* U
-C
A
:t
-:
0
2
-
-
oa - a .. r N
- - = aC qo---
.
N N
S
X
=
N - '
:
4~~~~~~~.
: _
:
-
O
')
a
--
,
-
o :X Wa 5 '
W
-
^
: -
~t0
o
Li
-
^or^
.A
V w
a o.
-
XU
-')
a:
c
OM
4
_
C
i
C
4'
I. S.,
a'
~,,
_
U A
N
0
C
.S
-_
ita'
"
C0
04
C~
4.
2
W
-
e
'
0
a.
0
U
*
-
4
0
I
O.
4
.. 0*
-
tJ4 '
a
~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
O.
.
OS
0 0
41.
aO- o
2 --
e
iti
=C 4
*
Ut
0
41
a *
iJ
o
-
0
0
-
1 w"
2
.
-0
4
_a __ ~
0
AX
U
0
:
N0
m
0
-.
'
0
.
5l
4'5.
0
fil
4
0
a'2 an a-
-
1
3m
-z0
0
0A
L
I.
-X
O
t'*
-
41
f
0*
o.
'
VS
'
VS
ii
0
'
_
4
_
5.
3
..
,-
0.
0
a
a
4
- A0
-
2
_
VS
VS
0
0
it
I0
:0
-0C
-
X
22
,,
0
to
_
y)
:
m
O
*
2:
_S
,
-
O
~3
'4
f
-
O
-
0
O
O1
-
2B
X
Cl
ZlO
e
0
,
*S
t:-
w
C
"
0s
51
2a
4'
0
C
a
0.
l_
0
0L
-a
-
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~_0;
0
C
-z
-
-
4'
VS4
0
VS
-~~~~~~~~~
~~4E_
r
0
C
t
-A-
C--e
0
-
C
4
0 .
4
Cl
0
X
<
ot
E~~~'
0
',.
-
.
0
C
-0
Table 3.1-6
-
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Facilities (contin).
Location Organization Combustion and
ressure Gas
Temp., Status/Purpose
Regenerator Size
atm
Veloc. F
Conn.
Mai
Mas.
Combustion
NA
1
NA
Engineering
NA
1
NA
IT ha a facility forthcoming end of 1977
70
NA
76-77/
77-77/
i~~~~~~~~~~~
Minn.
Fluidyne Eng.
Corp.
18 in.
40"X64"
1
1
N.J.
Foster-Wheeler
72"X72"
1
4-12
70
NA
New York General Electric lft2
1
NA
70
75-77/
N.Dakota Grand Forks
Energy Research
Center
6"diam.
1
NA
NA
76-77/
W.Va.
(2)18"diam.
1
NA
1600
76-77/
6ft
1
NA
70
77-77/
1
NA
70
75-77/
1.48"diam.
1
8-8.2
1750
75-77/
1.48"diam.
1
1.84-2 1620
75-77/
3.5-8.5
1
NA
76-77/
Morgantown
Energy Research
Center
Oregon
Oregon State
University
Penn.
Pittsburgh
Energy Research
Center
Virginia University of
Virginia
2
o10ft
23
76-77/
77-77/
70
experimental units to pilot plants is shown in Table 3.1-7. On the
international scene, Great Britian is pushing an advanced program. As of
1970, its projections are shown in Figure 3.1-8. Table 3.1-8 lists
experimental studies that have recently concluded or are ongoing.
)/I
Table 3.1-7
Approximate Schedule for DOE Units (EPA, 1977).
Unit Size and/or
Designation(a)
Pope, Evans, & Robbins
0.5 MWePDU
JePDU
·
PFBC(C)
3.0 .MWeCTIU
PFBC
. .
S
.-
30 MWeCTIU
ewCTIU -
6.0
Combustion Power Co.
Menlo Park,
Argonne National
Argonne, IL
Internatl.
-
In operation
'77
Hid '76
ed
Late '76
Hid '77
Late
78
Late '79
U.K.
-
Late '76
'
at*
77 -.
Litai '79 .
Center
13.0 MlWe
Pilot
FBC(d)
-30.0 MWePilot
Plant,
Lab.
Energy Agcy.
Morgantown,
Plant,
--
Horgantown Energy Res.
AYBC
In operation
CA
Grimesthorpe,
PFB3C- -
-
VA
Alexandria,
AFBC
1.0
ApproximateStarting Dates(b)
Operation
Construction
Design
Contractor and/or
Location
AFBC
WV
mILUSPilot
AFBC(e)
Plant
Industrial
and
In Progress
Sept., '76
In Progress
Late '76
Late '77
Mid '78
Late '80
Mid '81
Late '76(g)
Late '77(g)
Late '79(8)
-
Pope, Evans, & Robbins
Rivesville,
WV
Oak Ridge,
AFBC(e)
Late '79
Woodridge, NJ
Oak Ridge National Lab.
MIUSPDU
Late '77
Late '76
Curtis-Wright
TN
Oak Rdge National Lab.
Oak Ridge,
TN
Various( f )
institutional
( f)
Applications
(a) PDUis process development unit (1-10 tons coal/day),
TIU is component test and
integration urunit(10-100 tons coal/day), pilot plant is 100-1000 tons coal/day, AFBC
is atmospheric pressure and PFBCis pressurized fluidized-bed combustor, MIUSis
modular integrated utility system. All are boilers except where noted.
(b) Approximate schedule
as of May, 1976.
(c) Flue gas drives turbine.
No heat transfer surfaces.
(d) Flue gas mixed with air heated in tubes to drive turbine.
(e) Air heated in tubes to drive turbine and provide heat and cooling.
(f)
Aerojet Energy/Ideal Basic Industries co produce combustion gas for cement kiln;
Fluidyne Engineering/Owatonna Tool for hot process air heater; Battelle Memorial
Institute/FluidizedCombustion, Combustion Engineering/Great Lakes Naval Training
Center, Dow Cheniqa!/Babcock & Wilcox, Zurn Industries/Burns & Roe, and GeorgetownL
University/Fluidized Combustion for boilers; Exxon for crude oil still.
(g) Earliest starting date of any of the projects.
25
i
i
iW
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·
I
I
6.0
DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCI
660-MW POWER STATION
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
_
_
CONSTRUCT
20-MlW
CONSTRUCT
P
E
120-M
PROTOTYPE
12- PROTOTYES
BOILER CC'.r.lSS:ON
BOILE
CO'.ISSION
\ AJND DEVELOP
AND
20-M'W
DEVELOP
120-MW
PROTOTYPE
LOAD FAC1TOR
\
75
PROTOTYPE
40%
_
LOAD FACTOR
40%
40%
!.0
-
BASIC
0 0__
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
ESE-,=CH :-!.D ANALYTICAL
70
71
CAL'.:
72
73
A
74
75
-
-
SUPPORT FOR PROTOTYPES
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
YEAR ENDING
Figure 3.1-8
Cost and Time Scale of Developing Fluidised-Bed Combustion for Central Power
Station Boilers (present day prices). (EPA,
26
1970).
Table 3.1-8
RECENT AND ONGOING EXPERIMENTAL FBC STUDIES
Aerotherm/Acurex:
- detailed emissions analysis of CPC filter (for EPA)
Agricultural Research Service:
- evaluation of FBC solid waste use (for DOE)
Argonne National Lab:
- testing of 6" pressurized combustor
- 4" pressurized sorbent regenerator (EPA/DOE)
- SO x control
- sorbent regeneration (EPA/DOE)
- NO formation and control (EPA/DOE)
X
- particulate characterization and control (EPA/DOE)
- trace metal and hydrocarbon emissions (EPA/DOE)
- engineering support studies
- economic analysis
- combustion efficiency
- process control requirements (for DOE)
Babcock and
-
Wilcox Co.:
industrial application AFBC (DOE)
effluent assessment
demonstration plant (DOE/TVA), (EPRI)
effect of sorbent particle size (EPRI)
Battelle Columbus Labs:
- multi-solid FBC plant (DOE)
- emissions analysis of atmospheric FBC (EPA)
- atm-24" agglomerating FBC to be built
- materials for corrosion/erosion conditions (EPRI)
- heat exchange materials (DOE)
Bergbau-Forschung:
- atmospheric FBC
- plans 8-atm FBC-15MW
Bharat Heavy Electricals:
- FBC development program
Bradford University:
- cold modeling of fluid mechanics of fines (EPRI)
British Coal Utilization Research Association:
- emissions analysis of 2'x3' pressurized unit
- atmospheric unit of utility size
- high temperature operations
Brookhaven National Laboratory:
- regeneration of CaSO 4 using SiO 2
"-7
Combustion Engineering Inc.:
- industrial FBC development (DOE)
- atmospheric FBC demonstration plant (TVA)
Combustion Power Company:
- turbine corrosion and erosion
- moving bed filter for hot gas cleanup (DOE)
- detailed emissions analysis (EPA)
- municipal waste combustion
Combustion Systems (formerly NCB, BP, & NRDC):
- FBC boiler construction (DOE/TVA)
- corrosion/erosion effects (EPRI)
- comprehensive analysis of emissions from pressurized
FBC (EPA)
Commonwealth Scientific & Ind. Research Organization:
- heat transfer experiments
- burning Australian coals
Consolidation Coal Company:
- desulfurization with sorbents
- regeneration of dolomite
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Department of Army:
- fine particle precipitating in AFBC (DOE)
Curtis- Wright
- forthcoming pressurized unit in 1980 (DOE)
DOE
- commercialization
units
potential at Rivesville and Morgantown
EPA:
-
limestone beds for SOx control
low temperatures
sampling and analytic test rig, atmospheric pressure
emissions analysis
alternative add-on control devices (EPA)
Exxon Research & Engineering Company:
- emissions analysis of pressurized bench-scale (EPA)
- 8" pressurized sorbent regenerator
- emissions analysis of pressurized Miniplant - .65 MW (EPA)
- SO control
- sorbent regeneration (EPA)
- NO formation and control
x
- particulate characterization and control
- trace metal and hydrocarbon emissions
- deep bed combustion
28
Fluidyne Engineering Corp:
-.
-.-industrial FBC (DOE)
Foster-Wheeler:
- demonstration plant AFBC (DOE/TVA)
- coal feeder development (DOE)
- cold test modeling of Rivesville plant
Fuel Research Institute:
- two-stage combustion of high ash coal
- solid and liquid fuel interchangeability
- retrofit of old boilers
General Electric:
- fluid dynamics and heat transfer using cold beds (EPRI)
Georgetown University:
- industrial FBC (DOE)
Grand Forks Energy Research Center:
- precipitation tests (DOE)
- alternative SO2 control methods (DOE)
Ingersoll-Rand:
- dry coal screw development (DOE)
International Energy Agency:
- design, construction, and operation of FBC (DOE)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory:
- coal pump development (DOE)
Kennedy Van Saun:
coal grinding and feed preparation (DOE)
Lehigh University
- centrifugal FBC (DOE)
Lockheed Missles and Space Company Inc.:
- candidates for coal feeders (DOE)
corrosion chemistry (EPRI)
Lurgi Gesellschaft:
- FBC combustion of low grade fuels
Mechanical Technology Inc.:
- centrifuge gas cleaning (DOE)
Midwest Research Institute:
- sampling and characterization of AFBC and PFBC gaseous
species (DOE)
John L. Minnick:
- field testing and theoretical evaluations of FBC waste uses
(DOE)
9q
MIT Energy Laboratory:
- heat transfer and corrosion (DOE)
Morgantown Energy Research Center:
- AFBC bench scale studies (DOE)
- AFBC fuel possibilities (DOE)
- fueling and slagging (DOE)
National Coal Board:
- utility sized atmospheric unit
- pressurized combined cycle unit
National Research Development Corporation:
- industrial and utility FBC applications
New York University:
- fluid dynamic and heat exchanger interrelationships
Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
- evaluation of MIUS applications
(DOE)
(DOE)
Ohio State University:
- corrosion chemistry (EPRI)
Oregon State University:
- cold modeling of heat exchangers (EPRI)
Pope, Evans
-
and Robbins:
modular cells with water walls
carbon burnup cells
once-through sulfur removal system
limestone regeneration
salt additions
Rivesville Station - 30 MW (DOE)
coal feeding systems
distributor designs
fly-ash sizes (DOE)
Rice University:
- heat transfer in counter-current FBC
Societe Anonyme Activit & Babcock-Atlantique:
- agglomeration of ash in 25-MW plant
Tennessee Valley Authority:
- characterization of solid and liquid wastes
- laboratory and field studies of solids leaching and solids
degeneration (EPA)
- solid waste treatment
- laboratory studies on potential for marketable products
from wastes
30
TRW Inc.:
detailed emissions analysis of CPC filter (EPA)
U.S. Bureau of Mines:
- use of various American coals
- ash as bed material
University of Idaho:
- bubble behavior in scale-up of FBC (DOE)
University of Illinois:
- cold model of FBC (DOE)
University of Maryland:
- chemical additives effects on SO
removal (EPRI)
University of Virginia:
- gas solids interactions in FBC (DOE)
Virginia Agricult. Exper. Station:
- use of wastes in agricultural projects
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University:
- solid waste use for crops (DOE)
Washington State University:
- fate and behavior of fuel sulfur (DOE)
Western Michigan University:
- mechanisms of NOx formation (DOE)
Westinghouse:
- laboratory scale studies
- SOx control
- sorbent regeneration (EPRI)
- NO formation and control
x
- particulate characterization and control
- trace metals and hydrocarbons
- turbine blades for FBC
Woodall-Duckham:
- commercial operation of large-scale boiler
- retrofit of old boilers
31
Analytic Studies
The paper studies in progress include a wide range of modeling,
evaluation, and fundamental research. The most comprehensive examples are
being undertaken by Exxon and by Battelle. Other studies are listed in
Table 3.1-9.
Table 3.1-9
RECENT AND ONGOING ANALYTIC FBC STUDIES
Babcock and Wilcox Ltd.:
- conceptual design studies
- literature survey and correlation of data AFBC (EPRI)
Battelle Columbus Labs:
- environmental assessment including emissions characterization, control, and impacts, state-of-art, R & D plan
Burns and Roe:
- conceptual design of AFBC (DOE)
Coal Research Establishment:
- atmospheric pressure combustors
Commonwealth Scientific & Indu. Research Organization:
- experimental programs
Consolidation Coal Company:
- experimental programs
Dow Chemical:
- scale up of unit sizes and effects on emissions (EPA)
EPA:
- comprehensive program on environmental characterization
EPRI:
-
optimize heat transfer
corrosion and erosion characteristics
manufacturer's evaluation of data
general program on technical development
Exxon Research and Engineering Company:
- energy, economic and environmental assessment of FBC
industrial boilers (DOE/EPA)
Foster-Wheeler:
- conceptual designs - 800MW
- Rivesville design guidance
GCA/Technology Division:
- identification of new pollutants (EPA)
- control technology possibilities
32
General Electric:
- technical and economic assessment
Gilbert Associates:
- technical and economic study of FBC (DOE)
John Thompson Ltd.:
- conceptual design studies
Arthur G. McKee and Company:
- technical assistance on industrial FBC (DOE)
MIT:
- engineering support studies
- modeling and data base of FBC (DOE)
Mitre Corporation:
manuals of FBC process variations indicating alternative
sampling and analytic procedures (EPA)
- engineering support studies
NASA:
- technical-and economic-assessment,ECAS (DOE/NSF/NASA)-National Research Development Corp.:
programs
*
.experimental
Oak Ridge National Lab:
- design studies and vendor surveys (DOE)
Preece, Cardew & Rider Ltd.:
- conceptual design studies
Ralph Stone & Company:
- solid and liquid waste disposal (EPA)
SATR:
- comprehensive FBC analysis (EPA)
Stone and Webster:
- conceptual design of AFBC (DOE)
Tennessee Valley Authority:
- characterization of solid and liquid wastes (EPA)
- marketing potential of wastes (DOE)
- designs and cost comparisons of AFBC, PFBC, and
conventional plant with FGD (EPA)
U.S. Bureau of Mines:
- experimental programs
U.S. Department of Transportation:
- solid waste use in soil modification
33
(DOE)
--
-----
U.S. Office of Coal Research:
- experimental programs
Westinghouse Research Lab:
- Technical and economic assessment
- conceptual designs of atmospheric and pressurized boilers
- alternative FBC configurations
- environmental assessment of FBC solid waste (EPA)
34
3.2 Basis for Comparison
Fluidization is a conventional technique in the chemical process
industries for compact and efficient heat and mass transfer. The newer
concept of coal combustion in a fluidized bed makes possible rapid energy
release from the fuel and efficient heat transfer to the working fluid. A
fluidized bed combustor is a column of dense coal, lime, and ash particles
that are suspended in an (usually) upward flowing air stream. The velocity
of this upward combustion air, 2 to 15 ft/sec, sets the particles in a
homogeneous turbulent motion, that resembles a boiling fluid, which enables
(1) high volumetric flow through rates for the air stream,
(2) very high heat transfer coefficients, partly due to
reasonably uniform temperature distributions, and
(3) relatively low combustion temperatures.
Fluidized bed combustion can result in 25 times the (per unit volume
per time) heat release rates. Heat transfer from the particles and
combustion air to the heat transfer tubes placed inside the combustor can
be 5 to 6 times that in conventional pulverized coal-fired boilers (per
unit area per time) (Rao, 1975). The low combustion temperatures (1400 1900 F versus 3000 F for conventional power plants) have several
advantages:
(1) They maximize the capture of SO2 by the limestone or
dolomite in the bed, thus forming solid calcium sulfate
which is collected as spent bed material;
(2) They minimize the conversion of atmospheric nitrogen
into N,
thus considerably reducing NO x emissions; and
(3) They minimize klinker problems and may reduce trace
metal emissions due to temperatures being below slagging
and ash constituent volatilization points.
The principal configurations that can be used to categorize the
different fluidized bed combustion designs include:
(1) atmospheric fluidized bed,
(2) pressurized fluidized bed, and
(3) liquid metal topping fluidized bed.
In atmospheric configurations the combustion chamber is at
near-atmospheric pressure. Power is generated by a steam turbine. A
pressurized- system operates between 5 and 20 atmospheres, although 8-to 10
atmospheres seems optimum, and includes a gas turbine as well as the steam
turbine. The gas turbine operates on the high pressure hot combustion
gases and, in addition to creating extra electric power, drives the
compressor to pressurize new combustion air. The primary motivation for
using pressurized systems is the potential for smaller equipment size for
the same heat output. In some "closed cycle" systems, pressurized air is
used as a working fluid, thus there is no steam turbine. Liquid metal
topping cycles, usually potassium, are also being considered in fluidized
bed configurations.
Although there are several other designs, one that is
35
occasionally considered is the adiabatic combustor. In these combustors
the fluidizing air throughout is greatly increased, so that all of the heat
of combustion is carried by these gases. Thus, no bed submerged heat
transfer tubes are used. The adiabatic combustor gases expand through a
gas turbine and waste heat is recovered in a boiler which drives a steam
turbine. Figure 3.2-1 shows a general comparison of sizes and components
of comparable FBC technologies.
The next section lists some of the operating and design parameters
that are useful variables for modeling cycle efficiencies and emissions.
The following sections describe the more common FBC designs. Since this is
in no way meant to be a text, these descriptions have been kept very brief.
3.2.1. Oeratinz
and Design Parameters
There is some merit in treating the results from each different
experimental rig as incomparable with other results. The insight that can
be gained by such a procedure is, however, then limited to the particular
parametric investigations that have been performed at any one facility. If
there is to be comparability, then a common set of operating and design
parameters must be defined and collected for the various sets of
experiments.
An exhaustive list prepared at the M.I.T. Energy Lab for a
DOE sponsored FBC data base is listed here in Table 3.2.1-1.
36
oh
(,.
S4-)
U-
'I
aJ
S..
tni
a)
0)
U
-
-.
L-J
4.)
a)
LL.
I
'U
E
(s
4
IA
iX
-
) 40)
n
4
0)-
4-)
4)
0
go
(L
C
37
Table 3.2.1-1
FBC Data Base Categories (J.F. Louis, S.E. Tung, 1977)
Source (reference or site)
Bed Design
Geometry
Rectangular
Length (meters)
width (meters)
Circular Diameter (meters)
Static Bed Height
Bed Height at Min. Fluidization (meters)
Bed Height at Oper. Cond. (meters)
Free Board Height (meters)
Inlet Gas Conditions
Species Present
Composition (mol basis)
Molecular Weight
Temperature (Kelvin)
Pressure (Pascals)
Molar Flow Rate (KG-mole/sec)
3
Velocity (M/sec)
Density (KG-mole/meter)
Viscosity (Centipoise)
Sampling Point Conditions
Height above Dist. (meter)
Length or Radial Direction (meter)
Width or Theta Direction (meter or deg)
Gas or Solid Species Present
Composition
Temperature (Kelvin)
Pressure (Pascals)
Molecular Weight (Ks/Kg mole)
Fluidization Characteristics at Sampling Point
Gas Velocity (Mag = dir)(meter/sec)
Gas Viscosity (Centipoise)3
Gas Density (KG-mole/meier )
Solid Density (Kg/meter )
Mean Particle Diameter (meter)
Particle Size Dist. (meters)
Min. Fluidization Velocity (meters/sec)
Voildage at Min. Fluidization
Observed Voidage
Fluidization Region (turbulent or bubbling)
Mean Bubble Volume (meters)
Bubble Height (meter)
Bubble Width (meter)
Bubble Frequency (see )
Bubble Voidage
Emulsion Voidage
38
Coal Feed
Coal Composition wt. Basis
C
H
0
N
S
ASH
H2 0
Vol. Frac.
Coal Type
Lower Heating Value (kcal/KG-mole)
Feed Rate (KG/sec)
Particle Size Distribution (meter)
Reacted Coal
Sampling Point
Heigh above Dist. (meter)
Length or Radial Coordinate (meter)
Width or Theta Coordinate (meter or deg)
Temperature Gas (Kelvin)
Pressure (Pascals)
Gas Composition Mole Basis
O2
HC
CO2
H2 0
H
2
N2
SO2
NO
NO 2
Temperature Solids (Kelvin)
Mean Coal Particle Size (meter)
Coal Particle Size Distribution (meter)
Mean Ash Particle Size (meter)
Ash Particle Size Distribution (meter)
Reacted Coal Composition Wt. Basis
C
H
0
N
S
ASH
H2 0
Vel. Frac.
Mean Residence Time (see)
Residence Time Distribution
39
Material of Const.
Outside Diameter (meter)
Inside Diameter (meter)
Pitch
Spacing
Aligment
No. of Tubes
Age of Tube (Time of Use)(hr)
Sampling Point
Height above Dist. (meter)
Length or Radial Direction (meter)
Width or Theta Direction (meter or deg)
Tube Wall Mean Temp. (Kelvin)
Tube Wall Temp. Dist. (Kelvin)
Local Bed Temp. (Kelvin) 2
Total Surface Area (meter2 )
Heat Transfer Rate (Joule/sec)
Heat Transfer Coefficient (Joule/sec M)
Working Fluid (steam, etc.)
Mass Flow Rate (KG/sec)
Inlet Cond. of Working Fluid
Temp. (Kelvin)
Pressure (Pascals)
Quality
Outlet Cond. of Working Fluid
Temp. (Kelvin)
Pressure (Pascals)
Quality
Acceptor Feed
Type of Acceptor
Origin of Acceptor
Acceptor Composition CaO (CO2 )p (MgO(CO2 )q)R
P
Q
R
Mass Feed Rate (KG/sec)
Mean Particle Size (meter)
Particle Size Dist. (meter)3
Density Bulk (KG-mole/meter )
Pore Size Distribution (meter)
Mean Pore Size (meter)
2
Pore Fraction
Surface Area (meter )
Percent Sulfated
Number of Regenerations
Regeneration Conditions
Temp. (Kelvin)
Pressure (Pascals)
Res. Time
(sec)
Overall Ca/S Ratio in Feed
Temperature (Kelvin)
An
Reacted Acceptor
Sampling Point
Height above Dist. (meter)
Length or Radial Direction (meter)
Width or Theta Direction (meter or theta)
Acceptor Specie
Molecular Weight
Temperature (Kelvin)
Velocity (mag + dir)(meter/sec)
Mean Particle Diameter
Particle Size Dist. (meter)
Min. Fluidization Velocity Smeter/sec)
Density Bulk (KG-mole/meter)
Density True (KG-mole/meter3 )
Pore Size Distribution (meter)
Mean Pore Size (meter)
Pore Fraction
2
Surface Area (meter )
Percent Sulfated
Mean Res. Time (see)
Res. Time Distribution (see)
41
To collect and correlate this number of variables is well beyond this
small, uncomputerized effort. The intent of this effort has been,
therefore, to isolate the several dominant variables and make initial
correlations between these and the performance measures of efficiency and
emissions. The several dominant variables identified and used in the
empirical models in this report are listed in Table 3.2.1-2.
Table 3.2.1-2.
Fluidized Bed Operating and Design Variables
Bed Temperature
Static Bed Height
Superficial Velocity
Calcium to Sulfur Ratio in Bed
Combustible Losses
Fuel Source and Size
Fuel Constituents
Sorbent Source and Size
Pressure
Excess Air
Sulfur Absorbent Regeneration
Number and Temperature of Reheats
Addition of Salt
Secondary Air Injection
Steadiness of Coal Feed
Types of Particulate Controls
Although there are many possible performance measures, (see
Table 3.2.1-3), the efficiencies and emissions are the only indicators of
desirability modeled in this report.
Table 3.2.1-3.
Effectiveness
Fluidized Bed Combustor Indicators of Operating
Overall Energy Efficiency
Combustion Efficiency
Emissions
Heat Transfer
Corrosion and Erosion
Fouling
Combustion Stability
Waste Solids
Agglomeration
Reliability
Heat Release
Control and Turndown Ability
Startup Ability
42
3.2.2
AtmosDheric FBC Designs
The general schematic of the atmospheric FBC configuration
Figure 3.2.2-1. The water/steam cycle usually includes:
is shown in
(1) a feedwater pump sending the water to
(2) an economizer and evaporator that heat the feedwater
using the flue gas heat and combustion air heat,
(3) a first heating in the tubes immersed in the bed,
(4) the steam turbine,
(5) at least one reheat back in the bed,
(6) a second trip through the turbine, and
(7) the condensation
The air cycle includes coming in through:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
-
forced draft fans, then through the
air preheater, then up through the
fluidized bed,
through the evaporator, then
supplying heat to the air preheater
through particulate removal devices,
through the economizer,
then through an induced draft fan, and
up the stack.
Coal and sorbent enter into the bed at the feedpoints.
Coal ash
generally leaves the bed with the combustion air and is collected in the
precipitators. The inburned carbon in this ash is either recycled to the
bed or burnt in a separate carbon burning cell, as shown in Figure 3.2.2-2.
The sorbent leaves the bed as spent material, and can either be regenerated
and cycled back into the bed, or can be disposed either directly or after
some treatment. Tables 3.2.2-1 and -2 show the different atmospheric FBC's
used in the ECAS study comparing economics and efficiencies.
The operational configurations that are pushing the sizes of
atmospheric FBC's up toward commercial sizes (about 220 MWe) are the
Morgantown
MWe unit (see Figure 3.2.2-3), and the Rivesville 30 MWe unit
(see Figure 3.2.2-4).
A relatively new configuration is the Battelle Multi-Solids FBC (see
Figure 3.2.2-5). The MS-FBC process consists of two beds: a dense or
conventional bed of high specific gravity and a superimposed or entrained
bed. The entrained bed circulates through the dense bed picking up the
heat of combustion. All of the heat exchange surfaces are contacted to the
entrained bed. The perceived advantages include:
(1) much higher fluidizing velocities, 30-40 ft/seo,
(2) excellent limestone utilization, and
(3) much better response and control characteristics to changes
in load.
43
N
a,
. II <
k.
e
onv'
Za
.. CL
lk
,.
.1
4, 1
I
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f
I-)
.
W
B
-W
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
0
2
_
9-
CD
oa
cr:
L.
,
a,
-tau
.r:
- .. -.--.:.. - :-.- ~ .
. :: - - .....^.~-
____K
:iii,
:;';*.; ."'
..-.
:.-: .- ,-.-;~:,.~.
- ,
...
,. :. .
..:...Q
-~ ,- -,~,
T
'N...
w
~xI
I
I.Ij
I6
A,
C
L
~1JW
-
____
egk
W,
U- LA-
-1)
CM
.
C
%
LL~~~~.-
LnL W
. 4A*
.40
.W
4--34
t
- .I.
C;
- cn
IL/A
WI
C~i
O*)
t0
I: C.
-)
Cl
---
>
-o
S.-
.Z
I.-
z
E
r,,m
l..
p.-Z
.-0
Cm
-0
to
I0
ll
ec0
el
(a
I.-
I.I.
Cl
x
10
=
cm
10
0
-
C~M
CM M
*v
CM-
45
X
L.
Table 3.2.2-1
Surfacing Data
Advanced Steam Cycle - Atmospheric Fluidized Bed (General Electric, 1976).
MAI
NUMBER
BED TEMP.
GAS EXITTEMP.
CARBON
BED
BR NUP
CmL S
CELLS
6
1
1550
730
2"-3
730
90
10
(° F)
% DUTY
20%
EX,-..S AIR
'
%
DIMENSIONS:
BED-PLAN
-
HEIGHT
12x 34
12x 34
4
4
10
9
40
40
13
13
(FEET)
SUPERFICIAL
VELOCITY
(FT/SEC)
HEAT
TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT
-BED
-
CONVECTION
(Btu/HR FT2 °F)
L0
Table 3.2.2-2
Surfacing Data
Closed Gas Turbine Cycle - Atmospheric Fluidized Bed (General Electric, 1976).
UPPEr - 2ND STAGE
SUAN
BED
NUMBER
BED TEMP.
GAS EXIT TEMP.
LOWE - STSTAGE
"I-TEM~'EflATW'ZE
(AD CAREN
CELLS
uphElD CELLS
4
4
1550
1 100
2000
1550
54
46
21%
22 +%
11 x40
9x40
4
4-
(OF)
% DUTY
EXCESSAIR
DtIMENSIONS:
BED-PLAN
-
HEIGHT
(FEET)
SUPERFICIAL
VELOCITY(FT/SEC)
8.1
4.4
O/A HEAT
TRANSFER
r!fFr
t-'T
-£D
CONVECTION
(Btu / HE
R T2 °F)
39
10
47
43
7
Iao,
-i
e* C
o o
Im1~-
£l5\
,,,,,,........
%
.....
.^.
u
Ik
·
MA~ ~
~
A
.... fr
_.;----'
~~~.............
~..=G
iCJ
O
*
... c
I
I-
L4
F--)3
O2 f.
I _ _ __
I
I
4
*_
'a
*
I
I
4-1
I =
1~~
-c4
cy, CJ
I
o.
o0
co
U.
Im-0
0
C~0
I I-
I G
C~n
U
r_
U =L"
a,
..
c
0
UOW
u0
e
*_
C
'a
to
c
.I-
48
4-U
ItI
LUI
z
Lu
-J
IC
r)
U-
0;
0
,.~
I
.I
LU
I
"0
LI-
I
I
I1
LU
0.
I
I
I
C,,
to..
a
0J
I.__
Ci
0
-o
il)
CMJ
'" m
"1
eiI~*
N
_
rlaI
lo
1
.L.
::*_
0=o
0
49
Cable
.I
Sta
Flue Gas
Samp LinS
Poret
3rd -Cyclone
(8" di)
Housing
for
Recycle
Aix .
Soli,
L;X6i
Leve
lndicatO:.
II-
-Retur.¥
Alterna iv
Ash
Vibrator
y
'sA
----
_
Plate
Figure 3.2.2-5
Schematic Diagram of the 6-inch MS-FBC Combustor
0SO
(Vaughan, et al., 1977).
- Air
3.2.3-...PressurizedFBC Designs
The general schematic for the combined gas turbine/steam cycle
pressurized FBC configuration is shown in Figure 3.2.3-1. The water/steam
usually-travels through the same combination of components as it does in
the atmospheric configuration.
The combustion air cycle is different for
the'pressurized system:
(1)
the air compressor operated in conjunction with the gas turbine
pressurizes the air and sends it to,
(2)
the fluidized bed, from which it must go to
(3)
some combination of "hot side" particulate collectors to protect
the blades in the
(4)
gas turbine from which the gases go through
(5)
an-economizer, and then up the
(6)
stack.
A schematic of a pressurized FBC test rig is shown in Figure 3.2.3-2.
There are a number of other configurations that can be built around
the pressurized-FBC central theme. In the pressurized adiabatic FBC, as
previously described, heat transfer tubes are not used in the fluidized bed
or the combustion gases above the bed (see Figure 3.2.3-3). Instead, the
bed.temperature is controlled by sending 200 to 500 percent excess air
through the bed.and into a gas turbine. This arrangement is that used by
Combustion Power Co. in their CPU-400 facility.
In the pressurized air tube FBC the bed temperature is controlled by
heat transfer tubes but the working medium is air instead of steam/water.
A small test of this concept is being operated by Oak Ridge National Lab
and is called the MIUS, Modular-Integrated Utility System.
3.2.4.
Potassium ToDoing FBC Designs
Although cesium has been considered, potassium is likely to be the
liquid metal working fluid of the metal topping cycle FBC. A schematic of
this system is shown in Figure 3.2.4-1. Except for the topping cycle,-this
configuration is very much like the gas turbine/steam cycle pressurized
FBC. An- alternative configuration makes use of the availability of heated
process air and steam to operate a fluidized bed gasification subsystem
(See Figures 3.2.4-2 and -3). By providing clean gaseous fuel to the
combustion chamber, the need for "hot side" particulate removal is
eliminated.
51
G)I
wr
as
Q~~~~~~~~
iI
Ca'
c)
,ri=
s-
cU
In
a)
CN.~
as
I,
~~~~as
*_
NLI)~~~~~~~~~s0.cu
~~~cw
C
~ ~
a)
q)
.-
v
c~
0
E
0
-CD
CJ
c0
52
-a
0D
CD
14
Il-
iUm,
-o
CL
em
-o
._C*J
2:
C,
:lm
N
C
C)
o
._3
!._
I
IUi.
I-
.rncm
U-
-a,jLJ
C
Ai-
53
cn
n=
nr
LiC
xx
Xi
I
w
D
X.
U,
zw
az
w cr
U-
ra
0
as
U
241
r l_
cr)
-
LLJ
ow
cr
U)
ui
j.- M
aJ
QJ
z
CD n
0--!-
( a.
Cf'(C)
M D
=) cn
<0 ,
u.
M Mx I--
F
LU 4
o
r-o
M
E
A~
0
w
-J
I
_j
M.
M
0r
-J
z
.-
M
(n
U,
CL
cr-Z M
g3. u (or
w
z
M
_J
0u
C.)
C.
Bus
-r*10
._ a)
'a
zm
en)
*
*
Cj
(1)
w
a.
0
u
w 0
X
!--
w
z
w0
C-
Ij
w
r
*at
-
L4
a)
C-,
mi
CD
t0
N
Ix
.-
S..
3
C.
(I
a.
cn
0
S.0.
U-
u
L.)
I
_
.9-
_
U-
I
CMI
*
L
[
Q
E
.I-
Li
d
_
..-
LL
o
C.C
0~~
4-
E
I
coQo
55
U,
a
e
r)
'.0
r-
0U.
-
W
c~
tA
GT.
v
S-
0. C
co
!L.
G~)
N
S.-
%-o4
wCD
us
eJ
'C wo
cM
C
._c
W0
I
0
4.-
ca
-
.CZo
S.
*w
L
56
O~
t --
~1
0
F-
Crn
0s
-n
Cam
*1_
-.
.-
oJ
CD)
I
3 ._
o.0
0
CM% 4)
*
- 0M
.r- =
N
So.
Ads
Z:
LLT
iuA,)
tA #f
t-
57
L
3.3
EnervgyBalance Evaluations
The only energy balances that have been developed for the various
advanced cycles are analytic point-by-point accountings of the BTU inputs
and outputs of each of the modules in the energy facilities. The two
recent studies for which these were developed are (Wolfe et al., 1976) and
(General Electric, 1976). The information from the latter study is
available and an example is given in Figure 3.3.2-1. The Westinghouse
research (Wolfe et al., 1976) involved an extensive parametric investigation of energy balances, and these results, unfortunately, have not been
published. This data for the parametric studies from Westinghouse is of
the format of the example in Table 3.3-1. Some of the assumptions used in
computing these thermodynamic performances of the cycle configurations are
shown in Table 3.3-2. The conversion of these assumptions into the
performance data was accomplished at Westinghouse using their Generalized
Performance and Heat Balance Program. Tables of the parametric studies of
closed-cycle FBC performed as part of the ECAS project are listed in Tables
3.3-1 and -2.
In the absence of the Westinghouse data, the GE data are presented
without comparison.
It is, however, possible to investigate in a
comparative manner the overall power plant efficiency, defined as the BTU
output divided by BTU input, and the boiler efficiency as functions of
several of the operating and design parameters. It must be emphasized that
all such figures are projected values since there are not any large-scale
fluidized bed combustors that are operational. It has not been possible to
make probabilistic point-by-point energy or mass balance comparisons
primarily due to the tremendous number of different FBC configurations and
operating and design variations.
Such probabilistic comparisons are beyond
the scope of this report, but may be forthcoming from the DOE/MIT
computerized FBC data base project.
3.3.1
ComDarison of Fuels
The majority of evaluations of the constituent analysis of coals used
in FBC experiments have been limited to the major characteristics and
components of those coals. Some recent studies have also included analyses
of coal ash components, particularly those of concern in corrosion/erosion
of turbine blades (see Table 3.3.1-1). Although there have not generally
been any more detailed analyses, the 20 or so different coals that have
been used in FBC experiments are from coal seams that have been analyzed.
Composition of coal will vary even within a seam, but these generally
available analyses can be useful in finding components of coals that seem
to be responsible for peculiar effects (such as the sulfur removal
efficiencies on high chlorine coals). In addition, the general analyses
can be useful in predicting trace metal emissions from future use of
various U.S. coals (see Table 3.3.1-2). Trace metal analysis of the
sorbents are unfortunately rarer, but nonetheless important, in predicting
trace metal emissions (see Table 3.3.1-3 and Table 3.3.1-4).
58
Table 3.3-1
Parameters for Combined Closed-Cycle Gas Turbines (NASA, 1976).
Paramcter
General Electric
Fumace
Atmospheric fluidized bed
Fuel
Coal
Bottoming-cycle fluid
11-22
FL-85
Steam
Number of parametric points
7
5
1
l-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.-
Primary loop:
Compressor discharge pressure, psia
Helium turbine-inlet temperature, F
Compressor pressure ratio
Recuperator pressure drop, AP/P
Recuperator effectiveness
Compressor inlet temperature,
F
1000
1500
1000
1500
1000
1500
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.03
0.85, 0.9
0.03
0.6
0.03
0, 0.5, 0.85, 0.9
80
80
80
0.015
0.015
Precooler
With
With
O.015
With
Vapor generator pressure drop, AP/P
0.01
0.01
0.01
Helium heater pressure change, AP/P
Pressurizing loop:
Turbine-inlet temperature, F
Pressure ratio
Combustor pressure drop, AP/P
_________________
________
_______________
Vapor generator pressure drop, AP/P
____________
________
_______________
_____
_________
________________
_____
Bottoming loop:
Turbine-inlet pressure, psia
Turbine-inlet temperature,
Helium pinch-point
1500,
F
600, 1700
650
125, 100, 400, 800
390, 400, 410, 430
460
384, 413, 561, 900
50
30
None
None
None
Wet, dry
Wet
Wet, dry
Illinois 6
Illinois 46
30, 50, 70
AT
Turbine reheat pressure, psia
Turbine reheat temperature,
_________
_______________
F
Desuperheating recuperator
Cooling tower type
Coad type
nlinois
6
-
.
l
;t.,) rtcup)crator.
59
Table 3.2-1 (continued)
Westinghouse
Furnace
Prcssurized furnace
Pressurized
fluldized bed
Fuel
Distillate
~Bottoming-cycle
!t~~~~
R-12
HBTU gas
|Mctethyl-
LBTU gas
Coal
fluid
SO,
Steam
amine
Number of parametric points,
4
2
40
1
1000
1500
1000
1500
1000
1500
2.5
2.5
2.5
(a)
(a)
200
(a)
(a)
200
(a)
(a)
200
500. 1000, 2000
1200. 1500. 1800
1 5. 2. 2.3. 3. 4
1
3
1
1000
1500
1000
1500
1000
1500
2.5
2.5
2.5
(a)
(a)
96.5, 150. 200.
250. 300, 320
(a)
(a)
200
(a)
(a)
200
(a)
(a)
200
O.02
With
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02. 0.04. 0.06
None
None
0.02_
. U°-
None
With. without
0. 02
With
0.02
0.02. 0.04. 0.06
0.02
0. 02
With
0. 02
1100. 1700. 2200
5. 10. 15
2200
10
2200
10
1700
10
0.03. 0.06.
0.09. 0.12
0.06
0.06
0.09
0. 04
0.04
O. 04
3500
3500
3500
900
900
900
40
500
40
500
40
500
950
950
950
None
None
None
Wet
Wet
0.02
2200
10
.O. 06
1100. 2200
10
0.06
2200
10
0 06
0.04
0.04
0.04
O. 0.02,
0.02
0.04, 0.06
2500
2000
1800
700
550
950
40
40
__________
With.
without
Wet
40
_________
None
We'ct. dry.
None
Wet
direct
1250. 1600.
2000, 2500. 3500
800. 850, 900,
1000
40. 60, 80
250. 350. .300.
None
800. 850. 900.
1000. None
Nonc
Wet. dry. once
th rou h
Wvet
condens ing
Ilinois --f
Illinois =r
.
Illinois - ,
Illinois - r; Illinois - G Illinois
.
60
6
Illinois #6
North Dakota
Montana
Table 3.3-2
Contractors'
Base-Case Parameters for Closed-Cycle Gas Turbines
Westinghouse
General Electric
case-1
A FB
Furnace
(NASA, 1976).
''
Case 25R
PFB
Case 4R
Case 5C
Convcntiornal Pressurized
atmospheric
Fuel
Compressor discharge pressure,
Illinois 6
Illinois # 6
I Distillate
Distillate
1000
1003
1000
1000
1500
1500
1500
1500
2.5
0.65
2.5
0.9
2.5
0.9
2.5
-
0.03
0. 02
0.02
0.08733
0.059
0.059
80
96.5
96.5
200
Wet
Wet
Wet
WVet
psia
Helium loop:
I~~~~~~~~
temperature,
Turbine-inlet
F
Compressor pressure ratio.
Recuperator effectiveness
Recuperator pressure drop,
P/P
Loop pressure drop, a AP/P
Compressor inlet temperature,
Cooling tower type
Pressurizing
OF
-
_
0.040
loop:
Turbine-inlettemperature,OF
Pressure ratio
..
170u.
10
.
..
.
_ .
.
2200
10
Bottoming loop:
Turbine-inlet pressure, psia
Turbine-inlet temperature, °F
Working fluid
--------------
__
---
----
aCalculated as 1 - (Turbine pressure ratio)/(Compressor pressure ratio).
61
10
3500
Steam
Table 3.3.1-1
Analyses of Coals Used in Various FBC Experiments
(Babcock and Wilcox, 1977).
C-14237
,-,.ple No.
C-14239
Coal
',X.ple Description
Pittsburgh
#8
ro
Coal
Pittsburgh #8
10/22/76
11/5/76
26-30
31-41
5.0
5.0
Volatile Matter
40.0
40.3
Fixed Carbon
50.1
49.8
9.9
9.9
Date Received
Test No.'s
Total Moisture, %
Proximate Analysis (Dry),
Ash
·tu per lb (Dry)
13260
13310
Btu per lb (M&A Free)
14720
14770
Sulfur (Dry), %
3.0
3.0
Silicon as SiO 2 *
47.0
44.7
Aluminum as A
20.
20.
24.
25.
Ash Analysis
(Spectrographic),
20 3
Iron as Fe 2 0 3
Titanium as TiO 2
0.6
0.6
Calcium as CaO
1.0
1.6
Magnesium as MgO
0.6
0.5
Sodium as Na 2 0**
1.2
1.1
Potassium as K2 0* *
1.7
1.7
Sulfur as S03 *
1.0
1.8
*Gravimetric
**By Flame Photometer
62
Table 3.3.1-2
Probabilistic Display of the Constituents of 101 Representative U.S. Coals
(Ruch,et al., 1974).
I
j
i
,l:'
e:n
!
..
: .t. .
r
I
-
D
I
II
0.,:
; .C. ~;m
15O.21;;3
..fl S
-co
O.C2
.. C3
E-
4-Co
7..5;.-
5.'7 ;;Z
'.:5
o.7 r;an
;;z
:j.:S r;z
60.54
I
1. C¢
:o. 1
;3
7.3O
:.C)
,. . CO
G.7'
0.23
:.;5
O..'
72.15
O.ZO ;:
14
.Za
:?!..0 ;:a
?.54;2
71.Cl;;
5.CO
K:
1...CO
C;)
8 CO
C,;,O
;..CO
7.70
77,. 3 P
51.Go
3'.78 ;;x
'3 Ms
2.83 ;;2
1.42
2.10
1.26;a
0.23
0.45
.:0
4.7j9 ;;.,%
'2.71 ;;:
78.$C
12.CJ
Sr .23
57.78
0.45
72.46;a
6.C3
?,70
13.C0
3.3
.CO
'x5J
C.55
o.77%
,:.:7
.
O.C
0.4..
: .col
C..~:
0.70
0.c5
.70
0. C:4
0..C3
C.', 5
: 5:_D,:.?A
jO Ir
l .c
a.;o
:'-?%
c.cZ$
;.f0
C:
:.C3
!
c..S
,'(y.,i .I<v
°
:
f
51.C3
C,.¢C
c.C2
C.)
r1
C.-'3.7
3
,
*.z3
7.7)
~.c~ ;.
;.t
S
;:.
2.S
lC.}
.3.
5
25.C3
,;.55
1.,}0
~
T
~
~
3.C2
P:''
:;;.,-¢cnco 7
03.
_P
f
(r.{fl7
,
,::l6 i;3-:;; iFiit.
;..r
_
_
_
y':t-rs,.r:^n,; clh.~ ',~-.. :t;nrJ
51:::7
u
c.73
4.:5
*. .C;
&'i
1.41
8,.:a%
i
i; ,o,;,*ru
t~:$
' trr;.;
*;~ -l.~_.... i;cr'
;1, t. i s.
.'.% _i,
'...>
63
i
ti!'
,
:f.l r
T_.:. '
. J s..
_
.-,;+:: ;I;:r ~r,~. ''). IFl;;~
.
Z7:.'.
[illi,~, :.. -t.;-.:rit'
b'y X&lV
,;.t;!
eIVol.}.
g "; ;LTA).
Ii
!
Table 3.3.1-3
Coal Ash Contamination* of Benificated Lime/Anhydrite (Mesko, 1974).
Lime/Anhydrite
Raw Limestone #1359
Ca
39.0%
38.8%
0.43%
Mg
0.51%
Fe
0.101%
A1
0.15%
0.42%
Si
0.23%
1.14%
Na
0.027%
0.20%
K
0.08%
0.34%
Ti
0.012%
0.0380%
Zn
4 ppm
35 ppm
Cu
10 ppm
35 ppm
Ni
36 ppm
195 ppm
Co
28 ppm
90 ppm
Pb
43 ppm
180 ppm
As
70 ppm
P
1.6 ppm
.
0.42%
1.6 ppm
*Sewickley coal ash 9.5 percent Al. On this basis the Lime/
Anhydri te contains approximately 3% coal ash.
64
Table 3.3.1-4
Composite Analysis of Elements in Coal and Sorbents
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon
Coal
12900.00
1.30
5.00
130.00
1.60
0.10
102.00
15.00
2.50
6780.00
730000.00
11.00
1.00
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
1400.00
20.00
9.60
15.00
Dysprosium
1.00
(g/g)
Limestone
3998.49
2.70
2.00
100.00
0.80
0.00
18.00
5.00
1.00
374053.62
113711.95
0.00
0.00
55.00
11.00
100.00
47.00
0.00
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
0.20
61.00
3.10
Germanium
6.60
0.30
Hafnium
0.97
0.00
Indium
Iodine
0.04
2.78
0.00
0.00
Iron
21300.00
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
6.90
34.80
25.00
0.00
230.00
0.00
4295.92
1.60
30.00
0.00
Magnesium
500.00
3269.60
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
25.00
1.20
7.50
6.40
21.10
500.00
0.08
37.00
0.00
75.00
Nitrogen
13800.00
Phosphorus
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rhodium
71.10
2300.00
76.00
290.00
0.00
187.00
1600.55
0.00
0.00
Rubidium
14.00
0.00
Scandium
Selenium
3.20
2.10
0.00
0.32
Silicon
30300.00
0.20
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
1800.00
200.00
43000.00
0.40
0.30
0.23
2.00
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thorium
12713.88
0.00
699.57
490.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tin
Titanium
4.80
700.00
40.00
399.27
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
1.90
1.60
32.70
0.55
272.30
180.00
0.00
0.00
16.80
0.00
30.00
25.50
65
(Murthy, Nack, 1977).
3.3.2
Atmosoheric FBC Energv Balance
The two energy efficiency topics that are addressed in these various
subsections include the overall power plant efficiencies and the combustion
The results concerning overall plant efficiencies are
efficiencies.
correlations of various operating configurations and parameters to
published analytic projections of what the efficiencies are likely to be.
The last portion of this subsection contains an empirical correlation of a
model to published combustion efficiencies.
In the temporary absence of a component-by-component program for
energy balance calculations it is instructive to compare some of the bottom
line results of different energy balance computations (see Table 3.3.2-1).
These results do in fact bunch very closely. The range of values from
33.5% to 39.9% observed in the Westinghouse parametric studies is examined
further in Table 3.3.2-2. The parametric points investigated in that
research were obviously chosen to isolate, one at a time, some of the key
design and operating parameters to point out the variations due to effects
of each.
Figure 3.3.2-1 typifies the close relationship between the fluid bed
and the conventional steam furnace systems. That close relationship shows
the fluid bed system as consistently 0.2 to 0.3% lower in efficiency than
the conventional furnace system. With this close correlation in mind and
thus using all the atmospheric furnace parameterizations, Figures 3.3.2-2,
-3, -4, -5, and -6 suggest overall efficiency variations as functions of
bed temperature, condenser pressure, power plant total MWe output, coal
Correlations of those
type, and reheat temperatures, respectively.
parameters to overall energy efficiency analytic projects are:
Ep = overall plant efficiency, %
Et = thermodynamic efficiency, %
= parameter for type of coal
n = .7955 for bituminous
n = .8065 for subbituminous
n = .7719 for lignite
n
Pt = steam turbine throttle pressure, psia
T
t
= throttle temperature,
0F
T1 = first reheat temperature,
0F
T 2 = second reheat temperature, °F
T3 = third reheat temperature,
0F
Cp = condenser pressure, in.Hg abs.
Table 3.3.2-1
Atmospheric FBC Overall Efficiency Calculations
Description
Overall
Plant Eff.
References
Loss Factor 11.4%
36%
(Keairns,
Northern Application Coal
36.8%
(Hittman, 1974)
Northwest Coal
36.8%
(Hittman, 1974)
7.32% Aux. Power Loss,
87.92% AFB efficiency,
36%
(G.E.
33.5%
to
39.9%
(Wolfe, et al., 1976)
Various Operating points
67
Co.,
et al.,
Sept.
1976)
1975)
Table 3.3.2-2
Parametric Studies of Atmospheric FBC Performed by Westinghouse (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
m
.....
Parametric Point
Power Output, MWe
Fuel
Ritlminnf< fa I
Subbituminous Coal
=
Coal
Lionite
....
_,-a
..
......
....
6_Li_~.L_~7_j'~7
{: 9_
,^
Furnarr Tuna
I
__
iCnnuantinnai)
Atmrcnharir
nro,,vjF,,,,, . .. ,. v,..-.
.... I
Fluid Bed
SteamTurlinesi .... _
Pfress.. psia
.... Throttle
Throttle Press
f F
ThrottlieTemp
First Reheat Temp , °F
Second ReheatTemp, °F
Third ReheatTem . F
Condenser Press, in. HQAbs
Eff, %
Thermodynamic
Powerplant Eff, %
ovR2II iaWff
vwcsaw
.
.
^
Total Capital Costx o- 6 $CapitalCqostsI$LAYe.
CI nfFoirt MillskWh
Capital
Fuel
OPer. &Maint
Total
Est. Timeof Construction, yr
,
-
.....
II
I
y
.
i·
y
.''v
-
.
.
.
-
i
2''
, V I
.x1X
_-
"3.5
1
17
9o
~..
..
37 R I
w
._
-
?17
_-.
_-b4_
AA 1
.
qF~
_9
27.079
9.202 7.66I
2.C068 L1.97
.6A9 13L71
__
_-:
I. 7
3.5
48.3
38.5
38. 5
7A7
2'H4
.3 F
_
_
AC
J JUU
S}UU
1
t
-
, Ik
n
743.4
.
,.J i
$
I
I
I
V
-
KI
3;unn 1
J}tAF
J}tAF
:'
,
'
3500
1000
1000
_
....
I
--
-
__j
]
X
,
1200
1200
I
.... _
--
-
2400l 2400
2400
1000
1000
I
I
i
lX
X
....
iz,-
-
- --
-
1400
i
---
3.5
43. 4
3._
!34
__2
1
2s__i
43.4
As.5 _37.5 1-43jj
33 5
4 35.0
37. I_
38.6
33.5
35. 0
37.81-X.
38. 6
L.Q'. ', l l I ,- i I'- 7? 3' 9'1
'"
* L_! '".
** "
H 4'.'
I
u4
4 79.5 AOQA
619. 7 : 3. 5 I '. hJ
~&
.._
-
~v~ -,
3.5
42.6
3.5
45.1
2
. 46.5
338
-358
35. 8
.- 'AA
'
37.0
1 37.0
33.8
Io1- 1I9
,-
-- - 19. 680L'
X
I -
-
-
i 5t
!
ZI
-.
I
X
x,
I.
I4
-
I
_
.
I200.rX1OG
I
46.1
>6.7
I16 7
59tA
I 1fHn Rt 5d2 0
v
*:
3500
1400
1400
, -,forV
.-L--2
F
I x
----
13.5
50.
.i3:
9
35-.4i_7.
· 35.4
37.9
x
V
IX
4I
I
I
4
X I
I
I
II
7
_
I
I
!
48
-
17
--
.,
I X'
·
[
'
,
j-1
3.5
47.5
i
IJ
I,j
,
._
,
.
.
3.5
44._
..
,
VI
"
'
m
I
.
IX
X
.
-
.
.
35 0
5
5000 l 5000
12O1400 1200
lom I_ 1200 -4-~Z 120
1000 L1200 1400
_
x
I
1
I _X
. V
_
-
-
466 A 465.466
465
S
-
I
.
'Ar.
JJ.
.
V,
x
_
w
I
I
X
-
·
_
I
..
33_ _5I
T,4 7 i1-
46 '
465 46
L38
#
>
.,
,^
.
A7R A
t 57
[..
1 ?9q6 3
9 163
2
.
.
>_
I 159 1 s 77
t7A 7I 26. 121
I 5431
i
;1.
L.55 Z1 1 2301
& 296 8. 648 Ia 587 8. 093 ,.7. 2LII 899 7.5 ;j 7-507 7 670 1 _
| .
L97,
1.
2-.044 . CIf.
3)1t5A. lhT1.951
9
912
2
. 5 · ~.3511.
781 21
]_30.
41.12 .27Ui. .32...9 2905
4 5- - 3$ -S24 2 ! 26 8 . -.
5.0
5 _. ;0
5.0 15.0
5.0 i 50
.o
5.0 5
l
I
!
I_______!___
I I
o 5.j50 I
Notes( Whee Applicable
(1) Use Base DeliveredFuel Cost
68
I5.0
'
,
__
I
_.
-
--
I
41
40
39
38
em
>_
._C
U
.50ps
37
36
3500psia
,c
:rW
LC
o 35
0
o Atmospheric Furnace System
34
c Fluidized Bed Furnace
Back Pressure = 3.5 in. Hg Abs
33
32
31
30
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Steam Temperature, °F
Figure 3.3.2-1
Effect of Temperature on Overall
Efficiency for a 500 MWe Steam Plant with an
Atmospheric Furnace (Wolfe, et al., 1976, p. 12-35).
69
4
1-
ae
-. 3E
-._
C
LL,
U
> 36
C,
L-
I-
,34
0o
Condenser Pressure: 3.5 in Hg Abs
32
30
~
~
1000
v
_
_
_
1100
_
_
1200
_
1300
1400
Steam Temperature, °F
Figure 3.3.2-2
Effect
of Steam Turbine Throttle
Temperature on Overall Efficiency
Plant with an Atmospheric Furnace (Wolfe, et al.,
70
1976, p. 12-34).
for a 500 MWeSteam
Bse Case
.
3500 ps i a/ 1000 F/ 1
.:
..
40
F,
!
> 38
U
._-
U3
L36
a)
C
LIJ
ao
0>
34
32
i
3n
0
2
8
6
4
Condenser Pressure,
10
in Hg Abs
Figure 3.3.2-3
Effect of Condenser Pressure on Overall Efficiency for a 500 MWe Steam Plant with
an Atmospheric Furnace (Wolfe, et al., 1976, p. 12-36).
71
41
40
o
A
39
o 2400psia/100o F/100o F
5XDs!i&/
1
psia/1000F/1000 °
Condenser
c
F 100
F 100a
F
ressure 3.5 in Hg Abs
38
>R
',1
C
Q1
F
It
37
LLI
L.
36
C
LU
=
A~~~~~~~~~
35
,1
34
I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I~
Cl
33
32
31
30
500
600
700
800
900
Net Plant Power, MW
Figure 3.3.2-4
Effect of Plant Size on Overall Efficiency for a Steam Plant with an
Atmospheric Furnace (Wolfe, et al., 1976, p. 12-38).
72
1000
i.
42
41
i
,ff
:
-
:
- 35
Base Case
nsaIO/10'FI
.. .. r--
3.5 in Hg Abs
40
II
39
38
em
1U
._
37
m
._
L-
g
C
L..
=
a)
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
m
· ·m i !
m
Illinois
·
No. 6
Bituminous
-
·
Montana
Subbituminous
-
III
North Dakota
Lignite
Coal Type
Figure 3.3.2-5
Effect of Coal Type on Overall Efficiency for a 500 MWe Steam Plant with
an Atmospheric Furnace (Wolfe, et al., 1976, p.
73
12-39).
g~~
m
~
~m
..........
m
-zc
50100f
140011400/140
41
'
50001200/12010/1200
40
lzo10o4/140011400
4f
100/1100
u~~o/ 351K35/1200/1400
39
23500/
61400
. 38
C
e-.!
/1200/1400
37
0- 2400/1400
->,36
3100/11000
24o;/1
LA
..
35
V
34
24M/I
o1200
oolooizo
.5Ol OO/00/10000
5000/11O:/11000/1000
33
32
31
-30
1000
1100
1200
1300
Steam Temperature,
1400
1500
F
Figure 3.3.2-6
Effect of Steam Throttle Conditions on Overall Efficiency for a 500
MWe
Steam Plant with an Atmospheric Furnace (Wolfe, et al., 1976, p. 12-40).
74
For no reheats:
and Cp
1400,
2, Tt
Pt
=
2400 to 3500
Et = 46.5 + [Pt - 2400) 1100
Ep
1
n Et
For one reheat:
andCp
2, Pt
Et
=
3500, Tt = 1200, T1
1400
48.5%
p
Ep _ n Et
for Cp = 3.5,
Tt = T 1 = 1000 to 1400
Et = 42.6 + .0125
Tt - 1000]
t~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ep = n Et
tgsd
+ 0.9 [Pt
-
2400] 1100- 1
= 1.004]
For three reheats:
and
Cp = 3.5,T 3=1000,Pt=5000,Tt=T
1 =T2
=1000 to 1400
Et = 50.2-5.6[1400 - Tt]400' 1
t.
Ep = n E
p
t
[gsd
=
1.007]
Detailed mass and energy balances of the various Westinghouse ECAS
atmospheric FBC designs have not been published; the General Electric
evaluation is shown in'Figure 3.3.2-7. Of the total energy input to that
- facility, in the form of coal (to the combustor and the spent solids
- cooler), the approximate breakdown of energy outputs is given in Table
3.3.2-3. The auxiliary components that have been assumed are shown in
Table 3.3.2-3
Energy Expenditures in GE Atmospheric.FBC
Sensible heat loss to water
Electric generation
Auxiliaries
Net Plant
Sensible heat loss to air
Sensible heat loss to solids
49.7%
38.8%
2.8%
36.0%
11.3%
0.2%
L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 3.3.2-4. The overall material balance for the FBC with the carbon
burnup cell is shown in Figure 3.3.2-8. Similarly, the material and energy
balance for the Multi-Solids FBC is displayed in Figure 3.3.2-9.
75
-7f:1
Ius
'a.
10)
S-
s.ci
~J
cLL
c:
0.
U,
0E
4-J
0
'0
1:
LAJ
Lo
· r,,
S.L.
cy, -T ._4--
u
SCZ
LA
I-
co
C.,
r -
76
F-r
a
L
4m
::
w
csz >N soco
o l
o
co
o AO
G%
*-
0C.) .
0
Lf
0
S.4-)
U
&fO0U
04
%O
_
c6 o
*
'<
P-
IW6 4A
0P
6i
zo
C4 -
4C4 C4 C)4
C~4
>-
X
X
aJ
aJ
of
=j
z- z
~-0
U,
L.L
L
z
W
CO CO
4 4 4 q3
I0~
¢..
-o
I-
LU
66.
a
o o.
C4 C
-
0
0
L. U. U.
U
oLUI
°
°O
tn
LLU
aco 0
O.5~z
< J- E
:
4n
UL. LA. U.
LU
U.
0
0
*0
*0
IA
W
4
S
.
oC!
)
cn O
t
(lJ~
X
X3
>\
ev*
.0
(0
U-
*_
X
0
CCWI .
=s
O
U,
<
co
0
-
_ Z
z~
- <
6L 6L 6L 6L
_z
O
6- a
UZ
LL.
.
77
-J
U,
z0
0
.-
0
0
C.
U)
W
0
0
z
< UJ
wz<
Q Zu~l
)
Z<
LU
Z < a < a V) O
.
(A
cv,
L -
.
<K
t5
,,
Z
Li0
0
-. 1I1,;,,
x
~~~
z
, -4-o
'
.
CO~~~C
0
(n
>
-U
LU
Y
< I<4
~
CY
CS~~~c
E
3
0
,-
E
II
.&X
O
o - CO o -
O-
C4
C4
O
O
O
rN
LU
CZ
Q
I~~
C4~~~~~~~E
r-
0
Z 5
_
UJ cO
0CYVI
a3 X
<
06
n J
LLU
Ul
Q U
z
-i
(A
LU
0
< z 0:
I-
=
-j
O
LU
-J
z
U
i=-
Z
O
U.
C
LL
I-
< O
LI
0
0 0
z ~L
0
0
0
C~4
X
'4
,SU
*
co
I.-
U,
z,~.
iti
U
r5C3
U 3-
I
o
, x
3 -fA
W
z
a
0Z
#A
7_
Ui
AU
x
C
CX
z-
N
o
4~
0I.L
.
Go
4--
U- 5U9
*iU
to U,.,
*G1
C: (U g,)
5-
)
a)
(ft
._4)
~~.
5_)
C..)
*~ )
a.
_,--
==~
a
-U
4)e
0
C.
°,1
"loW
N
-
zo
o
Z.
_
CN
<
Lu
C~~~~S..)
UN..
>
I
U.
oI0I
0
.
CM4
_"
zu
LAJ
a
0
1 >
4)
4J
x
C
(.
-o
m
co,
W
0
z
U
xMI
I-
4Wu
x
78
_L.
0
0
OL
-j
Lu
ur-
0Z4
-4:
Lu
FLUE GAS: 11824 b-mole/hrPARTICULATE: 1.71 ton/hr
ASH: 62.0 w/o
COAL: 22.8 w/o
PRIMARY'
CYCLONE
L.S.: 15.2 w/o
SOLID:
I!
III
0.12-~--
K
FLUE 'GAS:
i
r
TO SECONDARY CYCLONE
& ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
6
2.T32-F
SOLIDS:
2.44 ton/hr
PARTICULATE:
ASH:
COAL:
I
I
33.4 W/o
L.S.:
58.5 w/10)
{COAL:
58.5 W/O
FLUE GAS:
8.1 w/o
PARTICULATE:
I
3014
lb-mle
hr
1.59 ton/hr
ASH: 64.0 w/o
COAL 20.2 w/o
L.S.- 15.8 w/o
CARBON
BURNUP
CELL
LIMEbTUNE:
1.63 ton/hr
CaSO 4 : 11.4
I
WI
°
SPENT LIMESTONE:
~~~~~~~~l
ton
COAL: 1.85-t-
FLUIDIZEDBED
COMBUSTION
WITH
SULFUR
REMOVAL
1.85 ton/hr
CaSO4: 34.4 w/o
lb-mole
hr
AIR: 2900
Ilb-mole
FLUE GAS: 361.4
-more
(SO2 : 7.42 mole %
SOLIDS:.0.14 ton/hr
m
If
iL
I
SPENT LIMESTONE:
6.32 ton/hr
CaS04: 33.7 w/o
II I
!
Ib-nole
I
SPENT LIMESTONE: I
AIR: 8400 lb-mol
hr
II
LIMESTONE
REGENERATOR
tCOKE:0.48 ton/hr
I
-lb-mole
- !b
e
iAIR:
321
817 ton/hr
COAL: 11 ton/hr
CaS0 4 : 33.8 w/o
LIMESTONE:
6.96 ton/hr
5.60 ton/hr
CaSO 4 : 13.2 w/o
CaSO 4 : 11.4 w/o
7.23 ton/hr
CaS0 4 : 11.4 w/o
0.97 ton/hr
MAKEUP
LIMESTONE
0.70 ton/hr
CaSO4 : 13.2 wo
DISCARDED
Figure3.3.2-8
Overall Material Balance (Archer, Keairns, Yang, 1970).
79
r
re t 0Loc
*1
L-
S=.
a,
0t O 0t:(D ¢-
t c C' o 0
-00 0
v 'L °
CO
0
° U) ir
4
0~0
t-
0~0
o0z "0)
C::
cn0 O
0n
a0
OO'O O
6666
-
0
O
DCq ~" *C CO
o_
0
_
OI
Os
C
tC) e
Ik
04
00
_0X Da)
n,
al
00
aO,
0
a)
0
00
L.
00
a,:,
¥
to
to
C
0
U'
C;
0)
-
-
(Z
~O
0
ra
.0.
tO
to
.
0co
C)
¢.D
m
Li..
Li.
0ILO
(Da')
-
-
CD a
-
0
a
cn
ro
re-
O
0
o0
ai
-
,,.,
LO
t-
-
l
-
00
00
O
a,
0.O.
0
O
4
0
0
H
0
.0
C,
I
o
I!
o
III
laI-
4
4)
c
.0
,,
C "i I
I?
t M - .
la
0
·
-
,_
C
0
a_nD
0
C
C
Vm
Li.
(.C)0
00
03%.. v_:
-
lr
IL.) -L
S..
0
I.
D ,,-
) rn
000
0-0
00 oc~ 6C)C
re
._r~
'1-
C)0fJ3
r O
_2 >
. )
_4--.
C
re~)
N_q
cn
.I-
c.N
*
._-
(0
u
0 o
C
Cd
0_
U'
O
ro
t-
a)
w
a)
S..
03%-
C-)
0
tDo
0
N
x
4>)
*a
=
I
=
LX
V
0
0
CD
C
X
_/.,
:
*
J
4.
*
C
(L
Lr.
VI
O
(D
C)
0
n
C
C)
E
0
+j
n
II
_
0
LU
UIZO C)
=
(0
C)
Ci
80
-
*
=L
E
C,
I
X
=
_
LLJ
Combustion efficiency, consisting of losses due to elutriated solid
carbon and unburned combustibles, such as CO and hydrocarbons, has been the
topic of a great deal of research. These analytic and experimental studies
have been motivated by attempts to optimize the conceptual designs of FBC
modules.
The combustion efficiency information from the General Electric
design was shown in Table 3.3.2-4 and a review of atmospheric FBC
combustion efficiency experiments is shown in Table 3.3.2-5. These investigations have resulted in several general conclusions;. one is that the
unburned hydrocarbons do not represent a significant portion of the
combustion losses, and are particularly insignificant when the oxygen in
the flue gas is greater than 2% (see Figure 4.1.2.3-1). A second general
conclusion is that bed design is critical in determining combustion
efficiency.
In (Archer etal., Nov. 1971, Vol. II), measurements indicate
that'much of the CO in the gas leaving the bed is formed from the reduction
of CO2 by carbon fin8 s in the region 5 to 8 inches above the bed, where the
temperatures are 200--Chigher than bed averages.
In (Bloom et al., 1977) it is shown that, with proper design,
combustion efficiencies can easily exceed 95 percent. This conclusion,
however, requires the further combustion of the carbon fines, as the
combustion efficiency of a "once-through" system is generally less than 92
percent. The two existing methods for the use of the fines are (1) the
carbon burnup cell (Pope, Evans, and Robbins, June 1974, PB 236 254) in
which the fines are fed to a separate bed running at higher temperature and
with higher excess air, and (2) recycling the fines back to the riginal
bed, (McLaren and Williams, August 1969) and (Rice and Coats, 1971). These
references show an improvement in combustion efficiency from 85 up to 99
percent for the carbon burnup cell and from 93.3 up to 99.5 percent for
fines return.
In (Bloom et al., 1977) it is speculated that the most suitable method
for use of fines in systems with velocities..greater than 10 fps is the
carbon burnup cell and below 10 fps is the fines return.
In addition to
changing the strategy. for use of .fines, gas velocity has a more direct
-effect on combustion efficiency in that for increased gas velocities the.
time for the combustion is decreased and elutriation is increased.
This
effect has been shown experimentally (see Figures 3.3.2-10 and 11), and
substantiated by other tests (McLaren and Williams, 1969). Tests on the
effects of excess air, again similar to (McLaren and Williams, 1969)
results, show a clear decreasing marginal return in efficiency for excess
air greater than 15 percent, see Figures 3.3.2-12 and -13.
Increases in temperature, of course, also promote combustion
efficiency, as shown in Figures 3.3.2.-14 and 15. Although efficiency
would certainly increase at bed temperatures greater than 1800 F other
problems such as ash agglomeration, volatilization of alkalis, and rapid
drops in efficiencies of sulfur sorbents currently outweigh the combustion
efficiency advantages at these higher temperatures.
Effects of sorbent
particle size on efficiency are shown in Figure 3.3.2-16.
On the basis of these parameteric studies and the EPRI data base
(Stroh, et a., 1976) an empirical model has been fit to the atmospheric
combustion efficiency data (Gruhl, Tung, Schweppe, 1978).
This model is shown in Table 3.3.2-6 with scatterplot in Figure
3.3.2-17.
81
Table 3.3.2-5
52
LJSS
"*&flC
Summary of the Results of Combustion Losses from Experiments Conducted by OAP Contractors
and NCB Laboratories at Atmospheric Pressure (Archer, Staly, Nov.
i
i '
amtxt':??a'
In
<
REACr. SSZS
M I
I
1.2t'
16£**.estle
.C
M-Csr'"M
Tears"
C3:u
nX-:-trt-
P:a:ed FTl
12. X S'
by
up Ce,
T.!s 23
359
Coal Ash
!
Coal:l-/L
x 6'
1750-2000 10-5
Coal Ask
led:-g16 esh
Col: -1/4 x 0
fMI4:150- 5-27
170
araellU
Is"
S. 41dqter retraecto7
led:-16+*8 ash
Coal: J8s'
x0
3' dt1aetec
liestone
SC 1351
$ed: &50,d.930,
Coal: 100A,
S.
* 4ut:la
Cod: 30 cah
4aater
d'ameter refractory
27' daoevet
refractory
o ah
mesh
6' 4tmacer
i
wol3-C=
ed:-118" a '30
2 dlaoeter
"Ash
ash
Cos2:-1116"
.4-3.4
Recycle
to
:-
.&-o.5: a:
: ! .W.~
t(
aaet f:cs
1.6-6.4
F:
d.1
ash
C"l:-10
&3'"x
ash
:ed -:/1S
Coals -1 6"
esh
Argo:n - Argcmr.e.cloncl
0-370 Mpu
CZC: -60 ;pc
Yes
41.3 Carbea burn-u? ep1t:o-:y
w,'nes reo 5: to 99.6:
I6Co
10-20
1230-1=
0-90
2.6
No
N.
3-3
3
Io
ID
-
0-90
0-S$
*_6
+30 to -
1470
7-14
1-3
Jackets
Tes
Par!gsl
recycle
3
10-35
2-4
2
CO)Op:r.atig pressureat 3.5 am.
Vol. 2).
82
O.&:
ecess
:
e5.
0C.: t : 0
.l
excess air
bee
'r' h 4
ceo&-
so
Rec cle
-'
-
vl:'eou:
1,m
co*:1-~
.! e
coilI In. tecyc'-e
[:1
_
[:!3
142.5~,:
0.2-0.9:rt
f 5-7.1';
Tat;2
recycle
frt:2zal
n·l bed
*Wbrs2e.y
-14
t:o orltL-
v!:hout
recycle
b:c to
orK:n
bcd
L=-. - 3:r:ish Coal
lesrch Assoctation, -t!lan4
At:-:a:1ou
Natzonal Cal bard Naseaer:hta::sh.oent, Znagan4
"'':-v
et al., Nov. 1971,
~~_
_
cooaL$r
1560
C-1360
L450-750ppm
Water
No
It:-10.6
VlrLna:s
e-sultrg
L-newrs.Aexandrla,
. t: - :o,e, vans, ad .kob~'3s.
at oran:ovn. Vest Vtrginia
- U.S. :ursau of "Ires
and ''-.eert
C?V.
::Cen..v
Jersey
13ZQ
- ISSZ ese:rch
-.
nc. bed
1500-1300 5-20
recycle
3 t square
"
15-16&0 $5.6-57.0
ed:-1iC ash
1300-4t70
Coal: -13 mesh
X3':.A
(Archer,
AT
Cobitoa
eaf:cency
SS: to o90Z
to cSrc
C'vcL
to
0
!.3-C%:
(b)
0L-14
No
No
10-1S
.C'0
500
mesh:Coal: -1/4"+
1116"; 1/3" -0
130-1330
ed:-t:"* 3o
cesh; C./:-/4"
x 0; -/S"
0-C
.te
14
CO
:F i
52 eess
air; ~0.1
ft
4l5Mea
cagxes.
s~
0
6CO - 14CO
Coal: -4
Z.
;'gLJ5
Lttal)
C:; :O# x :'
;.
I
FttSz£
|
xErCrc.:
'
.
25
a
CC'Tests
M50
1tLX'::2'd
|St":'i:? :~~~.Y
| YYCLSS
ff "'L':
R:C'zvS:
F
AR : I rise.:)
-esh 1510i-1:0 5, IS &
a-u2
1W,:-;::
g1971, Vol. 2).
T
:
6-7:
o
10-25,
yes
:.3
0.07-0.09 I
f:ue gas
. :
0.:s--
r?.!
c0
L)
I
I
I
I
0.
0
i-
C::,
j.
t
.
Cl)
-
V
i
.)
I
g
l
w
4-
E
r
CD
O
CU
O
.9-4-
04-)
~,._
~
t
II-
o
,i
I
I
I
iI
C
3oCO
L.,
!1 C0
< -z
.D c,,
r-4
,D
=
0
u.
X>
C -Z:
h- LLJ11
I
o
(I)
t2rj
a-
n
C.
C\J.I
I
I
I
!
I
O
C)
U! Sso-I Uo'0yq3
83
4-
*~ 0
*-
paj uoq.:t3 ,o usZ.od
S
4-)
Co
._-
I
I
":rC\j
. 0O
r-q
CJ
-
I.
o
4-
U
L0x
4U
U.
L&J
a)
100
I
I0
v
A
A
11
I
I
i
II
II
iI-~~~~
0
I
I
I
I
0 '0
90
0o
0~~~~
>
at
z
0It
w
0
0
~
0
0
LL
y
80
0
LL
u;
z
0-SUBSTOICHIOMETRICAIR
0
0
0-EXCESS AIR
0
U
70
hi I
0
I
I
1
2
3
I
4
I
t
5
I
I
8
SUPERFICIAL VELOCITY. FT/SEC
I
I
I
I
10
11
12
13
Figure 3.3.2-11
(Strom, et al., 1976).
Combustion Efficiency Versus Superficial Velocity
nI
!
41*I
~
~I
....
J
A
1
~
~
~
I
~
*n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
iv
a
~
~
.-
I
I
I
·
£ COCONCENTRATION
LOSS
o CARBON
i
-
o 4
o; SOO
0 =
cac
f C.
kJ
~ 50
o .
20~
4
0 !
0
a.
----
_,'- _
-
T - 1600'F
'J 3 Ias
Ho ' 6 In.
a
12p]COAL * 2000
(2dp STONE ' 930,
.10
I
0
,
I
I
20
10
EXCESSAIR, PERCENT
30
40
Figure 3.3.2-12
Combustion Efficiency not Affected by Excess Air in 10 to 30 Percent Range
(Rice and Coats, 1971).
*
I
Mel
i
Figure 3.3.2-13
Combustion Efficiency Versus Excess Air
(Locke, Lunn, Hoy, Roberts, 1975).
in Fluidized Combustion
i"
100
----
?
~-
_
T
_~~~~~~~~
.
(..
i. ~
0
.
I
99
0
"14
4
0
-rJ
98
0
U.
97
&...........-
1600
1500
I
I
.~~~~
_J%
-
_mm
1700
1800
Combustor Bed Temperature: °F
Figure 3.3.2-14
Pressurized Combustor
Effect of Temperatureon CombustionEfficiency in the BCURA
(U.K. Nat.
973).
Res. Dev. Corp.,
.0
III
uA0
I
I
=U
=:
0
6
IC C~i
>.0
-IL.
4
4 -
GAS VE
FXC.FSCA
U8c
ee
I
2
(;)
(
COAL
STO;E
0 . 14 00
'~ '~
=
sbo0
J
200
930,
!O
-- - - -1
1700
?0
Ie00
I
'jut)
BED TEM.ERATURE, *F
Figure 3.3.2-15
Effect of Temperature on Carbon Losses Data of Esso Research & Engineering Co.
(Hammons and Skopp, 1972).
I
W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
-
__-
0
au.J
z
a1)
N
r-
0 2
ccc
0
4-)
~~0
41
Un +
°
0
..4-
cn
Ll
CD
cn
C-)
0
~J o
z
L
< OX
I
11
w
LU
0 ccc
I
0-
I-W
V--
qr- <
0
LL
2
w
LU
0
-c
_E
CzI.
w
6.
Z:
LU
u.
C
on
O_
0Uo
Q
.,_
c,.3
4U
J
Io
*
02
C.
C
_.LL
oCS
{( 0O69L -OZt1) 3VNUnl
1
o
-
¢o
VOU= SSO1 NOS:I
87
o0
o
%
O
o.)
(. 00
t-
AL
Table 3.3.-6 Empirical models of combustion efficiencies for which values
of all modeling parameters were available('ruhl, et al., 1978)
Symbols:
E = combustion
efficiency,
in percent
V = superficial velocity, in m/sec
D = static bed depth, in cm
X = excess
A
C
F
M
=
=
=
=
air,
in percent
bed area, in square meters
calcium to sulfur mole ratio
1 or 0 indicator of fines recycled or not
calcium particle mean size, in microns
Model based upon parametric experiments and examination of trends:
E=96.1[l.-.036V][l.+.Ollmax(-4.,[4.-.787D])](.972+.0035D)*
(.97+.008abs[min(7.,X)])
Model based on data base for all experiments and least squares, rather than
main trend, modeling:
E = 77.79 + 14.11(1.- .1434V)(1.+.02433max[-4.,(4.-.787D)])(1.+.0746*
abs[min(7.,X)])(1l.-.215A)(1.-.038C)(1l.+.231F)(1l.-.00016M)
[fit=arithmetic stand dev 2.95%]
on 144 experiments
00
70.0
110.0
75.0
80.0
J mnfnmmunf
nf-jmnn-n..t
85.0
90.0
95.0
1000
minmmmlmmm;imnmn.n
I nmnmnmmn
ummanmnnmmiml
:
!
2
4,J
c 950
·. 105
U
2
I
!
!1
'
..
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~2 23*
41 95.01
D.150I
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G
-IE
'1V.*
'
q.
H
.2K3
cI-~~~~
~~~~~~~~...
.W
@1
I
2
.*..
outlyers,
robust
estimation
-
a.q.. 1. *
K
S
..
...
'.%
techniques~~~
~~~~~
H*
.
a
F
col
J
~~~H
J EE
E
2
J
A
~~~~~~~~H
K
K KJ
H
-H
I
*845 4
N
H.
2
A
b
ee
H
KK
.*.-
8
7.0Figure
3~~.3'-1
·*O
ctep
"c~~~~~~~~~~~~E
I
2IJ
A
70.
*.
*.....
* I
.c~ !75*0
2 9009.
H
80
f cobsto 50HefiinyaSbevdvru
.utyer,
1~~~~
0
2 *
~~~~~
DD
rous esiato
~~2
C
tcnqe
0
1
col be use
1~*
to cluster the mass of points while ignoring outlyers,
(Gruhl, Tung, Schweppe, 1978).
89
An empirical regression model was fitted by Pope, Evans, and Robbins
to data from an FBC fitted with a carbon burnup cell (Ehrlich, 1970, PB 231
977). Although this fitting was done to data outside of the range of
current combustion efficiencies, that is, the data is in the range from 65
to 90 percent, this is the only published data from the carbon burnup cell
configuration.
The formula developed was
Le
=
112.12 - .0935T - .367A - 1.028D + 6.93 C + 1.51I - .170C I
(gsd = 1.12 = geometric standard deviation of the fit to the
experimental data)
where
L = combustion losses
T = bed temperature,
A=
D=
C =
I =
0
F;
air rate, hr/lb;
static bed depth, in.;
carbon rate, hr/lb; and
inert rate, hr/lb.
This formula fits the data in (Ehrlich, 1970, PB 231 977) with 0%
arithmetic mean for the difference between predicted and actual data and
2.21% arithmetic standard deviation. A later version of this model, based
on studies of various numbers of feedpoints, does not show the accuracy of
this earlier model (see Figure 3.3.2-18). There are, however, quite a few
more points and the different design changes which both have an effect on
the fit of correlation models.
Recycling of fines can have an order of magnitude effect on combustion
efficiency and is likely to depend on the coal type used. Some preliminary
research on industrial application of FBC's shows some results for
different coal (see Figure 3.3.2-19).
3.3.3
Pressurized FBC Energy Balance
Here again the analytic predictions of overall plant efficiency are
presented first with the experimental data on combustion efficiency
presented later.
The results of the Westinghouse ECAS parametric investigations are
shown in Figures 3.3.3-1 through -11. The model that fits these results
is:
E
= overall plant efficiency %
p
n
= parameter for type of coal
n = 1.000
for bituminous
n = 1.040 for subbituminous
n = 1.015 for lignite
It=
P
r
gas turbine inlet temperature,
= gas turbine
pressure
ratio,
90
F 1600 to 1800
5 to 15
ii
U
10 10
I
I
t
.
,
.
- -
I
i
.
$
ii
__
I
SYMBOL
* TEST USED IN DERIVATION OF MODEL
-
0 Three Feed Points
Two Feed Points
X One Feed Point
Multiple
Feed poin x
Test Program
x
: :n
N
__7
a
. i
90
iiJ
i
I
0
S
o0
0
a
4)
0
U
%.
0
,
o )0
ax
I
D0
03
,,---
01
I
C
N'
Y
a
0
0
U
z
o
I
S
H
U
H
X
0
x
I
II
rX4
M
9
0H
7c
4)
0
z
i
I
II
I
__
_
0
11
0
U
/
I
f
0
/Combustion
13.78
efficiency, %=
+ 0.05193 (bed temp.,
F)
+ 0.03973 (air rate, lb/hr ft2 )
+ 0.3831 (static bed depth , inches)
-
S
C
fJ
-
i ii i
5O
0.7514 (carbon feed rate ,lb of carbon/hr ft 2
0.1638 (inert feed rate, lb of inert/hr ft2 )
+ 0.0020 (carbon feed rate x inert feed rate,
lb2/hr2ft 4 )
im
i
i
i
mi ..
.
80
70
90
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY, % (OBSERVED)
60
Figure 3.3.2-li
Comparison of Observed and Calculated Combustion Efficiency Using Equation from
Previous One Feeder Tests (Reed, 1977).
)
1 As
With Recycle
From
Cyclone
i thout
ecycle
42
From
U.
0
YClone
U
04
-94
U
lbU1O
Bed Temperature,
1700
F
Figure 3.3.2-19
Combustion Efficiency
Vs. Bed Temperature
Measured in 18"
FBC Test Program
(Hanson, DeCoursin,
1977).
92
Aft
q4L
i
n.
38
. .
.~
~ -%
--
-1
-
- -
.
I
- - --'I I
I
..
. - '. -
-
-
30
x
34
.. J-
.
-
U
X
_
m32
Ij.
L.
30
C
la
-
~ ~
~
r
LJ
I
>
28
I
26
24
-
-
I
n ,
0
5
10
15
Compressor Pressure
20
Ratio, Pc
Figure 3.3.3-1
Effect CompressorPressure Ratio on Overall Energy Efficiency
Fluidized Bed Boiler Plant (Wolfe, et al.,
93
1976).
for a Pressurized
-
40
E
90
.
=:3
CA
I-)
80 c
C
N
30
tA
I..,
,
70
I-
L
0
60
3
E
W
C
0
r
.UQ0-)
I...
w
LU
.. 20
C>
C
450 I)O
.0
L..
U
L-
W
0
10
<
30
8
10
20
w
'C
a3
,
10
C.
nU
A
U
1.0
2.0
3.0
Point 1
Point 19
Point 20
Air Equivalence Ratio
Figure 3.3.3-2
Effect of Air Equivalence Ratio Variation on Overall Energy Efficiency for a
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler Plant (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
Q1
L-
0
'' -4 -
40
I
I
.
CA
.
403E
0
1.It
-.1 I
-t
%._
U
38,,Oa,
:e
0° 1^
U" 38
36 <>"' V)
at 39
c
..._
D
L-
0
-
wV
Q,
w Cm
c-
k.
LLI N
Cn
=
37
. .-._.
34
D0
'"
tEA
M &A
Q
=
-I.
32
36
4::
cw
..J.
I
,'J r
1600
1700
1800
Point 21
Point 22
Point 1
Z
a,%
Gas Turbine Inlet Temperature, °F
Figure 3.3.3-3
Effect of Gas Turbine Inlet Temperature on Overall Energy Efficiency for a
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler Plant (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
95
3500 psig, Reheat
38
j, Rhet
U
C
0 37
co
on Reheat
ft-
L.-
,
C
L
on Reheat
0,:
36
35
1000
1100
1200
Steam Throttle Temperature, °F
Figure 3.3.3-4
Effect Steam Throttle Temperature on Overall Energy Efficiency for a Pressurized
Fluidized Boi 1 er Plant (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
96
Steam Plant- 3500psia/100
3.5 in
0 o F/100 0
HgAbs
Gas Turbine Inlet Temp. 1600°F
5
'GasTurbine Pressure Ratio =Q
'
40
F,
1
o 8:1
:10: 1
o15: 1
U 38
C
.5
em
0
m
L_
36
oa
C
34
LU
32
I'
/n
i
6-
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6 2.8
3.0
3.2 3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
Main Steam Flow Rate x 10-6,1b/hr
Figure 3.3.3-5
Effect of Steam Flow Rate and Pressurizing Gas Turbine Pressure Ratio on Overall
Efficiency for a Nominal 600 MWe Steam Plant with a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler
(Wolfe, et al., 1976).
97
F~
Gas Turbine Inlet Temp. = 1700°F
Gas Turbine Pressure Ratio = 0
5:1
o *^-8:1
-
,1:
43
o15:
Steam Plant - 3500psia/1000°Fl1000°F,
3.5 in
Hg Abs
41
U
39
.I
C
...
an
i
i
!
ii
i I
i
,
i .. 1 i
A
i
-'s
c 37
LU
SW
mU
0
c,.
CD
35
33
1I
J....
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4 2.6
2.8
3.0 3.2
Main Steam Flow Rate x
3.4
10-6 ,
3.6
3.8 4.0
b/hr
Figure 3.3.3-6
Effect of Steam Flow Rate and Pressurizing Gas Turbine Pressure Ratio on
Overall Efficiency for a Nominal 600 MWe Steam Plant with a Pressurized
Bed Boiler (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
OQ
Gas Turbine Inlet Temp. = 1800°F
-Gas Turbine Pressure Ratio =
5
1
08:1
*
)~~
-
a 10 :.1
) 40
o 15:1
,
38
Q
C
-.
LU
La
36
3500 psia/1000°F/1000F,
3.5 in Hg Abs
C 34
co
0>034
LI
-
32
i
I I
l
I
On
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0 3.2
Main Steam Flow Rate x 106
3.4 3.6
3.8
4.0
Ib/hr
Figure 3.3.3-7
Effect
of Steam Flow Rate and Pressurizing
Overall Efficiency
Gas Turbine
Pressure
Ratio
on
for a Nominal 600 MWeSteam Plant with a Pressurized
Fluidized Bed Boiler (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
99
Flow Rae =4 x 106 W/hr
F/11OOOF.
Plat I"3GiA
3.5 in Hg Abs
StM
So~
40
.
.__ - 1't
...
,,_- ',.._-J__ n
+UIri t
re$uLIre 1U- I V:
I
>:
38
0
C
t-
LA
> 36
i
L.
I
I
w
C
LUJ
I..
0>
34
i
II
I
iI
32
i
t
'7n
1550
,.
1600
,w -
.
.
I
1700
1650
1750
1800
Gas Turbine Inlet Temperature, IF
Figure 3.3.3-8
Effect of Pressurizing Gas Turbine Inlet Temperature on Overall Efficiency for
a Nominal 600 MWe Steam Plant with a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler (Wolfe, et al., 1976'
100
42
I
I
I
-.
I
JGas Turbine Inlet Temp = 160010F
Gas Turbine Pressure Ratio = 10:
I
D a -A
grstvt
I lo,,
B..ar
II
.q. 1t.
i' IkIr
Iv11
Cfiter
_. '
40
'Ste.
I
0
'
Piant - 3500 pslia/1000OF/100 F
.
38
I.-
aI
36
eU
L_
(34
32
I
2an
J.I
0
2
4
6
Condenser Pressure,
8
10
in Hg Abs
Figure 3.3.3-9
Effect of Condenser Pressure on Overall Efficiency for a Nominal 600 MWe Steam Plant
with a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
101
42
INQminal Poaer
= 600
s Turbin TemL
irbirn
41
=
W
1600°F
Pressure Ratio 10: 1
Steam FlowRate = 4 x 106 b/hr
40
W
0 °F,
StenamPlant - 3500psia11000°F/100
3.5 in
Hg Abs
39
'38
%I-
%J3.7
L36
LUi
=;0 35
U..
034
33
32
31
2n
-
JV
Illinois
No. 6
Bituminous
Montana
Subbituminous
-
North Dakota
Lignite
Coal Type
Figure 3.3.3-10
Effect of Coal Type on Overall Efficiency for a Nominal 600 MWe Steam Plant with a
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
102
Steam Plant
00/140014D
6
42
4500/1200/1200
A
I
_§
-
_.
j
40
et
Q
C
W
3500/1000/1000
38
4-
0-
L".
CU
L0
.L"
36
Gas Turbine Inlet Temperature = 1700°F
34
Gas Pressure
Ratio = 10: 1
32
- *..
30
1.8 2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6 2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
Main Steam Flow Rate X 10-6, b/hr
Figure 3.3.3-11
Effect of Steam Flow Rate and Steam Turbine Throttle Conditions on Overall Efficiency
for a Nominal 600 MWe Steam Plant with a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler
(Wolfe, et al., 1976).
1Aw
Ae = gas turbine air equivalence ratio, nominal 1.1 to 1.8
Tp = steam turbine throttle pressure, 3500 to 5000 psia
T
t
= steam turbine throttle temperature, 1000 to 1400°F
Rt = steam turbine reheat temperature
t
1000 to 1400°F
Cp = condenser pressure, in.Hg abs, 2.0 to 9.0
one reheat
for Rt
Tt
Ep = n
{37.55 + .018[Tp-3500] + .005
Rt - 1000] + 0.5
Ae
-1.1]
+ 0.4513.5-C p] + 0.41[It-1600] 100- 1 -0.8 abs val
p
11.0-Prr
t
1}
Parametric analytic studies of the energy efficiency of adiabatic
combustors is shown in Figure 3.3.3-12.
Mass and energy balances for the pressurized FBC are given in Figure
3.3.3-12 for the General Electric ECAS results and in Figure 3.3.3-13 and
Tables 3.3.3-1 and -2 for the Westinghouse ECAS results.
Combustion efficiency should be better for pressurized FBC's than for
atmospheric FBC's. Figures 3.3.3-14 and -15, however, show very poor
combustion efficiencies even for very high excess air percentages. On the
other hand, Figure 3.3.3-16 displays much better combustion efficiencies
for excess air at 15%. These results do not agree with the (Nack, et al.,
1975k
1470 F, 2 ft/sec,
3.5 atm at 97%,
140O F,
2 ft/sec,
5 atm at 99%,
1650 F, 2 ft/sec, 4.8 atm at 99%, and 1750 F, 2 ft/sec, 4.8 atm at 99.5%.
An empirical model has been developed using Figure 3.3.3-16 for
temperature, gas velocity, and a fixed point for excess air, and the
previous figures are used for effect of excess air changes. This results
in the empirical equation:
Lc
10(.01Tb - 13.5)- 1 + (.003Tb - 4.75) (Vg -2)2
x ANTILOG [(log2)x(0.6 - .04Ae)]
[No gsd was calculated because the data set was so small that the fit was
unreasonably good. Within a year ther should be available at MIT Energy
Laboratory a data base for pressurized FBC. Until this equation has been
fine-tunned on such a data base it should be considered useful for
determining functional forms, but presently without useful coefficients].
where
Lc = combustion losses, %
104
-O
ff4)
z
N~
0
0
0O
0
-0C
a.
.0o
O
0.U)O
U)
z0
-J
co
a)awo
.0
w0
G
-0
-E
00
N Q
0o
a)
C-)
_
Li
ow
a _
0-
0r
tn
.,
(.
0-
W)t
a-
2
U,
O0 w
o
a)
a
c-
)
F
0
U1)
3._
ow
L
0
It)
-
LU;
_
O_Y :D
<
to w
CL
c-)
NC
I-
a
0:
I--
LU
0
-n~
re)
0
I.- 0a<
r.
rI
0
-(0
._t
X
co LU
3z
0
u
04-a
CD
00
I.
.r
I-
I
0V)
0
C
*Q
S-
J
t
4i
I
l
!
: -
0I
l
!
I! ~
A'
0to
-T-
(%) AN31D1-43
105
v
-o
._
4-
U
a
u
*_~
m
*_
4-
LL-
LaLJ
at
Q-
:co
-
C.,
.
F-I
0
lJp
.9-
.C-
I-
0"r
O
C.D
L.)
LL-
N
5Il-
.-
a.
C
w
S-
C
A
4
(-)
w)
c~
(Li
-L
0
'o
S-
0
<3
L-
2
a.
2
C
0
a.2
I
L.
U-
I
-
-
-1
I
4-
0
9
So.
4-)
e-
0
c
4)
N
I
-o
laCLL
a)
N
el-
r-
cA
*'
I)IA
4--
0
u
a.)
i
107
.
*~
_
CL)
C,
Table 3.3.3-1
Advanced Steam Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler Base Case (Parametric Point 7)
(Wolfe, et al., 1976).
Flow Rate
of Steam
X 10 - 3 , lb/hr
Location
T, F
or
Flow Rate
P.
(l-x)*
psia
1
4000.0
1000
3500
2
3639.8
557
608
3
3639.8
1000
534
4
3386.0
617
121
5
3166.1
617
121
6
219.9
617
121
7
2.919
4.9%
1.7
8
7.5%
1.7
650
925
10
2742.7
177.8
182.4
557
608
11
135.9
843
304
12
117.9
617
121
13
81.6
434
47.9
14
64.4
341
28.1
15
153.8
240
15.0
16
123.6
17
2962.6
117
18
4000.0
530
= 4000
19
4000.0
608
= 4000
20
.,__,
9
Gas, lb/s
1655.9
__
__
__
__m
__m
5.2
3.4%
__
__
1.7
14.7
59
1520
1520
21
595.8
145.9
92.7
92.7
22
595.8
145.9
1427.3
1427.3
134.2
1563.
2
1563.2
15.3
1563.
2
1563.2
145.9
92.
7
92.7
23
1600
24
866.6
25
470
26
844.4
15.3
1655.9
1655.9
27
584
15.0
1655.9
1655.9
14.7
1655.9
28
.
275
.
L
..
* 1-x = % moisture
x = quality
108
_.
_.
Table 3.3.3-2
Advanced Steam Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boiler - Preferred Case (Parametric Point 31)
(Wolfe, et al., 1976).
.4
Location
-
1
2
3
4
-
5
6
Flow Rate
of Steam
X 10-3 lb/hr
i
..
*F
T
or
P,
psia
Flow Rate
Gas, lb/s
(l-x)*
..
4000.0
1000
3500
3640.4
557
608
3640.4
1000
534
3387.0
617
121
- 3167.1
617
121
617
121
219.9
7
219.9
4.9%
1.7
8
2743.5
7.5%
1.7
9
177.5
650
925
10
182.1
557
608
11
135.7
843
304
12
117.7
617
121
13
81.5
434
49.9
14
64.5
341
28.1
15
153.9
240
15.0
16
123.7
17
2963.4
117
18
4000.0
530
= 4000
19
4000.0
642
: 4000
20
--_
3.4%
59
21
5.2
1.7
14.7
1520
595.8
145.9
120.1
595.8
145.9
1399.9
134.2
1538.3
15.3
1538.3
145.9
120.1
__
22
__
23
1800
24
__
25
__
1008.9
470
26
970.4
15.3
1658.4
27
584
15.0
1658.4
28
275
14.7
1658.4
* 1-x = % moisture
x
quality
109
-
IC(
>
9!
C3
E
LL
9C
W
a
I-(A
co
1
0U
8.=
M¢
~w
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
EXCESS AIR (¢
Figure 3.3.3-14
Comparison of Combustion Efficiencies (Hoke, et al., 1976).
r!
It
/
-.
i
.
a
dl
al
I
a
a
e
0
&
M-
f
s(*
"{ V$
& C2!4' 3 "wW
o ,1* I , it. . "loc.
__
+
to
I,,..,.
ss
:
W
'
-
:
y
A;s..'sf ,q)
i
:fit
!
'
:
,
4*;
I ..
.
W.
't:(%,A..%
Figure 3.3.3-15
Effect of Excess Air on Combustion Efficiency (Vogel, Swift, Montagna, Lenc, and Jonke, 1975).
110
.
IlWJ
I
s8
it 96
"
.I
i
I '
i''
Cs/S RATIO: 1-3
EXCESSAIf: - 15% (3% 0 N FLW, GAS)
FLUIDIZED-BSED
HEIGHT: t
/
.
GASVELOCITY,
ftse
- 2.0
PJ
nIn3.s
A-. 0
zU
/0
-
o
/0
0.
.
94
Li
a
0~~~
32
0
U
So
e8
"
an
1400
A
I.
1450
_
.
I.
1500
!
1550
I
1600
.
I
130
1700
TEMPERATURE. F
Figure 3.3.3-16
Combustion Efficiency
(Vogel,
Swift,
as a Function
of Bed Temperature
Montagna, Lenc, and Jonke, 1975).
111
T
b
V
g
Ae=
= bed temperature,
F, valid (450 to 1650 F)
= fluidizing velocity, ft/sec, valid 2.0 to 5.0
excess air, in %, valid 0 to 140%
112
It should be pointed out that, even if they are exactly correct,
specific terms in these empirical relations cannot be exploited without
affecting a number of other FBC performance measures. For example,
decreasing the fluidizing velocity causes a sharp increase in combustion
efficiency.
Figure 3.3.3-17 shows the lower limit on fluidizing velocity
imposed by particle sizes. Figure 3.3.3-18, however, shows another
advantage to decreasing velocity. In addition, each of the emissions will
be affected in one way or another by velocity changes, and it can quickly
be seen that many of the FBC parameters must be chosen with careful
consideration to all effects.
3.3.4
Potassium TooDpinz FBC Enerzv Balances
Tables 3.3.4-1 through -4 show the best design, parametric points from
the Westinghouse ECAS study. When all of the liquid metal topping cycle
designs are considered,the following model fits their efficiencies:
Ep = net overall plant efficiency, %
n
= parameter for effect of different fuels
n = 1.000 bituminous
n = 0.986 subbituminous
n = 0.962 lignite
Re = recuperator effectiveness range 0.0 to 0.8
Cr = liquid metal circulation, ratio 1:1 to 2.5:1
Gf = gas feedwater heater, 1 if yes, 0 if no
Ge = gas economizer, 1 if yes, 0 if no
Sr = stages
of steam
reheat,
0 or
1
Pr
=
A
= air equivalence ratio, 1.2 to 3.0
r
compressor pressure ratio, 5 to 15
TI = gas turbine inlet temperature
F, 1600 to 1800
TL = liquid metal inlet temperature,
0
F, 1400 to 1600
Tc = liquid metal condenser temperature,
Tt = steam turbine throttle temperature,
0
0
F, 1100 to 1300
F, 1000 to 1200
Pt
=
steam turbine throttle pressure, psia, 2400 to 3500
PB
=
steam turbine back pressure, in.Hg abs, 2 to 9
M
= cycle power in MWe, 400 to 1600
s
= parameter for effect of liquid metal
1.000 for potassium
1.014 for cesium
113
=
LIMESTONE P
16
20
'D
02
A
e
00/
10
/
9
/
em
8
U.
7
0-J
6
-j
5
aY
,a
w
·
z
w
/
.ff
/
4
F-
U
3
I
2 "'
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
0.01
I
0.1
PARTICLE
DIAMETRE,
INCHES
Figure 3.3.3-17
Terminal
Velocity
of Limestone and Coal Char (Babcock and Wilcox,
114
1977).
-
Coal
·
in1
_
,
i~~~~~~~~
-
-
m
--
".
s *'-0 ,
I
o
..
. a
0
S
.^
\
I0
~Veloctyi
tt.s
Figure 3.3.S-18
Area of Bed/PowerOutput Versus Fluidizing
(Locke, Lunn, Hoy, Roberts, 1975). -
115
Velocity in Fluidized Combustion
·.
450
~000
0·
0
0,
.0
0·
I0
·
9·
09>v
000*
0
'0
.
5·
N
.
0
'O
g1
.0
0
-
"
El
,_
K
K11
-
0
000.
§
-
4W.
*
i
4-
U
-
.A
0
o
_1
A
b
A_
It
9
_
:14
a
_4
2
:
4
-0
45
C0
ta
a0
"
'a
.
_
r.
0
0
-4
.
-4
45
4
2a
q
X_
45
O
a
~O
la0
0
AON
0
_
5 0 -_
a e1
° °°°
v
0
.I
so
0
**
5
*5
41-4
-4
2
014-
01
5
4 P
0i.
0
av
4
=3
x=
m
0
.41-
a
.4
.
.1
45
U
,-
aJ
.0
la
-
a
~4t
4 1
~"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
45
_
I
4
uU
145
IJ
._~
.
o .
_
45._
IC-
o.
.
D
*-
I
0.
I
I.
.
0.C
U
-4
o5
.
a
.4a
0_
C
45
*
a
-
u
*
U
aa
4
'0
..
.4
I
41
Oa
g
N
W
14
~n
0L
41
_5.
_
_
U
z'
.
0
4 -
Cs
U
0,
1
s:
V a
a
C
eI
I
a
0 U
W
cJ
4W
O6
0
".a
O
1
U
.
.4
0
E.
_.
I..
41.
_
L.
41
.0
0
-4
4-
-
V
0-
U
01
a5
a
a
.
0
a 4
u
0.aZ
a
g
o
*a
iI
V].0
D. 4n
-.
8 °-
°'o.
0
O r'
.0
o
..
o
o '0 I.
oW1
.0
le
a001-
4
II
oo
0
I5
10
r-
,a
a
0
14
a0
a *
"
'
N
0
4U.
-4
"
_
00a
0
45
;
0
oon
.-,
<
1
=Z
_I
a1
a:s
V5
u>
. .
a
_X °
._
45
ti
I
_
-0
U
-4_
,
cr
-
0
N
N
-~~~~~~~4
.
f5
-
0
-4
45
0
0
45
4
v5
I
I14
.
X
0
_0
-4;
-g
2
0
2
IA
3 ALA
U.15.
0K
-
'lI
2
41-
E.1 111
0
I
-
A
on
II
e
D
a
45
40
45I
Cb
5, la
a
.
u
-
IZo 41
a
0
fI
U.
_
45
I5
Z.
0.
U.
a45
45
0C]
C
-4
z
0.5
0
2
F
.
4.
2
a
4J1~~~~~~~~4
CV
=
9
-2
W-
,,
45
I,,
.L
avr
C'I
-
'U5
-
.o
UX
U
0
g
.J
t1
_
4-
v
a
I
I
I
-
-
U 4
4-.
I
I0
I.
I0 C4
14
451
31
116
a5!
a
&.
.J
U
u)4
a
0
u
45
C40 0.
O
0
-
o
0
0
c;
c;
co
c0
10
9
0
Oq,
o o; 0o 0o 0o
0
p.
'ma
"1%
.4
%.
o1M1
.1_
.
- 0
-I
m
N
°
46
.4
P.
u
c0
V
.C
C
:
I
-
6
a
a w6
C
Aw
*
-
.
a
a4
a
_
_
_
0-
*
0
a_
a
c
ow
i
2
a
V
a
..
a
6
_;
.4
a
4
Aa
a_i
0
a-6
0. 6
A
a
I
U
O
ai
o e
z
S.,
UCA
I
U
I
.4_
0
I
.4
.6
.
i"
C 0. A=
.
-a,
I
0
i
v
:
*I_
0
*
.4
C.
u
,A
F
.0
a
0
0 U-
2
U
0
o4
Z
410
41
l
h
it
.
6
6I
.,
w
m
"
Xa*cp v
4
'4
Ch
4
0
40
|
,-0)
S
W4
.0
U1
*6,J
C;
I
-i
w4
o.
it6
.
c
IW 6
to
u
4
_
h
ta
.460
.
6
.
-
u
V
.40
a6.4
A
q
00
t.
O
.4
g4
g
a
.
.4
0.
0
10 I.
w4I
1
e
_14.a
U
U.
.1
u
V .4
A.
-
-
_
6
.r-
6
6
.4 4
- 4
.
a
i
J@6
cU
.
. 4-)
q)
0)
,
r_
Ii
0
-4
Ei
A.
-4
+1
cn
.4 .
.g_ 0g_
0
'm
.4
y
-
I
qj
iS
*.
.
e
v
I4.
411
m
o
0
e
c.
6
- .A 3-0
Z V
.
e4
a
0
<: n
hiw
41
0
i
A-0
hi
c41
I
-
2-
2 4 . 0.J
-
.0
'-4
2
a,
-
4
41.
2
.4
A.
'A a
-
-
0.:
0
41
a
a.1
66
.0
C
W 0
0
eh
C,
2c
a
o
V.6
0
>
6
.6A
.
,
a
C
h
II0
x,
9
6
*
a
0A.2aX 'a
6
ba
.4
_
A.
_1
.
.4_i
A.1
N
2
i
0
r~
g
41.
a
'I
0
#.
A
.4
CL'
ci
Lb-
a
o
'4
.40
0
e
4a
#0
o
1" .*
0.
0)
.C
0
-0
-
(/)
84
i'4
-
.
0)
-
.
0
.
vha
-
hi
,
4;
o
fA
o
"0.
x
'4
i6
C
*
6
0
U1
- hi
,0
,
8
A
2
4-
I
a
*c
a
C
-
AA.
A6
6
34 .
CAI
117
St
N
0
I
C
4.
I
-
a,
-,
C
i"
41%
C
0
U
a.
M)
.4
0
a
6
hi
6
*
1
.-
a
I,
IC-
.
a0
A
Aa
C66 00
hi
6
a
S.
U
hi
0
S
a
-V
Ai
1. . .~<0. 0 . . . . 80
. . ..4' . .
-
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
4
o0
I.0'
I
.
0 a 0
-~I0
a
.o4
1 9
0
-
PI
a,
Ift
t-2
a
41.
tI
0
0
.24
41
-.
4.)
Pl
2
41
41
I
.
.4
:
c
a
*
u
g
I
la
0
ON
f:
41
h.
C
C
,a
a
41
'a
41 Q1
C
1.
41
41
C C
41404141
.C I.
A
Il
C
C
I
.2
-4
41 3
41
441 41 A
C
4141
'a
2
41 .4
C 41 C 41 41
A
41 0
41
0
41
U
414.4114
C) 143412
=
z
000
1441,,I.24
2
1-
C
M-
-I
0
ae
A
;4
I
-
o
I
.
tJ
-C
4-
i
C)
i
I
4
_
II
i
0
N
.
'fteN
a
ft
.
O00
I.00 a
.
,a
.
'
"NC
11
-4
4 21
N
a
.
a
O
F
a
0.
4=1
.
a
41
h.
C, "
1.
w
=
C
4 1 1
2==
l
341
2.441.
CL
c4C.
.4--
M
14
1
41
441.
14.0
I
41
aU
41
4141
CCC
41
C-
41
o
41
41.
a -
.24
41
3.3
0
r
41.4
-.
414141
41
C a
04
g.
44
0
0.
41 .9 014
*0
4C
0
N
0
41
C
·
l-0
la
.o
0
. ,
.
49
N
.
.40
0oo
oo0
0
)4
*,-
.0
a
.-a)
0
1.
11
C
0
0
-t
41.
0.
0
o
41
_
lao
0
o
49
-4-
00
0 o
0
0
0
4 90
In
_4
0_. --
.._,4
_N
*
ie.
:.
.4
2
24
O.
C
4 1 4 1 4 1
T'
2
1
41
0.
41
C
_
41
41
C
41 '
C
41e
41o
3-C
C
9
_d.
4
In
a. 0
"
4.
0
-I
la
a.
O
- 0
o
41
1.
0.4
1
*
_
4 1O
041
O.
1
A
5 41D
*
1
14:
E
14
*n
1
:
2
X
41
0.
E
0
a_
4C
.
:1. 41
41
41
c
Q1
o
4
a
X
_4
0
2
-
...
. 24
.0
0.0'
._
1~ .,
U
C
.. 4
-*s
214
0.
0
U
0
E1410
*f
'
.0
*4 0
*
. 4.
0
D
.,
.-
In
C
4
S
4
'I
.40
410
41
·.
0
a'
'.0
J
0 4,;,
c
-n
C
It
dh
.41.
- -c
14
0
41
-41
41
U
41
41
041
14 04
410
0.
N
_
-
0
C O
It
.
41
1
-'
U
-. 0
414Le-..
C.
M
-4
-4
.4
U
C
41.41
U
C
U
(I
41
0
.24
>
a'
X
4C
-1
C1
I-a
.u2
A
-' a'41
.2
C
414 _
_
O1
C
C
41
0
A
41
4
41
I
C
C
A
CE
'a
2-14.
O
U
-
.0
1
-
2 -
118
Q
0
C 00
0
A
2
F40
1.
3.
I
.
C
C
e4 C
'a 1
C u
0
U
_1
_1
0
0
u
-C
4
04%
0
cr.
I.
0
0C 04 -e
0
-
'@0
X00
.0
V _
o
Il
0 -
000000O00O
0
0
.4
o
'* 0_0 ' a-
o0
44
N
l
_
.400~
. la
C
o
4
0-
0
44
-4
-
-
I
A
~~~
~
41
1
.
0I_
CU
5
o
b.
I
1
-I-
_- .
04
.o
*.
*
*
34
A0
-4
s
*
c
0o
_
X.4
1
% c1
.
0
.5
c
-
41
A
41x_
us
0
0
'_
-
0
4
.4
I
o0
O.
-
o.
0
o
.4
o1
o% o
o
0000
a4
5g0
o. 4
.444
A
a
la.: 0.4
a *&
4c 'a
4
a
U
U
I
41
i
4.
1
N
44
*
*
-
1
O
o
a.4
4
6
2,4.
I4
°
a4
OCOJO
b
Zu
=
to
i
0
=
1
C1'
ft"
V.
rw
w
0
i
""
i
don
I. _
e"4
l
I
0
i
I-
u
0
w
.-
e -04I . ,-
41
4.
i6
-t
-
'I
,w
1.
_1
4
4.
4
.4
-1
;I
2
.
_ &I
_
a
t;1
U
-I
0
_
eb
W
"
O
I
o0
e
O-
*
-
.4
01
A
@4~
a
is
co
-
'
-
o.
'
a
4. o1
C
I
-
0.*J
aC
0
.4
P.
P.
O4.4
'I
~o
^
ll
oo
014
c4
0Ni1
0
.44
0
.5
L0=
4-)
.)-o
.-
I
')
0
0
a0.
0
43
4
0
It
..0.
_0
-
ao4-
1!
-
0
o
N
01
U
..
0
-4
-
I
-4
-4
0o
f,;.i
vs
.441
1 04
.441
"!
141 a44
.
^
la
0
Q
0
0.
4
P.
1~
N
'
-0%
4
4
.-
'U
I e1IC
A
41
-
-o*-
E
c
.0
*
t.
1.
41
.4
a
E
O
_
C
A
1
0.
4
0C.
04 >
'1.
.I
I.
10
41
.0
1 30g3
IO
41
A
41
0
1
,
0% -41
G1
a4VI
04- >4
-_04.441$
O
41
Q1 0
I-
_4
0
C
'io-. -.4
u
.1
a
4
la
0
u
..
0
_
.
C
0
-I-
U
uk
_
119
I
It
00
041
41
0
'4
a
a1
.5
a1
0
U
04
41
!14-
O
.-
..14 COa1
w ..
0
.P
04o
*-0JU
41
_4
-
E4
4.
A
IA~
I
0
0%
C
.4 4
t
14
=
a
.4
0
la
.
0
00
I1
F
c
~ ~ ~
.'a
".
C
*0m
O
~
4-
.C
.
.4
_
z
1
o.A
e
:4 e41.0
~
0D 4
0
00
tJ
41
0c
a.
41
a
41
0%
z<
e
3 .
I10 aW . |O
O4
.4s '
V
U
Ep = ne {.370 + 0.0073 Re + O.OOM3
+
0.00 Cr
2
+ 0.075 GF + 0.038 Ge - 0.00043 (15-Pr)
+ (.493 A
-10 - 6 G
+ Sign
-.4108) + .00482 (Pt - 3500)
(TI
1800)2
-
- PB ) x .006 (abs val I
(3.5
3
+ .01 (.006 + .001 S ) (T
+ .0085 S
r
+ 5.0 x 106
r
(T
+ TC
-
2500) +
t
5-PB
| ).5
- 1000)
.022-5.5x10-7
(TI - 1600)2}
Figures 3.3.4-1, -2, and -3 with Table 3.3.4-5 show the mass and
energy balances of the potassium topping cycle FBC. There are at this time
no experimental data to which empirical combustion efficiency models can be
fit. The results would be very much like the pressurized FBC case, except
the combustion chamber operating points would be quite different, probably
set to optimize other portions of the system than the very flexible topping
cycle.
120
0
10
a
o
.'
0
_
ea
-
0
.0
oa
.D
a
.
a
toCZ
_.
Li 4
Isa'
~~~~
Zt.
- ;
~
' - C Ut
-
E,
-
0 3~C
so
2
E
-,
G
00
o,~
ID
,LW O
C iv)~
Z0
_I
.
>
~~~~~i
~0
. eI -
a' '
_ a-
0.0.
a
a
W~~~~~
'C
a.
_
C
a..
-
%D
.04
f-
"' 0 O
co0
C
*-,,; -
,D-
a
\
Y
0
I
(a%
_
-
.0
S
. I
CU
?a- -
a
a:>
_L2r
, I
...
M
I # %A
d
L y
t
6
Z ,
C. C.
-
-
.-.
a
-
-
- Ai
I
Hill
i ill
-
~~ ~~ ~ ~
I
I
.
. -3:
C%I
WI
is
(Ij
0
C-)
C
.. C13-
Z.
"r
"? 's
- - --
FtI I-- --
-19-A0 -Z
.to
.I
!
-2
- -
*1
~
L~flI
~
~
~
mr-
~m
I-
I
'I
. -- =
.0.
*
I;
I
~:Z
-
o
ZT
o
~~ i
'~.~ ~~~~-
I
In
LLr
-
-
'~
0
QjO~
~
~ ~~
~Li:
0
~
~-
-
OU
"
0~~~~~~~
at
Cj~~~~~~~~~~
~~0 ~
c
V
4
.c
~.
r~~~~~~~~~
~
4-3 go
0
~~~o
ID-
0.
U
I.Z;
0
q.
C~'IRCJq
·
._
cnm
.9-
'
wF
I
'11111
~
f-
0
An
w
-1;
i))
~
{1
II
-- J-
j
LUa
g~
a
-
I
i J ii
0"i
'-P
el
;.a
' -.
Eq
I &4
-
IE
r
X
In)
I
C?
a
Iq
a
-
10
MD
Av
-o =
lF
m m t w~-
~~
I
0
.n
~o
° ° a'
=
'CU
0
In
-
~
~
~
~
C
'
L--. 0~~~~~~~C
M.~~~~~~~
121
w VIC>
CL
00~
-8-
.
.
-o,.& 1O
-
.4 43
.
.U
-0C~~~~~~~~~~~~Ie"'
I_
"4
.0C
_ V
C CW
Ab
3 o
2A
I.
V _
a
U
E
4
4_
C
* uae
~d
o~
cL-
U
C
.
0
Js
L'"C
~, :,
o
O o
..
3_
V
3
,,
I
oA
e
0
~~~~~~coo
In
E
.~~
f-
0
O~~~~~.
*
C-,
Cl
o~~~
.
U
W
c71
CJ
c.C"
*'0L
I
d*
m
0
r'-
O
._
o
_
.4C
*la4
0
44
a-"4.
rl
I.3=
':.0I
-
I.
"-
4
w.-
W2.,
.~4
Is
C,
b._
,
4
a_
-
-.
w
In. -B
-4 t
44
m
0
4j
(0
co
N
NI..al
N
S-
S._
i
Uo
I-)a)
0)
*_~
..
4N- ,..
I_
-u
*
J
U
*_
'a
4-
a)
a)
,~0_
·
a
can
123
.
'
a
.-
6- #.
0
.
S
C.
,
r4
.
a(U
U
.en
-
,4
cn
04
b-
a
0
'0
4
co
G.
a
F1
a0
r.
94
It
CI
a
0
F.
4
4
Il
IA
3
o
IU
4a)-
Uv
lu
cIc
2r
-1
o3%
0
I-D.
C
E
4CL
a..1
a
0
.4 I
Z
Q
4-)
-
,4
,O
O
97
Ca
*-0
C
P.-
0
c
0
94
o
o
O
0
03
'0
*
la
0t
0*
O
u' m
U
*. r. V"a
*
I . DZ..
Cm4),
r
o
_
~.4-4
-,-
C
22
L.
t
e. .4 F
oo 0 0 0
o
tz
CL
S.-
94
o
94
Cl
in'
.4
o
oC
0,
0t
'0
"
'4
.4
144
LaJ 0.
lb
I's
P)
'.
,^I
-4
n
+.5
0
q.)
Cl-
I-
I
·
E
5-4.
C,_
/4.
, '
f
LU
,-1
-.
Lu. '
!.&J
::
J
-
,.-
0C0G.
LJI-.,
.
I. i.,
0o
Ca
C
14
0~
4;)
o
131
97
97
-t
.4
.4
-4
.4
CY
0~
L
4'./
r'
1mu- .- _
i
0
oD
'
0..3'
s
I-U6
4
C
"Z
-
0
al''1 L )
·.
-U *.^ *?* I ' U
. ,--
.
.J'
._j
_U
*%es8
2 mu L.
Id
.4
Lu
CI.
CD
r.
** '0
I
co
=
Z
0
(3
Z
-4
C0
02
0
0
0
.
0
o
97
%J1
o
C
02
U% 0
C
@'4
0
0t
.4
0
.
"I1
*J'
co
04
:
0
r-
f-
-a.
lo
4.4
In
m
4'
94
4')
L O..1
_
-j
oC
o
Co
0
c4
O
F4
%0
94
0
4
-V
@4r
@4
.r
0;
0
I""
I-
C
)
0)
C
F-
Lu
t. I- -
I-
i-I
'-
1
.. 4
D Z..I
'J~
"JLIC
J I~
1
CL
)"4
-
C
J1
0.
:::
ffi
Z
w
C)
l-
.r-
--.
V Z)
.1 * .
1414.
aJ
v-
.
-
, '
' 0
,"
4 '*^
._
.o~
u
. 4
-J
ra
7A
I4t
C'7
I,.4
4~
*
o
iJ
CL
a.(iLu<)
C2
._
)
'3_ O >
0
aJ1
-t
_W
U
'45
.
'
s
.-
·
IL '~
Z
.
0
: S:
LI. l.),-- A'
U.J
k-
S
4.-
0.°O
:'LeC-i
- tY.~
lo7J
*
nCU)u
tJ e
IS
L
L&
,---
cr
.
0
:"
i
I,
I,
,,u
_
)
u
Li
: U.r
1
-v
*2
in',
1 7L
Z
_
.
Lu
4.VI
-J
Z
d
O
PI-
I-
Lu
XI
b--
Z
.,xlaZ J1I
0U
. W
_
' w
Y
.4
*1
-
(
0
Lu
i_4
e,_
~.
5--
:.
'I'
0Oi
0
i;
*
01to
LA
*
-U.
Wu
2 o
.J
UJ
.
=
as
Wu
.
i-
*
4.-
J4
C
I-}
%.w
.0
f-
t
.-
J
u
n
_
2
--
..5
I
Z
Z
3.-
Z0
' -L
'A
A
rnl
z
-s
r
_
Lu
Z
S
'i4
A
.4
0
0
.4
.
a.'
-:
-4
'
-4
N
P)
-4
.4
-J
:
1 2 ','3
'.1
L
O
I '* I.
'.
'L)
X
.4 I-.
(I
'
LA
-1
w
.4
t.
-.
.0
94
.. .
4. EnvironmentalAssessment
..
The primary impetus for developing fluidized bed technologies for
combustion of coal is the economic potential. Part of the economic gain
results from the lack of need for scrubbers. It does seem that there are
other enviromental gains that are possible through the use of fluidized bed
combustion of coal, but environmental data is lacking on many key points.
In FBC there are at least 602 inorganic potential pollutants and 491
organic potential pollutants (ERDA, 1977).
4.1
Air Emissions of AtmosDheric FBC
Those air emissions that have been measured on experimental rigs and
the analytie projections show that the potential hazards of these emissions
are about the same as those for conventional coal-fired units with
scrubbers. There is, however, serious lack of experimental-data on the
emissions of trace elements and compounds, and organic compounds (BattelleColumbus, 1977). A list of these potentially troublesome air emissions is
shown in Figure 4.1-1.
4.1.1
Air Balance
No experimental data has been- found on air balances around fluidized
bed combustion systems. The analytic data that is available is that which
was developed for the ECAS study and is shown in section 3.3.2.
4.1.2
Flue Gas Emissions
Air emissions that have received the most experimental study are those
represented-in the new source performance standards, see Table 4.1.2-1.
125
lDIOCXVIO!I
*
Dole(ies:
*-CC-CC- e.g. bucadleae, pfciLen4,
*
OlefLa.s:
-C-C- e..
Arottes:
'~
ehylene, propylete.
e.g. benzenes toLumna,etCo
* ?olynucLta:
.roatic$:
*
etd.
etc.
Cyclic Hydrocabns:
e.g. nChraceae,
pene e4.
Q[
e.g. cyclopentaG.,
cyeLopeaciene, ce.
xWrOM CC.//'~qOS-
*
?TditAs:
e.g. pyrtdLne,quinoalltue,et.
*
?yrroiesi
*J*
*
1R-!-e 0
HICrosolaae:
* Azo-avenes:
3-t 'a
SUMLFIR
CO-TMPOS
*
RzS. CS2. COS
*
Sz
Thlopenes:
•
·
Jtercaptans:
Sulfates:
*
General coounds
S
-S3 e.g. cthyl -mercapcan,
penyl carcaptm.
e.f. FeSO
4bSO,,
etc.
4,
- ILL2!NTAL
- CXI£DES
- CROXATES
- C"W:.S=
- CA.3IDES
- NITRAUS
- SFZ~DES
- 5ILICATES
- SAT£S
*
- CI.ORMFZS
Examples: :;ICKEL: UIS, MtO, Nt3,
sLSO,
fi(CO)g,
ULco3, t;iC 2 .
MLC)
42
UArTCIM~ES
*
Sizedstcrbutlo
- 2 tts
-
S
- 20 .
>:20
O
Figure 4.1-1
Selected Examples of Conceivable Pollutants Which Could Form in Coal Fired
Fluidized-Bed Combustion (Fennelly, Durochee, Klemm, Hall, 1975).
126
Table 4.1.2-1
?rimary ew Source Performance Standards
(NSIS) for Solid-Fueled Air Pollution
Sources
So urc e:
S'aivI
(Ze E
Threshold:
Particulate
O.1 lb/100
3tu input
20% opacity
WRAT
RS
Fossil-fuel
fired6
Pollutant:
:Latter
= 250xlO
Btu/hr
input
Sulfur Dioxide
1.2 lb/106 Btu
Oxides
0.7 lb/106 Btu
iNitroten
(as v02)
127
For the other air pollutants the models developed here have relied in
varying degrees on implications of other fluidized bed types and existing
data on conventional boilers.
4.1.2.1
Sulfur Oxides
Principles of in-situ removal of sulfur dioxide in an atmospheric FBC
are not totally understood but the parameters of importance are known (see
Table 4.1.2.1-1), and experimental data on the apparent effects of changes
in these parameters is available.
Table 4.1.2.1-1
Parameters Affecting In-Bed Sorption of Sulfur Oxides
Major Parameters:
Ca/S ratio
Bed temperature
Superficial gas velocity
Minor Parameters:
Stone type and source
Gas-solid mixing factors
Regenerated stone activity factors
Sorbent size and feed location
Bed depth and internals
Coal type and constituents
Coal feed location and means
Excess air
Addition of salt and other additives
Oxidized reducing conditions in bed
Recycling of fine particles
128
Effect -of Calcium to Sulfur Ratio
To a great extent there are large nonlinear effects from the
variations of two or more of the parameters affecting sulfur oxide
sorption. In general, however, the Ca/S ratio is the dominant variable
with sulfur retention increasing sharply for increasing Ca/S ratios;
typical results are shown in Figure 4.1.2.1-1
to -12.
The reaction that
takes place at atmospheric pressure is the endothermic calcination:
CaCO 3 = CaO + CO2
from which the calcium oxide is then sulfated:
CaO + S
2
+ 1/2 0 2 = Ca S04
In the development of empirical models for SO2 capture in the bed the
most important initial modeling task is the effect of Ca/S ratio.
Effect of Bed Tem!erature
-
Particularly in an FBC at atmospheric pressure, the bed temperature
can be an important operating parameter. In the coarse limestone (490-g30
pm) studies (Jonke et l., 1972), Illinois coal peaked for 1500 to 1550 F
and Pittsburgh coal showed optimum SO retention at 1450 to 1470 F (see
Figure 4.1.2.1-13). In (Ehrlich et aI., 1972, p. 231), these types of
observations are supported. Recent experimental data at CPC (Nack et al.,
1975, p. 360) shows that these optimum temperature effects, while present
for Ca/S ratios of 1.5, were "little" for Ca/S ratios of 3 to 5, contrary
to the Pittsburgh data in Figure 4.1.2.1-13.
It should also be noted, from Figure 4.1.2.1-14, that the optimum
temperature for retention is dependent upon the Ca/S mole ratio. Figures
4.1.2.1-15 through -17 show additional temperature effects. The reason for
the downturn in sulfur capture has not been explained by available
thermodynamic or kinetic data. guch analytic models show SO 2 levels
decreasing up to and beyond 2000 F, thus there exists
ere a gap between
the empirical and analytic models. The possible explanation that slag
buildup, fouling, or some irreversible factor was responsible for reduced
sulfur capture efficiencies at higher temperatures has been dismissed by
experiments which have approached the optimum temperature from both the
higher and the lower.temperatures.
Effect of SuDerficial Gas Velocity
There is good agreement in the available data on the effects of
superficial gas velocity on sulfur retention.
There is little effect for
high Ca/S ratios (3-5) and lower gas velocities (<10 fps). Low Ca/S
ratios (1.5) show significant sulfur retention with increased gas velocity
(see Figure 4.1.2.1-18). The factors responsible for decreased sulfur
capture with increasing fluidizing velocities are :
129
I
lull
nA
I
I
I
I
I
Iml
. I
1
80
7tj
A TEMPERATURE:1600 f
COAL FEED. 4.5 wt , S
60
AOOITIVE:
50
FLU-:
0
f
40
3'.
ft/sec
20
o 2.7
0 2.7
0 8.6
& 8.6
*0
e-
-o
10
II
L
I
1
I
2
BED:
LIMESTONE
NO.
1359.
GAS
VELOCIT,
30
.D
'
LIMESTONE
.L, -NA
-
9
RECYCLE
pm
25
No
25
Yes
25
No
25
Yes
I
4
I
3
m
I
m
5
I
I
.6
8
7'
I
ae
7
4
i
<(
Ca/S
6(
LS
-I
vMCLE
RATIO
-i
U6
Figure 4.1.2.1-1
4
Effect of Calcium/Sulfur Mole Ratio on S02
us
0C
U.
Removal with Fine Limestone Additive
0
.J
5C
40
U,
a:
(Anastasia,
N
et al., 1970).
30
AA.
20
10
4V
0
w
lAS
0
.5
UL
0
1
0-
2
3
4
5
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
.: -
Figure 4.1.2.1-2
oa*NI,
Effect of Combustion Temperature on S02
-
Removal with Fine Limestone Additive
(Anastasia,
J
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
Figure 4.1.2.1-3
Effect of Gas Velocity on S02
Removal with Fine Limestone Additive
(Anastasia,
et al.,
1970).
130
et al.,
1970).
NO.1359~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
100
.P
I
I
90
80
LIMESTONE
2R
0uJ
70
a,
60 -
TYtiO
DOLC
D
-J
U-
.<44 p
I
U.
J
o
50
U-
>
--I
>
0
40
U.
0
F3
Cr
30
N
0
A,, LIMESTONE NO.1359.
*C
0
20
10
I
-n0
0I
I
-I
2
1
3
0
1
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
2
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
Figure 4.1.2.1-4
Figure 4.1.2.1-5
Control of
SO2 Removal with Coarse Additive and Inert
SO2 Emission with Tymochtee
Dolomite No. 1359 Limestone
(Anastasia,
et al.,
Fluidized Beds and with Fine Additive
and Additive Fluidized Beds
1970).
(Anastasia,
100
d
Lu
I
I
80
AA-
et al.,
1970).
I Q
0
w
-j
'U
60
.ST CONDITIONS
40
20
I.
_
)ADING 0.03 b/lb ED/hr
33% OF STOICHICP.IFTRIC
GAS VELOCITY
2.5 ft/sec
FEED PART. IZE
850 - 1200
BEDTEMP
800 - 9000
I
0
t
i
1
~1.0
-- "
WT C30
I
1
J1--
2.0
PER WT SULPHLJR
Figure 4.1.2.1-6
Effect of Makeup Rate on Desulphurising Efficiency (Moss,
1970).
131
tn e
I
·
8L
* .;.
80
·
.. .':"
'..
/,.. .*_
.-.
.
/
~
~
~
O..
D.oomite
'.,,
*
70
iOdpprn 5u 2
&'
S~~~
.
ton
'.[o.
ies
-
,/0;
-
..
./, 700pjm? SO,,
emis slon
.0.
6,'O
a
.
S'SI-?...
0
.1
.50L
.0
.
a'
!
!
CI.~.-brrat5tio
Figure 4.1.2.1-7
3
;;* ' %.
Reduction in Sulphur Emission Due to Ca/S Ratio (Hoy, Roberts, 1973).
e
2
0
0
ILi
0
5
-a
Figure 4.1.2.1-8
Figure 4.1.2.1-8
So2 Reduction --
Ca/S RATIO
Effect of Limestone-to-Sulfur Ratio (Glenn, Robison, 1970).
132
100
*
.
40
4,,
I
PITTSBURGH COAL
LI.,ESTO E 18 (- 680 jim)
60
Um
a^~~~~~~
/
BED DEPTH:
2
t
VELOCITY:
3 t'sec
~FLUIGDISING
BED TErilPERATURE: 1470 °F
dNo RECYCLE
CD
40
0 S-in COf8IBUSTOR
~~~~0
(3~~~
36-inCO:BUSTOR
,!
Lr~
:D
CJ
20
n
lvI
0
I
I
I
I
2
3
Ca/S I',;OLE
RATIO
Figure 4.1.2.1-9
Sulfur
Reduction Vs. Ca/S Mole Ratio (Wright, 1973).
,
h)'
.4
z
C)
0
0
w
z
0usi
* w
t;
-J
C
Lu
z
1aLu
(A
w
In
M.
z
N
C
(A
Ca/S RATIO FROM ADDED LIMESTONE
Figure 4.1.2.1-10
Effect of Limestone Addition on Retention of S02
(Davidson, Small, 1970).
11ne^
z
-I
w
.
)w
0
U.
N
a
(A
Ca/S RATIO FROM ADDED LIMESTONE
Figure 4.1.2.1-11
Retention of Sulphur by Limestone Addition to
the Feed (Welbeck Coal)
(Davidson, Small, 1970).
134
o
N
cw
LJ
-j
U-
Ca/S
,OLE RATIO
Figure 4.1.2.1-12
Sulfur Retention Vs. Ca/S Mole Ratio (Vogel, et al.,
1
1;
1973).
-
-
-
I
0
'o
//
/
j
/
'I-..
/
..
U.
GAS VELOCITY, 3 ft.'sec
/
EXCESS OXYGEN,
3%
LIrESTOUlE NO. 1359
I
0
ILLINOIS COAL, Ca S-2.5
Q
PITTrSBURGH COAL, Ca S-4.0
;
of
-
. 300
-
-
1400
I
.
----
S
1500
1600
TEIPERATURE. *F
Figure 4.1.2.1-13
Sulfur Retention Vs. Bed Temperature (Jonke, et al., 1972).
136
lI
1700
m
100
~
mmmmm
m
~~~~~~
r
~
~m
ml
w
m
I
im ~
mm
I
I -
l
0.
VL
80
s
mmm
m
m
mm
m
I
im
m
~
I
-m.
m
oO010
-.
aw
V%
0
/PITTScJPRGH
60
_
13 (-1630jr
BED DECTH:
2 It
VELCCITY: 4 ft,'sec
FLUIO)S;:I
M
COAL
Ll.ESTC.
PITTSBURGH
*I)
BED DEPTH:
2 fIt
FLUIDISI'NGVELOCITY: 4 ft/sec
NO RECYCLE
NO RECYCLE
356-in. COIBUSTOR
Ca./S OLE RATIO:
36-in. C'.,EUSTOR
Ca/S ,.OLE RATIO: 2.2
40
COAL
DOLC','ITE 1337 (-1680m)
2.7
1
I
I$
I,i
I
I
1400
1500
1600
1400
1500
1600
BED TEMPERATURE. °F
BED TE'IPERATURE. F
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m
100
I
m
m
T
1700
I
I
I
l
.c
am
o
60
-
4)-
40
PITTSBURGH COAL
LIT,;ESTOE IS (3175
BED DEPTH: 2 t
m)
I
-
0
-4'
FLUDISI:G VELOCITY: 8 ft.'sec
WITH RECYCLE
27-in. CO'.iBUSTOR
.(.,
owM
Ca/S ?,IOLERATIO: 2.8
PITTSBURGH
a
COAL
DOL0,i'TE 1337 (-1537 pm)
BED DEPTH: 2 t
FLUIDISMIGVELOCITY: 8 ft/sec
WITH RECYCLE
21-1n.Guiildusluf.'
0
I
I
I
1400
1500
1600
__
I&
I&
1500
.
_
1400
I m
1600
BED TEMIPERATURE. F
BED TE:PERATURE. °F
Figure 4.1.2.1-14
Sulfur Reduction Vs. Bed Temperature (Wright, 1973).
137
em
m
^
1700
.
I
I,
.I
Ir
90
m
80
_
L!MESTONE NO. 1359
AVERAGE SIZE 90 y
N
70
N1\
Ca/S - 2.5
O
IN
I
_
DOLOMITE NO. 1337
AVERAGE SIZE 540 pm
Ca/S - 2.2
60
0
w
50
M
0
Ca
40'
30
-6-in. DIA BENCH-SCALEUNIT
GAS VELOCITY: -3 ft/sec
I
BED HEIGHT:
2 ft FLUIDIZED
3-4 vol % 0 2 N OFF GAS
20
I
I
!
1400
1500
1600
IIUI
wv
1300
t
1700
w
I
1800
TEMPERATURE. OF
Figure 4.1.2.1-15
Effect of Fluidized-Bed Combustion Temperature on SO2 Removal
(Anastasia,
1970).
et al.,
I
I
.1
1
70
a
uJ
0(/
o
K_
60
:0
-J
C.
(A
50
800
.~ .
850
I|- _
900
-
TEMPERATURE, OC
-'igure 4.1.2. 1-16
absorption bt
Optirnurmtemperature for slfur
lime (1;
of bed reacted)(Moss,
oxide
1970)
* La-rirenaA _e41 Ftc.' At!qcI'14
.
haionaIltLcrt:res 1S'rOimeter CoulCtut
Usstnmq.
lo
I!b...q-
&
.
,
1A
li
r.
Sed etitflf
61 mn
*Vx,04 - 80mM^sec
C'iS MAle
Rati Z.il
.9sr
so
Z
_Ze
Ruidigndge 8enatir
Pr/,teed Dv rst-,r:e
J.'el Ltsenq
t:^A- C
for Re9cft:
Cia *;'-3
-*1n
I.
~i-'n Id estone 135
Figure 4.1.2.1-17
150
WI I
IIZZ-
i>
OL56Z
-)G
;%)
-1!!2-
:e-vwj:Jrt
2 aS40
. .
_
IC MI
The Effect of Temperature on Sulfur Retention in a Fluidized Bed of Limestone 1359
(Keairns,
et al., 1975).
138
IA ni
UJW
I
A
9O
I
I
I
80
,
-
.I
I
Li
.
CgIS.LS
Ca/S - 4
7O
Sm
.
GO
0z
I-
50
i
1
Ca,S
40
t
-j
-U
30
CRE DATA (1470 F)
Ar
U,
--
WELBECK COAL, BRITISH LI.'.ESTONE (440 p)
-O--3-J
20
'])
--ANL DATA ($50
ILLINtOIS COAL. Ll.'IESTONiE NO. 1359 (>IOOOJ!m)
i
TAKEN FROM CURVE
ILLINOIS COAL. PINT
A
FIGURE 2)
FOR LI:',;ESTcNES AND oOLC,ITE (<630 pm). Ca/S = i
I
10
I
I
i
2
0
l.tS
F0t4e.5
t
.
4
EC
tO
I
I
I
o-
SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY, ftsec
Figure 4.1.2.1-18
Sulfur Retention Vs. Superficial Gas Velocity
(Jonke,
et al.,
1972) and (Nack, et al., 1975, p. 360).
139
I
g
f
_
i
I
I
(1) reductions in gas and solids residence time.
(2) decrease in bed density.
(3) increase in production of large bubbles causing SO2
bypassing, and
(4) increase in elutriation of under-utilized sorbent material.
Effects of Minor Parameters
The interaction of three parameters is shown in Figure 4.1.2.1-19 as
performed at the Pope, Evans and Robbins facility. Limestone particle size
has an insignificant effect in the range above 200 u. However, sulfur
retention is sharply increased with sizes decreasing below 200 u. A sharp
trade-off between elutriation and sulfur retention is evident in particle
sizes at and below the 44 u size. If both coal and sorbents are ground to
these fine sizes then low fluidizing velocities are necessitated, producing
low system throughput, with undersirable economics. Babcock and Wilcox
have performed extensive studies on the size of sorbents and its effect on
Figures 4.1.2.1-20 and -21 clearly show the size
sulfur retention.
distributions associated with different meshes. Figures 4.1.2.1-22 and -23
display the parametric sulfur reductions as a function of sorbent size.
Figure 4.1.2.1-19 shows the expected increase in capture rate with
deeper beds, due to greater interaction times (for constant gas
velocities).
This
effect
is corroborated
in (Jonke
et al.,
1972,
p. 231)
but not to the extent shown in Figure 4.1.2.1-19. The reverse effect has
been reported (Hammons and Skopp, 1972), but discounted due to small bed
diameter (3 inch) causing the prevalance of slugging.
Bed depth effects may not be exploitable, since bed depth is
proportional to bed pressure drop, which may be limited by available fans.
Compositional variations among different limestone sources are shown
in Table 4.1.2.1-2.
Recent experiments (Nack et al., 1975, p. 360) show
however
that dolomite,
and not limestone,
is likely
to be the better
sorbent in atmospheric beds. Most dolomites investigated have had nearly
The MgCO 3 calcinating to MgO
equal molar amounts of CaCO and MgCO.
appears to account for better utilization of CaO, as shown in data from
(Skopp, Sears and Bertrand, 1969) in Figure 4.1.2.1-24. The postulated
mechanism of MgO maintaining porosity of dolomite to facilitate sorption
has been supported experimentally, (Jonke et al., June 1970) and (National
Coal Board, February 1971). Original porosity of the different stone
sources can be of paramount importance in sulfur retainability (Potter,
1969). No method has been found to predict the reactivity of different
limestones and dolomites.
140
0
.20
oi
4
U
X
o
40
U
60
4
80
1.
1O0
060
.-
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
LIMESTONE PARTICLE SIZE. microns
Figure 4.1.2.1-19
S02 Reduction -- Effect
(Ehrlich,
et al.,
of Limestone Particle
1972, p. 231).
141
Size, Bed Depth, and Temperature
o
o
0
co
0
0
0
0
d
o
cn
I
w
(J
z
&
,
z
w
z
C-
0
w
w
0
c-
rC
U
-r-
r
C:
4-J
U
.0
0
c~
_
0
n
LLw
I
o
W
w - _*
*¢
C.
O
Z
0n
o0
oCO
C
ot
IN33U3d
o'
A IVflNno
142
0
0o
UM
o0
aE
C
N
o
W
4-
.
-J
L
0
0
0~
o~~
¢-.,
0~~
-
u
0
o~~
C)
,-Q~~~~~~~~f,
o
o
0
a-
-o
E
-o
0
CN
aaC
0
4)
U)
8
oo4
,
.
.
C\
¢
OX
._
L
o0
0co
0CD
0
0c,N
0 3Avln3n
1
'
0
.
0
N
*_-
U0
90
80
-
0
-0+
70
m
I-
z
BASE TES TS:
0
60
1/4 INCH TOP SIZE
Vs= 8 fps
-
O °i./
-15500F
zo
m
X
-
50
°
TESTS AT 8 FPS, 1550 F:
-
J
0
1/4 INCH TOP SIZI E
0
8 MESH TOP SIZE
A
16 MESH TOP SIZE
(.f
40
0
-
0 PULVERIZED
*
HYDRATED
LIME
TESTS AT OTHER VELOCITIES OR
TEMPERATURES:
30
-e- Sv ,.5 FPS
/a
-
Vs
0
12 FPS
BED TEMP.
1650°F
'% BED TEMP. - 1450°F
/
20
0
1
I
I
I
2
3
RATIO
Ca/S IN FEED, MOLAR
4
5
Figure 4.1.2.1-22
Sulfur Fixation Versus Ca/S for Lowelville
(Strom,
et al.,
1976).
144
Limestone and Hydrated Lime
90
80
70
60
0z
Be 50
X 40
G:
LL
-jU, 30
U.
20
10
0
1
2
Ca/S, MOLAR
.3
RATIO IN FEED
Figure 4.1.2.1-23
Percent Sulfur Fixation Vs. Ca/S Ratio (Strom, et al., 1976).
1/
r
4
Table 4.1.2.1-2
Composition of Limestones Used in Kinetic and in Pilot-Plant Studiesa
(Horio and Wen, 1975).
Coates and Rice
Borgwardt
Author
Davidson and Smale
Jonke et.al.
I
Davidson and Smale
Robinson et. al.
System
Typec
ofd
Limestone
Limestone
Kinetic Study
|Type
9a.3
CaCO
3c
Type
4d
97.8
Fluidized-Bed Combustor
BCR 1343
96.0
BCR i359
97.8
British Limestone
> 97.0
mgCO3
3.89
0.00
G.96
1.3
b
FI'
20.3
0.20
0.31
0.38
0.12
b
A203
ND
0.01
0.16
b
ND
1.53
43.67
43.15
2
SiO2
Ignition loss
a
b
b
1.70
42.8
0.60
43.6
_
b
b
Only the data related to this paper are presented.
;Not reportcd.
c
Type 3:
calcite limestone with few scattered fine-grained dolom.ite rhombos.
d
Type 4:
calcitic limestone, very fine, equant granular, and dense.
146
8
IiI
-
I
l- = 2 inches
1600°F
'-
IC
I
I
I
1-F
6/8 Mesh
E
6
o
C-
4
r-_
Qa
'0
C=
0a)
2
15
n
- . 0
.I.
I
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
CaO Utilization
.
.
0.5
X
Figure4.1.a.1-24
Effect of MgO/CaO Ratio on Stone Reactivity (Skopp, Sears, and Bertrand, 1969).
147
The use of regenerated sorbent decreases the collection of sulfur.
There are several more or less well studied reasons for this effect. It
may be possible to simply scale down the reactivity of the sorbent
depending upon the amount of recycled material in the bed.
Figures 4.1.2.1-25 through -28 show some of this decreased reactivity.
Excess air can be used to increase sulfur retention in the bed, see
Figures 4.1.2.1-29 through -32. A much more important factor in setting
excess air levels is, however, the maximization of combustion efficiencies
which occur in the excess air range of 5% to 15%.
Bed size may be important for small test units, with wall effects and
slugging from bubble sizes approaching bed areas. Larger units should be
free of these effects.
Effects of coal and sorbent feeds on sulfur retention could be
substantial.
The position of sulfur released in the bed and extent of
oxidizing and reducing zones are the important factors.
Although the naturally occurring limestone and dolomites have been
shown to be effective sorbents, and are attractive from a cost per unit
basis, the search for alternative sorbents has been extensive. Problems
that have arisen with the natural sorbents include rapid declines in
reactivity upon regeneration (due to sintering, pore plugging, and
poisoning by ashes of various coals as described in section 4.5) or very
large quantities to be paid for and disposed of in the non-regenerated
configurations.
Alternative sorbents have been studied at Radian
Corporation (Lowell and Parson, 1975), Argonne (Snyder et al., 1975), and
Catalytrica Association (Cusumano and Levy, 1975). Table 4.1.2.1-3 shows
the list of potential sorbents that is being considered.
Table 4.1.2.1-3
Alternative Sorbents
CaO
SrO
LiAlO
LiFeO3
LiTiO
NaAlO3
NaFeO
CaAl2_
SrAl 04
SrTi_
BaAl.S4
BaTi
3
With the exception of CaO and CaAl2 0O
4 there is no experimental data on
effectiveness of these materials. Models are available for representation
of the SO2 removal efficiency of the CaA1204 sorbent in (Snyder et al.,
1975).
148
I
1
I
JIIIII
.
w
i
i
I
I
I-
40
30
O
FRESH LIMESTONE
0
RECYCLED SOLIDS
20
10
(3 0
0
0 0 "%%.
8
°
0wl
°
o
UT;LIZATIONJ ACHIEVED FOR RECYCLED SOLIDS.
LABORATORY TESTS
UTIL!ZATION ACHIEVED FOR RECYCLED
SOLIDS N BOTH FLUIDIZED-BED COM1USTION
EXPERIMENTSAND LABORATORY TESTS
4
ao
UTILIZATION ACHIEVED FOR FRESH LIMESTONE.
LABORATORY TESTS
%.*
-d0
6
z
0C
A
3O T'TAL
100
2
I
I-I
I
_
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~~ ~~
_
0
I II d
20
40
I
II m I
100
80
60
90
__
110
80
TIME. min
70
Figure 4.1.2.1-25
Reaction Rates at an SO2 Partial Pressure of
0ae
3.2 mm Hg for Fresh Limestone
and Recycled
60
50
Soli-ds (Anastasia,
et al., 1970).
0'U
U
To
40
30
3.0
20
2.0
10
C
2
c3
1.0
-
0.8
n
v
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
TIME. hr
0.6
0
U,
I--
zo
Figure 4.1.2.1-26
0.:
CaO Utilization for Fresh Limestone No. 135!
-
c
and for Recycled Solids
0.:
(Anastasia,
O.
.
20
40
60
80
1UU
1 u
j ,-
1%
TIME, min
Figure 4.1.2.1-27
Reaction Rates at an SO2 Partial Pressure
of 0.4 mm Hg for Fresh Limestone and
Recycled Solids (Anastasia, et al., 1970).
149
et al.,
1970).
100
!Li
I.
I
I
80
ca
L)
U-
0
I
i
I
D
z
0
0
60
0
to
_
G0 G4
0L
0U)cc
40
co
20
-j
.J
t,r
0
4
12
A
16
20
24
RUN NUMBER
Figure 4.1.2.1-28
Bed Ageing Effect
Replacement Rate o.5 wt CaO/wt S (Moss, 1970).
-
100
80
dIJu
I
-
- UP--v-
0
0
C,
40
_
_
20
_-
0
60
-j
U)
5% BY WT S !N BED - I
WITI-InI
I--W IT
... ..I
_
lI.i( 1
(Gas velocity 4 ft/sec)
0
WITH UNDERFIRING
(Gas velocity 3 ft/sec)
n
15
L
5
_
II
I
20
25
I
I
30
Il
ll I
?-
35
. STOICHIOM1ETRIC
AIR. %
I
Figure 4.1.2.1-29
Stoichiometric Air Rate with and without Underfiring (Moss, 1970).
150
6000
I
5000
I
I
I
0
I
4000
0L
.3000
U-
z
0(A
2000
1000
i
i
0
0
,I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
°
iI
5
OXYGEN IN FLUE GAS. vol %
Figure 4.1.2.1-30
Desorption of S02 During Natural Gas Combustion as a Function of Oxygen
Concentration at 1820-1850
F (Jarry, et al., 1970).
151
70
8
x
60
0U,
+
50
1h
x-
Cl
_ 40
In
ft
C2 30
z
to
10
0 20
.a
0
50
60
70
80
90
AIR. % OF STOICHIOMETRIC
(BASED ON FEED RATES)
Figure 4.1.2.1-31
Sulfur
Appearing
as H2S as a Function
-
I
51
of Stoichiometric
(Vogel,
1973).
.
-57
0
Air
053
058
361
69 C 161
-
In 60
063 -
70
NUMBER NEAR F'OINT
IS THE PERCENTOF
STOICHIOMETRII
AIR ADDED
O
z
0 so
--
88
z
IUt
80
91
A78
0
40
.4
:
10
0
BED TEMPERATURE,
SUBSTOICHIOMETRIC
AIR EXPERIMENTS
O
1450°F
0
A
1550°F
1650°F
STAGE OXIDIZING
IENTS (1450-1470°F)
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
5
6
Figure 4.1.2.1-32
Sulfur Retention as a Function of Stoichiometric Air (Vogel, 1973).
152
*
The' effect of coal type on sulfur retention is not well understood.
Figure 4.1.2.1-10,-12, and -13 show some results; Figure 4.1.2.1-33
displays additional findings. Of course, the sulfur content of the coal is
the primary factor effecting SO 2 emissions. Other factors have not been
identified but could include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
ash content;
volatile content;
ash composition;
swelling index, and;
ratio of organic to inorganic sulfur.
Decrease in coal particle size should increase sulfur retention due to
contact and reaction rates. Such effects have not been experimentally
verified.
The addition of salt (NaC1) to the bed has at times almost doubled the
effective Ca/S ratio in the control of SO2 emission (U.S. Office of Coal
Research, 1974). The data on chlorine as the potential chemical attriter
in this process is shown in Table 4.1.2.1-4.
Table 4.1.2.1-4
Effect of Chlorine on Effective Ca/S Ratio
Low Cl
Raised to
Increase in
Effective
Coal
Cl Level
Ca/S Ratio
0.08%
0%
.0%
0.2%
2%
0.7 - 1%
75%
60%
60%
-
Reference
Henschel, 1970
USOCR, 1974
Nacket al.,
1975
Although there can be raised some severe questions of desirability of
intentionally adding salt to an environ already hampered by corrosion
problems, the chlorine content model is the only available mechanism for
describing variability in SO removal that is due only to variations in
coal source sulfur content as been dismissed as a potential important
parameter (Archer et al., 1971)]. In (Pope, Evans, and Robbins, 1975)
effects of salt addition were observed to be:
(1) decrease in carbon content of bed, flyash, and dust;
(2) increase in chlorine content of flyash with negligible change
in chlorine content of bed;
(3)
increase in sulfur content of flyash and dust with little bed
affect; and
(4) decrease in flyash collection.rate.
The results of their studies with and without salt are shown in Figure
4.1.2.1-34.
153
I
OAL
I
I
rHOrPC
NGTONI
0
w
3
a
$
CIS
STOiCHIOMETRIC
ATIO IN FEEO
Figure 4.1..2.1-33
Effect of Coal Type on Sulfur Retention (McLaren and Williams, August 1969).
154
100
90
80
70
S
2
O
REDUCTION
(M)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ca/S
Figure 4.1.2.1-34
Effect of Salt on Sulfur Capture (Gasner, 1977).
155
In recent experiments, the Multi Solid FBC has performed slightly
better than the conventional design FBC's (see Figure 4.1.2.1-35).
Beginning with a model of the sulfur reduction as a function of Ca/S
ratio, the Ca/S ratio effect can be eliminated from parametric studies on
temperature.
In this way a temperature model can be developed, and both
temperature and Ca/S ratio effects can be removed from bed depth effects.
This solution of the sets of parametric experiments eventually results in a
model of SO emission from the atmospheric FBC. Models built up directly
from theoretical grounds, based on population balance equations and
considering residence time distributions of particles in the bed, have
shown accuracy +6.5% of SO2 removal percentage (Horio and Wen, 1975); see
Figure 4.1.2.1-36 for example. These calculations are for coarse
limestone, steady state and other assumptions and require the use of an
iterative procedure of formulas and lookup graphs. It does represent one
of the complex analytic models that can be compared to the following
empirical models. These models were developed on the EPRI data base
(Strom, et a.,
976) and are discussed further in (Gruhl, Tung, Schweppe,
1978). Table 4.1.2.1-5 shows the original model with Figure 4.1.2.1-37 the
scatterplot of tne fit. Table 4.1.2.1-6 and Figures 4.1.2.1-38 show a
refined model. Table 4.1.2.1-7 and Figures 4.1.2.1-39 and -40 show the
best model over the mass of data.
4.1.2.2
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
NO emissions in atmospheric FBCs with inert beds range from 450 to
800 ppm (Pereira, Beer, Gibbs, and Hedley, 1974). With the addition of
limestone these levels drop to 250 to 600 ppm (Nack et al., 1975). There
is a potential for a problem here as the USEPA's new source performance
standards gor coal-fired utility boilers limits NO emissions to 0.7 lb of
NO2 per 10 BTU of heat input, or roughly 525 ppm fn emissions (Strom
et- al., 1976). An average of 353ppm was found in the massive data
collection effort of (Strom, et al., 1976), see Figure 4.1.2.2-1.
Experiments in which argon was substituted for atmospheric nitrogen
showed little change in these NO concentrations (Jonke et al., 1969),
(Shaw and Thomas, 1968); using nztrogen-free fuel substantially eliminated
NO formation (Jonke et al., June 1970), thus placing the source clearly as
the nitrogen bound in the coal. The amounts of nitrogen bound in coal are
clearly capable of producing these levels of NO concentrations, with
1.0-1.5% nitrogen coal capable of yielding 2025-2850 ppm NO emissions.
Two reactions have been proposed as actors in the freeing o the 80-90% of
the bound nitrogen that does not become NO .
One reaction is
x
2NO + 2C0
=
N2 + 2C02 ,
and the contention that this takes place is substantiated by experiments in
pressurized FBCs where increasing excess air reduces the availability of CO
(see Figures 4.1.2.2-2 through -6). The effects of excess air is not as
apparent, however, when all of the data is plotted on a single display, as
shown in Figure 4.1.2.2-7. Additional experiments where stage combustion
was used, secondary air injection into the freeboard, apparently also shows
that with better mixing there is improved use of the CO and subsequent
reductions in NO emissions, see Figure 4.1.2.2-8.
156
.
01.1
lUU
a
90
- m.
280'
Z6
0
z
W
FEDERAL
EMISSION
STANDARD
70
-.t4
2- 60
I-,
W)
-Z
50
W
U
u.
u
40
30
20
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
2
3
4
Ca/SRATIO
Figure 4.1.2.1-35
Effect of Ca/S Ratio on Sulfur Retention in Multisolid Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(Nack, Weller, L.,
1977).
157
1
-08
U
Id -
_06
0-
C)
-0
>00.4
E
L'
0 0.2
V)
N
01
10
.1
100
o =(1 - ,) LtkvL/Uo
observed SO removal
efficiency as a function of a b3ubble Assemblage Model
(Horio and Wen, 1975)
Figure 4.1.2.1-36 Comparison of
158
-
Empirical models of sulfur removal for observations where
removal equalled or exceeded 80%
Table L.-5
Symbols:
S = sulfur removed, as percent
C = calcium to sulfur mole ratio
V = fluidizing
T
D
A
M
P
Q
R
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
m/sec
in
velocity.
bed temperature in degrees centigrade
static bed depth, in cm
bed area, in square meters
calcium mean size, in microns
parameter for effect of coal source
parameter for effect of calcium source
number of times sorbent reused, l+number of recycles
Model from a limited number of parametric experiments:
·
''
[2-.24( '
-
'
)--25 I(R--5)P
2.54
~~~
429(Q'8T-l492+45.5abs(235C))2]
.30][l+2 5
S = 100.-(30.6/C)[(V/3048)
[fit=arithmetic
standard dev. 5.43%]
Model on data base where all experiments with these parameters and S over 80%:
S= (100.-
41.4 )(.923+.0762V)(.997+.0247A)[1.23-.00015(l.8T+32)]*
C+.414
(1.0058-.000013M)(.99337
P Q)
[fit=arithmetic
standard dev. 3.46%]
on 41 experiments
Tables of parameters:
Pparam
coal source
Pitt seam 8 washed
Pitt seam 8 unwashed
Peabody Coal Co.
Pitt seam unspecified
Commonw. Edison supplied
Park Hill coal
Illinois coal unspec.
Welbeck coal unspec.
-
.
-- -.
-
Pdata base
paramPdata
base
0.48
0.83
0.80
0.92
0.97
1.04
1.13.
1.28
~.
. .... -'1 59 -
1.05
1.00
1.01
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.975
calcium source
BCR1337 dolom
BCR1360 limes
BCR1359 limes
BCR1359H hyd lm
Tymochtee dolom
US limestone 18
UK limestone
Stow-on-Kent
dtb
Qa~_bae
0.98
1.00
0.99
1.01
1.04
1.02
1.02
0.92
.75.0
I
85.0
100.0
II1l,1.
-------.80.0
0II
,,,--,.1.---I.----,1,..,--.-I90.0I- - - 95.0
,,.
'l I ----..
I!--.
- ~III -----.
- ..
- .- ..
I - -
O..
105.0
-
-
I
;
I
*
I
!
I
*
I
I
100.0
4-
E
CL
K
a
950
C:
U
0
K *
J
A
~
B *
*
a
I
"^
0
.
cJ
.-
a
o
a
F
K
...
.:
K*
*
B
;JK
*-
*
·
.
sU
F
J
B.'A
: E*
I
*
C
*(
K
B*75,
0I K *----;:.I
C
A
*
. S
K
go,0.0
';;.'
IA3
*
B
..
'
:
.
=_
75.0
K HA
=
== = ==
80.0
...
B
B
* ~~~~..'.
J.
S,*
.<
E
*
C
=
.*
B
==
--
=-.=
90.0
85,0
.....
=
Actual
_
==__===:=~-=
95.0
100.0
-
:
105.0
SO2 Removal
(percent)
2~~~~~~~~~~~~·...
Figure 4 ..2.1-37Scatterplot of SO2 removal as observed versus predictions
based on a data base developed model, the least squares
fit approach concentrates on containing
relative indifference
outlyers and has
to values within general band around
the identity line (symbols refer to positions
*. ~
160
in data base)
Table4.L2.1-4 Empirical model of sulfur removal for observations exceeding
80% removal, eliminating calcium mean as a variable to
increase the number of applicable experiments where all
variables were reported
Symbols:
S = sulfur
C
V
T
A
F
=
=
=
=
=
removed,
as percent
calcium to sulfur mole ratio
fluidizing velocity, in m/sec
bed temperature, in degrees centigrade
bed area, in square meters
1 oro0 for fines recycled or not
G = MgO/CaO
in sorbent
P = parameter for effect of coal sources
Q = parameter for effect of calcium sources
Model on data base where all experiments with these variables reported and
with S over 80%:
S -{(101.S (101
30.97
)(1.208+
C+.3097 )(1.208+
40
12
2+.0151V) (1l.+.0095A)[I1.-.00022(1.8T+32.)]
*(1.-.0012F)(l.-..00O476G)[l.-.00000246(1.BT+1500.) 2 ] 1.002 P Q
[fit=arithmetic stand dev 3.976%]
on 62 experiments
Table of parameters:
coal source
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
Pdata base
.
.. ,
calcium
source
Qdata base
.,
. -,,....
Pitt seam 8 washed
0.993
BCR1337 dolom
0.995
Pitt seam 8 unwashed
Peabody Coal Co.
Pitt seam unspecified
1.000
1.015
1.002
BCR1360 limes
BCR1359 limes
BCR1359H hyd lm
0.991
0.992
1.023
Cononw. Edison supplied
Park Hill coal
Illinois coal unspec.
Welbeck coal unspec.
-
0.998
Tymochtee dolom
1.031
0.974
0.991
USlimestone
UK limestone
1.007
1.014
0.959
Stow-on-Kent
161
18
0.925
:
;
;
;
|I
C;
0
85.
-
95.
_m
mamzmlmB·BI
I
m.mininw.miniinu
a
~~~.
.
95.
.
.A
11R.
URa.22
* 2
.
.
.
.
;..
, ·
....
'"
R
2- !
8. .!
.-
85.
e
R
I
...
1
*
:.
..
"-
*
3,
-~
·
:
.
.
.
..
..
.
G
~~~..,.
..
·.
.o..
i
..
<
- °
:..
.
-
,.
'*;,
.
I
. o, ·
*...
. '..
½j,
.
,.
.*.
. . - . ..
+:",:
°
.
;
·
KB
.. b.,-
......
.
..
.
.
.
.
'''
JC
3
*
.
. .'
B
* *
.. :
.
"...*
.
H
AA
C
K 3
.
.
.
*
'
-
.o*
1
' I
..
..
.
I
AK2*
, ; t-*
*
0~~~~~~I
' ·-... '
K
EJ B
I
75.
2*
*K
I
B
H *G
KK
i
12
'.
*
o.
K
.... .. .,,.. vK .:,
I
.
.
I
·o
..
o.
mSJm
E
E
.
u
105.
in
I
..
I
U~~~~
o
amlI
I
1
105.
'
75.
65.
. .
i.s
...
..
.
I..~~~~~~~~~
.
:'.4
.
. 65.
.. ..
!minmmmlmw-
-I------w---
75.
-
m--'1---- -----
85.
I
-- -
m--n
95.
--
I
105.
Actual S02 Removal (percent)
. .
...
Figure
4
o.
.
...
...--...
.?
,
,.
.. .
"
...
. . · .
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.......
.
_ ...
3
.12.1Z8Scatterplot of SO removal as observed versus predicted based
on data base developed model, not using calcium mean as a
variable only because it is not often measured and thus
reduces the number of experiments that can be applied
149
.
Tabl e4.Z 1-7 Empirical model of sulfur removal for all observations for
which values of all parameters were available
Symbols:
S = sulfur
removed,
as percent
C = calcium to sulfur mole ratio
V = fluidizing
in
velocity,
m/sec
A = bed area, in square meters
M = calcium particle mean size, in microns
L = sulfur content of coal, in percent
X = excess
air,
in percent
P = parameter for effect of coal source
Q = parameter for effect of sorbent source
Model on data base for all experiments:
209.58
C+2 0 96) (1 .-. 0912V) (1 .+.0108A)
S = (100o. -
(1.-.OOO11M)*
(l.-.0000117L)(1l.-.000516X)
P Q
stand dev 13.2% ]
[fit=arithmetic
on 296 experiments
Tables of parameters:
Pdata base
coal source
calcium source
Qdata base
Pitt seam 8 washed
Pitt seam 8 unwashed
Peabody Coal Co.
Pitt seam unspecified
Com .onwealth Edison
Park Hill coal
1.789
1.688
1.615
1.721
1.404
1.712
BCR1337 dolom
BCR1360 limes
BCR1359 limes
8CR1359H hyd m
Tynmochtee dolom
US limestone 18
1.033
1.160
0.971
1.228
1.230
1.065
Illinois coal
1.535
UK lirestone
1.000
1.693
Stow-on-Kent
1.000
Welbeck
unspec.
coal unspec.
I
I
:
I
I
110.0
I
I
*
2
GG
K
G
1
I
I
I
, ,0.0
41
700
E
0.-
02
a
4J 50.0
I
C
V
la
J
A
U
"0
I
C
J
S.
Q.
J
C
E
A
40.0 '
K
F
FF
2
C
F-
C
F
F
C
K
30.0
F
A J *
K2E
E4 *
*
B
B.
J
C
J
*
J
A
H
B
C2
3
KF
D
2
*
*
*
D
C
B
J
K
H
H
*
i
F
K
2C
G
A
*
DF
KJ
I
I
J
HH2
A
H A B2
2
G
E
A
GA
A
J
J
EGH K * HA2
HG
E
G
*B
J
A
HB
.AA
C
F
*BC H A H HH
C
G
2 E
A
2
E
H J
Z
C
H
C
H
KH C
H HH
J
EH. C
IC
H
EA2
E*
A
DD
K
2
*
ED
D
CC
K
K
Z
G
J D
E
K
* E
J
H
E*
A
D
*
2 J J J J
K
K
HCB
CB
FA
2D C2
l
F
H
H
K
: C
20.0
a
A
H
aJ
2
B.
B
60.0
A,
0
B
I
I
*
G * J
*
BJE A J*
E
I
I
I
to
J
E A
J
*
3
a
FB
*
B
ED
0a
$
E2
AE
K
*
*6
G
*
*
10.0 *
f
*.
1
0.0
19
0.0
.
." . "
.
*-
'
----- '- in
="'=="==
I im-m----
10.0
-0.0
30.0
==='"' 1 m.--,
40.0
S0.0
I= ==
f
60.0
i=a===; =.==m ==
70.0
80.0
Actual S
=-"
m In =='-n
90.0
2
100.0
based on all experiments, numbers refer to multiple
occurrences with the 9 in the lower left representing
164
==
= '
110.0
Removal (percent)
Figure 4.i.1-3?Scatterplot of SO2 removal as observed versus predictions.
about 40 experiments
=I
*
I
I
:
110.0
I
100.0
*
:
l
2I
*
2
!
90.0
Misses
B
B
!
J
H
:
C
E
c
'I
A
-
50.0
S
K
C
S
a
HH2
J
C
J
40.0
2
F
FF F
F
C
C
E
FA
30.0:
3
C2
0
JJ
HG
False
Alarms
D
K
J
K
.
A
KF
D
2
C
B
K
*
KJ
A
2
A
-
K
2C
2D C2 * D
I '
.C
H
*E B
HAB
CB
HCB
*
DF
K
2 J J
w
l:
H
J
A
*
F *
F
E
E*
F
H
H
C
K
C
*
K
J
A
:
B A
A
* HA2
EGH K
J
*B
G
E
C
A
HB
AA
*BC H A H HH
F
2
A
2 E
G
H
C
*
A
H J
H
H
KH C
C
H
C
H
EHC
J;
H
D D
A
EA2
E*
D
C C K
ED
*
2
E
JD
G
*
E
A
30.0
40200
K
J
B.
C
2
A
0
C
C
4 c-
v
E4
*
L
E
,:I
G
It
G
*
GJ
J
J *
B
B
C
E
C
a 60.0
C
G
-
K ,
u:
IJ
BJE A J*
J
E A
_70.0
*
*
3
a
C
0-
B
CB
I
I
I
I
CLI
_7
C
*
B £B
:
-80.0
*
E2
AE
H
H
K
D
-
* -.~
*
$*G
*:
I .
*
10,0*
_
....
....-..--.-'
.. -:..
'::,!-.5''...
.2
;19''"
0.0
.
I
,,_,_,-
_--
- . 0.0
i
I
..
'
I
=aI
-
10.0
-
,-
-
-
I-
o0.0
-
.
-
-
-
-
I
30.0
-_-,......-
40.0
=
g
"i
·
O5.o0 60.0
·
!
=a
-w_ a~a~=
! mmmin
.......
70.0
80.0
Actual
0
..
90.0
.
100.0
SO2 Removal (percent)
this model to design a combuttor to meet the SO2 standard
Figure 4.1.Z.1-4QUsing
by removing 80% or more of the S 2 would result in more than
1/5 of the designs being improper (misses) ana would exclude
more appropriate designs (false alarms) than it would include,
one might conclude that -there is currently too much uncertainty
to make it appropriate to design an environmentally acceptable
combustor.
165
I
110xo0o
======
.
I
I
I I I
I
I I I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
GO-
600
550
/
a.
0
o
o/°-
500
I."
450
V3
0
400
a
-
iU
x
0zo
z
350
/
0
300
/
250
,f!0
I
J~I1!
c11
u
1
r
I
1I-t'
II
I
1
0.01
0.1
1 2
5
10
20
I
_
I
0 40506070
PERCENT OF DATA
I
80
I
I
I I
_
90 95
98 99
I
I
9.8 9.9
99.9 9
POINTS LESS THAN
Figure 4.1.2.2-1
NO Emission Versus Percent of Data Points Less Than...
(Strommxetal.,
(Stromm,et
al.,
1976).
1976).
1 CA
4
.
0co
-
*
I
-
-
v
,-J.
4
4_
gD
1
14
U.
Q*
i
4
U
4U .l
'.4
,-
I~e
0
C2
0
0
·
4J
r
,14
c
x
s4
'N
'f"'
e
.4
co
I
Cn
*f'"
u~"
. c
C
,.Si
,,{
CC
LL HrMX_
*f-
tm
a
C
:
'4
Cl
Cg
.p4
1.4E4
~
'a
~
:-l 4
~'.
1-
.
,-4
O
I: =l
'-4
0
IO
en
:3"3C
'J
_
-4
Pt
C~ < 0 va
Co
< I O_
: t.; _~
4 o
aAi
,
L
>
C.
a
CZ /
C-1
u~b
il~~0 o4
.
I
0
.4
C'%
c
_Z
I;3EZ~~~~
I
,
03
0
-z~C
~
;;.I.~~~
13
e
4=
0
po"nl
_t
fI
%D
0
I!_
t
Lin
0
IlnnI J.i 9CI/
-r
9-4
0
I
en
0
0
O:'
.
ql
167
CIS
0
-4
c;
0
OZ
31
200
t50
£
0
a2 W.
ato
50
0.
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
I
O
0
it
12
'/. 02
Figure 4.1.2.2-3
Correlation of 02 and NO Concentrations in the Exhaust Gas from Fluidized Combustion
(Locke, Lunn, Hoy, Roberts, 1975).
168
,1DiZING
LOCITY
AVERAGE COAL
SIZE
TrSEQ
14
-1/4., OHIO NO. & UNWASHED
12-14
-1/4-",OHIfO
NO. . WASHED
REFERENCE G
I
I
_
,
_.
e_
I
_
.
I
.
.
_
..
i
-
I
ta
2
I
8
a
1.0
I
!
2.0
3.0
OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONIN FLUE GA
S.0
S
Figure 4.1.2.2-4
Effect of Oxygen Concentration on NO Generation (Archer, et al., 1971).
.
400
2
0
zQC3
Ms
t
0"
a
300
0
a
I-
ez
z
.20
200
100
C.)
x
REACTOR: FBM 2" X 7Z'
SUPERFICIAL VELOCITY: 12-14 FPS
BED TEMPERATURE: 1770-1840°F
10
1.0
2.0
z
a
V%
_
0
Lu
n.
BED: SINTERED ASH, STATIC DEPTH 13"
COAL: OHIO NO. 8 PITTSBURGH SEAM,
WASHED, 2.6% S
E
a
c3
2
TEST CONDITIONS:
0
W
30
. 4.0
FLUE GAS OXYGEN CONTENT, %
Figure 4.1.2.2-5
Variation of NO Concentration with
(Robison, et al., 1970).
169
Flue Gas Oxygen Content
I
'
I
'
II
II
'-
£I
I
I
-
'
-
I
I
800
U
700
a
I
a0.
0z
RMALIZED
600O
I
E
500
BED 6 fps
400
0.
z
TED LIME BED 3 fps
300
200
100
_.
I@ . | .| | .
-. am'uI
v60 D
70
.
*
80
I
90
*
I1
I
100
110
*.
I
120
*
I
130
I
*
140
*1
I
1
150
PERCENTAGE STOICHIOMETRIC AIR
Figure 4.1.2.2-6
NO Emissions as a Function of Percentage Stoichiometric Air (Skopp, et al., 1971).
170
Pressure 101.3 Ua
Te:mperature (777-988)'C
Ca/S Molar ratio (.6-11.9)
Superficial velocity (.61-3.96)u/sec
DeSulfurizacion (2.6-99) 2
Coal Composttion:
(.99-2.5)Z
K
(1.3-4.13)2
1.2
S
S
. *
S. .
. -~~.
*. .
o
.8
.
*
-3
a,
.0
*
.
*
.*
-
*.*
*
.4
*I
.
. ..
*SS..I
..
.
.2
0
0
~
10
! _
20
Z excess air
J
I, _
30
.
.
*0
Figure 4.1.2.2-7
Composite Plot of Atmospheric Fluid-Bed Combustion Data of Argonne, Exxon, NCB, and PER
(Keairns, et al., 1977).
171
a
I
t~- ---
0- mt
0
o°
0Lt)
-_
0
\
0
00
co
oU)
C)
.
N
U
U
0
'.-
0
0J
0
I
I
0-
i
I
W
w ~
Ld<~
0
I
cn
w
WI
1
w
-
w
IL
-V
00
y):t
O
jj U.
N)
LL
'I
I b
0O
a)
a
m
-.-
,_
C
o_
e
'
C-'C
04c
ca)
* C-;
0o
4-
_O
a
LL
-
'a)
~~~~~~
er..
._~
!
.
U
a
4C
U
--
I\
<LU
I
S-
·
\ o'
-
o-
I
2
0S
-.
-
o
0
CU
co
I
I
0C)
0
co
(AS'C)
I
I!
00
ON
172
wc d d
I
I
I
-
_
*_-
CD
.~
The other reaction (Skopp et al., 1971) has
4NO + 2S02 + 2CaO
=
2N2 + 2CaSO 4 + 02
which has been supported by low NO emissions (70-100 ppm) in two-stage
combustion experiments (Nack et al., 1975, p. 362). Effects of availability
of CaO and SO2 on NO are shown in Figures 4.1.2.2-9 and -10, respectively.
The two sets of reactions may in fact be coupled, based on work of (Hammons
and Skopp,
1971),
(Robison,
et al.,
1970)
and
(Jonke,
et al.,
1969),
although their results are somewhat conflicting.
It appears that the CaSO4
from the second reaction is a selective catalyst for the first reaction,
from the reference (Hammons and Skopp, 1971). CaSO4 as bed material
produced the lowest NO levels, and CaO beds eventually reached that lowest
NO level after CaSO4 formation had built up that substance in the bed. The
higher Ca/S ratios of Figure 4.1.2.2-9 substantiate this result in that
CaSO4 is in lower concentrations with higher Ca/S ratios. The addition of
limestone reduces NO emissions by 30-40%, (Jonke, et al., 1969).
Differences in NO emissions due to char particle sizes are shown in
Figure 4.1.2.2-11, with the effect being due apparently to differences in
diffusion and surface area (Beer and Martin, 1976).
The effect of gas velocity and Ca/S ratio on NO formation is shown in
Figure 4.1.2.2-12. The effect of fluidizing velocity on NO emissions is
two-fold (Beer and Martin, 1976); the initial rise of concentrations with
velocity, see Figure 4.1.2.2-13, is apparently due to increased oxygen
supply and shortened residence time in the reducing environment of the
char, then the decrease in NO emissions at higher velocities is due to
backwashing.
The observation that NO reduction is directly proportional to
the gas residence time supports the hypothesis, that a large part of the
fuels' nitrogen is converted to NO then reduced by reaction with CO or SO
or both.
Catalytic decomposition of NO with nickel powders added to the bed
have been observed, and although nickel would be too expensive the
possibility of other catalysts exits.
The influence of bed temperature upon NO emissions is apparently not
as pronounced as it was once thought to be. There seems to be little
disagreement on the fact that there is oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen
that begins in the fluidized bed temperature range. A possible cause for
this fixation at such low temperatures is that the coal surface
temperatures may reach 2000 F which could cause the atmospheric nitrogen
fixation
(Strom,
et al.,
1976).
In (Strom,
et al.,
1975)
it is claimed
that when bed temperatures increase above 1650°F there is a significant
increase in NO formation (see Figure 4.1.2.2-14), due both to increased
x
fixation of atmospheric N at higher temperatures and reduced availability
of CO. In (Pereira, et
., 1974) this so-called thermal NO formation is
noted to add 0% to total NO at about 1300 F with a linear rise to account
for almost
20% of the total NO at about
1800 0 F.
However,
in the
(Pereira,
et al., 1974) experiments it was determined that the fuel bound nitrogen
was producing decreased NO emissions in this range with essentially a
leveling-off of total NO emissions, see Figure 4.1.2.2-15, -16, and -17.
173
nf
L
I
I
-
-
40
I
I
i
*ze
1
0
1
-
30
W
0Z *
I
Z
z
20
2
U
0*
-
.
_
.
~~~~~~~~~.
.·.
10
..
..
_
,
.
.
.
-
1
.
.
-..
.
.·-
-
..
..
-
.
.-
~~
-
'
..
.
~
~
.
' .
.-
,
~~~~~~~~~
.~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o.
~~-~
,
-
~
-
~~~
,,.
~
-.
*
..
.
.. '
i
A
qNI
0
3
2
1
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
Figure 4.1.2.2-9
Nitric Oxide Reduction with -325 Mesh (<44 um) Tymochtee Dolomite
(Jarry, et al., 1970).
sscn
ju 1
I
I
I
I
/
I
-Z.
.
NOx
RUN 15
-:
._
T
I Z.
.
_t
0
1600
F
U :3 FS
.1
-
Ho
2502
12 in.
..
EXCESS AIR
Z-
(dp) STONE 930 p
'0--
10%
I
I
f 01
(dp) COAL: 200'p
m=.
S c
;Z
.2.
SO 2
I
I
1
2
3
4
RUN TIM.E. hours
Figure 4.1.2.2-10
Typical NO x Emissions with Limestone Bed (Hammons and Skopp, 1970).
174
5
I
i
0
-
0
C0
(%J
E
CO
co
C)
i
I
II
o00
0
i I
0
0
(N
-f
q-
0
E
0
::1.
m.
._
OW)
.-- d
L
l
0
&-)
m,
,)o0
w
Ll
.-_J
-
I-
O
a
..4.
Cm"
i
O <:E'
,<
i
"I
% .qJ
,
~*
*
04) 0)
~
*
-Q
aJ
I
b
0
C)
!
-.
0
CO
. "i
· O-==,
- . ,_"
_
'
I
I
I
C0
C)
C
L
t.
C=,=i, i U,. it-4
. ,
& ;N,,
l.
_W
!
/
175
W
0aQ
(
-.
IU
..
GAS
V_-OCTlY.
LIMESTINE
ft/sec
02.7.
* 2.7
.t,'
NO. 1359
---
A8.6*A8.6
25
25
a2.7 -
- 600
- V8.6 - .1400
. ..
.
<
O
YES
NO
D
U.
NO
z
UJ
rl
A'-ITIVE:
LIMESTONENO.
UIDIZED 8ED: ALUMIN IA
1359
-
-
*
..
-
.
/
50
LOW-VELOCITY GAS
oI-z
-?.'--..
I
,
YES
NO
CAL. FEED: 4.5 v.t % S
S-....
i
- -_
NO
TEMPERATURE:1600 °F
.
t
60
_
25
25
I
A
46
Ic
I'
8 o
II . o" Os
°c
I
I-^ 00
I0
30
I
,
"
'
I
,
I
ti
,Ux0'
x
O
(3
-
20
,ttIo-I
I
.
I-
3 V
I
V
I-~~~I
*Z
10
n
0I
-
I'
1
tGH-,.LCCtTY
I
2
.
....-Ca/S
GAS
I
3
I
l
I
4
5
6
MOLE,RAT!O
Figure 4.1.2.2-12
Effect
of Gas Velocity
on Nitric
Oxide Reduction in Flue Gas
176
(Jarry, et al., 1970).
5g)
O0 COAL -(0-
- ....
3?-5-
&-CHAR--- (2-09g)
f.
720 °oC
\
~-
'-'-O
I
..%
I
.
-
.0
_
Z
..
__
....,
C
.
.
*
.
~ 2~0
-eX
,
A
f
I
4-
690° 0 C
-
ahOC
A
A
884
I
I
I
0C
I
1
I
w
I
15
Figure 4.1.2.2-13
Effect
of Fluidizing
(Periera and Ber,
25
20
30
FL IDIZ.; "'EL0CT,
35
,
40
c m i s (HOTr)
. -.
Velocity
1975).
on NO Emissions
Gas: 21% 0
in Argon,
1 77
Coal and Char,
1300
m.
.80
H
EPA
.70
I-
0
STANDARO
_
FOR
NEW
COAL-FIRED
_
_*
04
UITS.
.
_ _ _ _
p
,
_~~~~~~1
!
.m
cdl
.60
!1
0
/
!
/
f
!
.50
td
co
CD,
/
CD
-J
40
UJ
/./
....
.30
X,,'
KEY
00
IL
Q
2X
O
Z
CD
X
OPERATIN'G TEMPERATURE
RANGE SLECTED
FOR
FLUIDIZED
ED
OILER
I-
z
N =
-
.20
O
.10
N
-
,
I
I_ I
i5O0
1'I .
1600
II
I
1700
BED
IJ
/%
HITROGEN
I"1 FUEL
l
ZNE
EMITTED FROM4 STA CK
.
I
19 c00
2.02
-MOISTURE
AiND ASH
FREE
ASIS
FORW.ED IN CO,"BtUSTICO
---
0.
% NITROGEN
1iNFUE_
OISTURE AND ASH
FREE
BASIS
i.48
,
J
I500
TEMPERATURE,
I
I
100
I
2000
I
I
I
si. ,..92o.3
2100
200
°F
Figure 4.12.2.-14
NO x Versus
Temperature
from
Sources
Claiming an Upturn in Emissions
178
(EPA, Feb. 1977).
5
-
I
5I
I
I
0
ac
'-
TOTAL
4
0
ftl
1W
.
tLI
2
_... I I
CHAR
I
0
-- -
..
£00 700
8o
BED
I
900
TEMP.
000
(C)
Figure 4.1.2.2-15
Total and Char Emission Indexes as a Function of Bed Temperature (Pereira,
1 7q
et al.,
1974).
-
0o
02
I
SW~~~~~~~~~~~
.3
S.
!
400
z
VI
,~~~~~~~~3
4
"°°
I
A
,CURVE
BED
REACTOR
MATERIAL
SIZE
NO.
~~~300
.mI
I
M
--1400
FLUIDIZING
02 IN
FLUE GAS VEI.OCITY (FT/SEC)
COAL
SIZE
1
2
r
DIA
3" DIA
ALUNDUM 300#
C.SO4
300u
3
4
r DIA
Ir OlA
LMS-1359 -14 MESH 3.0-15%
DMT--1337 -14 MESH 3.6-4.0%
!
II
I
IS00
4%
4%
Z5-3.1
5S-3.1
I
I
10
1600
1700
BED TEMPERATURE.°F
goo00
11
Figure 4.1.2.2-16
Effect of Bed Temperature on NO Concentration (Archer, et al., 1971).
t
::'
800oo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALUNDUMBED
I
I
I
1
17
- -
a1
-
-0
1-
m-
I
I
_-
700
.II
_
I
cc
a
.-
600
E
z0
CaSO4
-
500
a
CL
vi
W
-CaSO
4
400
n
tn 300
2Uj
0
z
U 2 = 47.
=
.i.-
200
-
....-
100
0
13
~~
-I
I
0'
FBC
= FBC WITH 250 ppm NO ADDED
~
TO FLUIDIZING GAS
I
1400
I
1500
I
I
I
II
I
BED TEMPERATURE,
I
I
1700
1600
-
D
I !
1800
OF
Figure 4.1.2.2-17
NO Emission as a Function of Bed Temperature (Skopp, et al., 1971).
180
It has been suggested (Pereira, et al., 1974) that some of the
discrepancies in measurements may be due to differences in the location of
the reported emissions. In the collection of all available data (Strom,
et al1., 1976) Strom did not attempt to sort out the appropriate and
misleading data. That report does display the Pope, Evans and Robbins
model that matches the data displayed in Figure 4.1.2.2-14:
NO
where
where
= 0.28 x 106 (1 + 1.7N)K
NO = volume ppm
x
K
=-equilibrium constant
N
= nitrogen content of fuel, wt%
K
= 8.67 x 10-
5.31 x 10
5
.44
at
1340°F,
o
2.33
x 10-
at 1700°F, 1.07 x 10
at
3
3
1520°F,
at 1880°F,
1.94 x 10- 3 at 2060°F.
Under assumptions of baseloaded operation, a preliminary model has
been developed on the basis of correlations to experimental data. This
empirical model is also based upon data for systems that had no secondary
reheat and is matched to the data that 1s reported in the EPRI data base
and Figure 4.1.2.2-18 show this
(Strom, et al., 1976). Table-4.1.2.2-1
NOx model, for details see (Gruhl, Tung, Schweppe, 1978).
181
600.
400.
200.
O.
800.
1100.
Li
O
i_
') E
i IX4M600.
i o
II
IV600,
,I . ~ 00
!°
I
2,400.
k
. =)
*
U
to
a,
;
5..
; l200.
0.
200,
O.
400.
- 600.
800.
Actual NOx at Outlet (ppm)
Figure4.1.Z.2-aScatterplot
of
NOx predictions versus observations,
showing general lack of good fit
to data due
possibly to unmeasured
variables or differences in
position or techniques of measurement
182
Empirical model of NO
experiments
Table4.LZ-I
at
utlet based on data base
-
Symbols:
N
C
V
T
X
Q
=
=
=
=
=
=
NO equivalent of NO at outlet, in ppm
calcium to sulfur mofe ratio
fluidizing velocity, in m/sec
bed temperature, in degrees centigrade
excess air, in percent
parameter for effect of sorbent source
Model on all data base experiments for which the above variables
were available:
N=(-5819-+82.41C+ 6.43CV + 362.V + 6.9(1.8T+32.)
-.065C(1.8T+32.)
- .00182(1.8T+32.)2
- .267V(1.8T+32.)
) (1.106-.0074X) 1.053 Q
[fit=arithmetic stand dev 91ppm]
on 198 experiments
Table of parameters:
calcium source
Qdata base
BCR1337 dolom
BCR1360 limes
BCR1359 limes
BCR1359H hyd m
Tymochtee dolom
US limestone 18
UK limestone
0.90
0.85
1.00
0.70
0.85
1.00
1.00
Stow-on-Kent
0.85
I
An alternative model has been fit to the group of data which is
initially level with bed temperature and then rises sharply:
Alternative NO
x
Emission Correlation for Atmospheric FBC
No = NO x emissions in ppm [NO,dry]
Na = nitrogen in coal in %, valid 1.4 to 2.0%
T
b
= temperature in bed, in
N0 = .22[N
- .48][1
0
F, valid in range 1500° to 1800°F
+ .01 l
101[1 + .0027 (max[1640, T b ] - 1640)]
-.
Two stage combustion drastically reduces the NOx emissions. Given
that there are no parametric studies, probably due to the extremely low
levels being out of interest (70 to 100ppm at Argonne, 110 to 280 at Esso
England, and 200 to 620 ppm at Esso R & D, see Figure 4.1.2.2-19), and
assuming the same types of mechanisms are effecting emission the one-stage
combustion NO emissions are simply scaled:
x
NO x = NOx emissions in ppm dry basis
NO
(two stage)
Xstage))
NO
(one stage)
2.17 - .0035 Min (620, NOx (one
(gsd = 1.26)
Carbon burnup cell experiments at Pope, Evans, and Robbins show that
NO emissions from that cell range from 350 to 800ppm (see Figure
4.A.2.2-20). This could be a factor in overall emissions, as shown in
(Strom, et al., 1976) if 15% of the total air is used in the carbon burnup
cell with 800ppm of NOx then the primary combustor emission must be less
than 476ppm to meet the overall 525 ppm stack emission standard. An
empirical model for the emissions from the carbon burnup cell has been
developed by Pope, Evans, and Robbins:
NOx = -464.3 + 0.4257 T + 0.329 Rair + 4.468 H - 2.337 Rc
- 0.7829 RI + 0.005372 Rc RI
where NO
x
= ppm
T = bed temperature,
OF
Rair = air rate, lb/hr-ft 2
air
H = bed height, in.
R
c
= carbon rate, lb/hr-ft 2
RI = inert rate, lb/hr-ft
A comparison between observed and calculated values is shown in Figure
4.1.2.2-21.
184
800
I
-
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
II-T
I
I
BED
A ERIAL = CaSO4
700
T'TAI
rTnlrwiAM=TQI
-. I-W
AIR = ino/..
600
E
500o
0.
I.
ozCz
400
0
us
LU
300
0
z
200
100
I
I
0
I
I
1
I
I
. I.
I
I
1.0
0.5
I
I
I
1.5
SECOND STAGE AIR
FIRST STAGE AIR
Figure 4.1.2.2-19
NO Emissions in Staged Combustion Tests
(Skopp, et al.,
n^n
uu
I
700
I
_
1971).
,
0
I
0
*·w0
.'
E0
a
600
.I
CD
.L
p 500
.ia
0
0*
0,
I..L
Z
a 400
* 0
0
0.
* . 4% .6
_0
0
o0
,
G 300 I.
-
200
il
inn
17D0o
I
1800
1900
2000
BED TEMPERATURE,
Figure 4.12.2.-ZO
2100
2200
OF
-
NO-Emissions during Carbon Burnup Cell Tests (Strom, et al., 1976).
1
R%
800oo
a
us
700
o
w
E
CL
600
a
.;,0
w
500
tL
z
400
a
* RzXt-
O
300
-
300
NITRIC
400
500
600
700
800
OXIDE IN FLUE GAS, ppm (CALCULATED)
Figure 4.1.2.2-21
Comparison of Observed and Calcinated Nitric Oxide Emission from CBC Tests
(Robison, 1972).
186
4.1.2.3 Hydrocarbon Emissions
Data concerning the extent of hydrocarbon emission in FBCs is limited
to the observation, of the gaseous hydrocarbon emission (see Figure
4.1.2.3-1). These gaseous hydrocarbons are inert compared to the
carcinogenic hydrocarbons represented by the polycyclic compounds (see
Table 4.1.2.3-1). While there is general knowledge that the formation of
these larger compounds, such as benzapyrene 6 is in fact favored by
combustion
temperatures
in the 1500 to
1700 F range
(ANL-EC/1,
1976,
section 6.3.5) little data on their concentrations exist. In fact, little
is known about quantities of these compounds found in conventional
coal-fired power plants, with some qualitative information available (see
Table 4.1.2.3-2).
Based on data in (Strom, et a., 1976) the model for CH4 is shown in
Table 4.1.2.3-3 and Figure 4.1.2.3-2.
If oxygen is modltfl instead of excess air, it appears (Nack, et al.,
1975) that the relationship between oxygen and excess air is
appproximately:
EA = excess air in percent, valid for 0 to 85% EA
or 0 to 9.5% 0 F
50
EA =
F
+
50
F -
1
It has been speculated that increases in the bed temperature have an
inverse effect on the hydrocarbon levels. This was not observed over the
data base. The magnitude of this supposed effect has not been recorded,
the 10% drop for 100 F increase from 15000 F is sometimes assumed. The
fundamental reason for this decrease arises from a decrease with
temperature in the
(1) number of hydrocarbons that will survive after cleavage of
structural hydrocarbon networks of the coal;
(2)
hydrocarbon decomposition products that will condense
(Fennelly, Durochee, Kemm, Hall, 1975).
Using the ratio of 10- 5 for beno (x) pyrene to CH4 in coal combustion
(Hangebruck, von Lehmden, Meeker, 1964) and the fact that substituted
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon will be in smaller concentrations
{especially for chlorine substitute as HCe in the predominant Ce form at
FBC temperatures):
BAPe = Benz (a) pyrene in emissions in ppb
PCBe = polychlorinated biphenyls
H
BAP
= hydrocarbons from Table 4.1.2.3-3
e
= .01 H
PCB e<BAP e
There is a sharp conflict between this estimate an~ the uncontrolled
polycyclic organic material levels of 5 to 72 mg/m from 6" Battelle unit
187
---VuuV
I c t~ C
EAC.TC¥ 3: ¢.
IsIzc .s
n£LIf
4sTtl, I
r
'L TPLI:,.tUTIE- 100-1OO-r
IL
c.O C.PTISIZ-3
COAL I'c.TrO
!YtIPOL
0
X,
rY SY-AfOt.
CO'.
WISHI1O.OHIO = S,
2G'%.S
UWtfASIEOt13 -8 SM4,45,S
4
-j
-
2500
z0
X
W
x
-
00
U.
-9
I"'') 4 $00
zo
u
0
C)
.-
0:
Q
0
g=
X
I..
v
x
o
0.
-9
00
0 w_
.- 9
n
'O
!0 LI
-V
W
10ec
fo
.-
X
-9
-9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'o
1.0
z.
.0
4.
o '
FLUE GAS 0XYGENCC.NTE;T.;crccnt
Figure 4.1.2.3-1
10
Variation in Hdrocarbons Concentration with Flue Gas OxygenContent in FBM
[from (Glenn, Robison, 1973)].
188
Table 4.1.2.3-1
Classes of Known or Suspected Carcinogenic or Cocarcinogenic Compounds Associated
with Processing and Utilization of Coal
Copound
Po IZvr,
uea
epResentatve
C,,-
C I as;
r .c: ,.
I.
Structure
droa ,rbons
Anthracenes
3; 1C-di ,ethy 1onttnr
cene
CCH
3
-043 '~
Chrysenes
chrysene
Lenz; thracenes
benzo (a )anthraCene
Fluoran thenes
benzo(jIfluoranthene
Cholanth renes
£O-retIly: Chol anthrenp
Senzopyreres
benzo(a)Dvrene
Dibenzpyrenes
dibenzo(a.h)pyrene
'4i trCccn-.
-
1
cask0
C"
Sul fur-.
-
C,
$:
e rvcen-Containinq olvycvclic
C.o~urds
rn.ono-and dibenzacridines
dibenz(ah)Ocridine
benzocarbazoles
.Zii-bcnzo(c)carazole
dibenzocartbazoles
7P-ben2z(c.9)carbaZole
benz athrones
ll-benz(d.e)anthraen-7-oe
C,
I'l
Ian
1 qQ
Table 4.1.2.3-1
oti;ne)
Carcinogenic Polycyclic Organic Materials
CC7¶-,-)
Cund
1.
7,12 Direchylben
Careeins.;- nsi c v
a,-
DiLhren:,aenhr
t2.
n
+4
Cfl3
2.
Db..en:L'a ,3nchraccne
+3
3.
Ben:ot[i]henanLhrcnc
+3
4.
3
+4
S.
6.
ehylcholaathrcna
enzo[jpyrene
+3
Dibenzoa,l. pvrene
cc?
c#6
+3
II
+3
7. Dbcnzoa ,'pvrene
8. Dben:o[c,g2carba:ole
&L9)
190
Table 4.1.2.3-2
Polycyclic Organic Material (POM) in Conventional Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions
Lccation Whero Fownd
Stack
PC:4--
106
*7-12
G9
c~x78
[aIan:r,--sene
PQ:.-2
*b=r.cf(al
pyn
F0:M-3
3 rat.hylChol-thraoe!
PC:I-4
*dizen:[ah1
ant.race:e
0
:ai-
0 : Analysis
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
166
0
0 0
169
0
0
166
00
69
0
0
166
0
0
169
0
0
G3
Ashes
Ccal
Tesot t:o.
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 00
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 00
0
fouwnd no PCl
found soma PiO4
: Data missing
*Iistr,-e=r.ts calLbatd
for iscrar sl-o:n. The prcsanzo
ic-rers rlative
of tc
verified.
1Q1
to othe: iomers wa3not
Table4.t.2.3-3Empirical model of CH4 equivalent of the hydrocarbon
at the outlet
Symbols:
H = CH4 equivalent of hydrocarbon concentrations at
outlet, in ppm
A = bed area, in square meter
N = number of the reference from which the data was
collected
C = calcium to sulfur ratio in bed, molar ratio
Z = coal
top particle
X = excess
air,
diameter
n microns
in percent
Model based on all data in base:
H = 146.(1.+10.65A)(0 if N greater than 4.5 else 1.)(1.-.2249C)*
(1.-.000125Z)(1. if X less than 0. else 11.98/(X+.15))
[fit=arithmetic stand dev 11.1]
over 196 experiments
192
b
-Zuu
.
.
U.
ZUUo.
400.
600.
%-0
800.
1000.
.
_.
1000.
800.
E
· ,-
600.
.CL
200
400.
-200.
200.
0.
-200.
-200.
0.
200.
400.
600.
800.
Actual CH4 Measurements at Outlet
1000.
(ppm)
Figure 4.1.23-3Scatterplot of predicted versus observed CH4 concentrations
at outlet
193
(Battelle, Feb. 1977). To account for this wide disagreement the formula
is changed by a factor of 100 and a large geometic standard deviation is
assumed:
BAP = H
(gsd = 15.0) e
Other hydrocarbon material is expected to be emitted (Fennelly,
Durochee, Klemm, Hall, 1975) in the following concentrations:
E(X) = emission of X in ppm
E(C 2 H4,
C 2 H 6) = 10.
E(Diolefims, aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, azoarenes) = .001
E(Carboxylic acids, sulfonic acids, polychlormated bephenyls,
alkynes, cyclic hydrocarbons, amines, pyridines, pyroles, furans,
ethers, esters, epoxides, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones,
thiophenes, mercaptans) = .0001
(gsd = 3.16 for these order of magnitude estimates)
10,.
4.1.2.4
Trace Metals
In sources
as recent
as February
1977
(Bloom
et al.,
1977)
trace
emissions are dismissed in 2 or 3 sentences as needing study, and indeed no
work on atmospheric FBC trace emissions is published. Experiments that
have been conducted on pressurized FBCs do show significant improvement in
trace element retention over conventional steam-fired power plants. The
mechanisms responsible for this performance are listed in Table 4.1.2.4-1
and many are likewise at work in atmospheric FBCs.
Table 4.1.2.4-1
Mechanisms that Reduce Trace Element Emissions in FBCs
1. Combustion temperatures below volatility of
some elements.
2. Sorbent reaction with elements.
3. Larger coal particle sizes.
4. Agglomeration and precipitation.
In experimental data (Ruth, 1975) obtained by neutron activation of
materials collected in cyclone diplegs and filters, and even disregarding
solids lost in handling, the recovery of many trace elements was high [see
Table 4.1.2.4-2; also in (Hoke, Nutkis and Ruth, 1974)].
The data from Argonne (NTIS report CONF-750616-4, Vogel et al., 1975),
and other sources, shown in Table 4.1.2.4-3, was developed using
pressurized FBC's. It is necessary to go to this data despite its limited
applicability to atmospheric FBCs due to the lack of atmospheric bed trace
element data. Tables 4.1.2.4-4 and -5 suggest the beginnings of modeling
information necessary for simulating trace metal-changes due to bed
temperature variations and different sorbents. Such models have been
developed for this report but only on those trace elements that are
currently suspected of being carcinogenic health hazards (see Table
4.1.2.4-6).
195
C'sI
m
C"
c% 0
Cm
n
tn
C
C"
-
.; * 0r *1O. '-4. *~ *-~ <*;I_.~ #
O r c: 0 c
V
>
m a r
'4
e~
-
C co
0C.4
0
(JCj
40
.0+
4'.
LC
-4
r
Z
4-
O's
(U
C
0
O
0
-C
1-4
CO
C 0 0IT
\0 cn h-4
.1
r4-.O)'C
~ *)*~-
-.0 4o 13
QC.
E
.-4
O
r.O
s p-40
O s
ts*
-4 C
c' c'l
q4
al
XU-I
C
~
300
004=3O
OC)
O en
(U
C~
$-
C'
C
*
0C)
0 *
CS 0
0
C)
r-
-4
* $
r400
O ,
CO-4
OC-! .O
"
-4 -4
'-4
c'C*
'%
C
-
II..
0U,
0
cn
0)
)S
1.
O
*:
~.
. 4)
0
i
0
C C
C.,- 03
00
'=-4
VJ
a
C- '
O un \D
c O u
O
*
-4O O
4
C%
0 C4
e
O
~' -.I.T M - c'
-Te4 "' -4 C4 0
O-.T Cn-.7 4 r. Cn
4
X
44
44
o Oi4
4
(U'
3'-4
C.4
wa
C, r- C%
o
C
0 t.4
MV00
- * CO,
C)
C
0'-4
0
-4 ",
0
on
-'4
CNJ
.4
E
Ci-:l
C.
C,
C'I
f-
Cl
030Q
CJ
,f-
>)
4rc
(O
I-
.0
o
r~
0
0 C 3O
(a
C,,
0
C
0
4-
a
C+e40 0
0CS)
0a
O:
W3
4
C
C)
- 4
0
A ¢
S=
-4
o
a
o
O<
U ;k4O -:N _,
e
4
2w :
-4 CS4
_V
V
196
-
-
L
I
I
t
C
_
r=
n
E
O rr
I
CD
O
e
-T
C
I
I 0
O
4 o:
I
1
'
_{
I
fl
I
O r-O
1
1-
O
M
i
I
1
I-4
I
C,)
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
I
O
I
ZU
1-
_
o0
.0 Q
m
0
Z0
u
7
I
C
I
n
I
N
C
o
I
-
I
-
I
-
I
o&
I
I
.0
M0
0
E-4i
C
-
E-
0z
0
U-,
I-
0 0-% '-0
o
W
%
0
3
-1
z
I-
Lr)
UNi
Lf)
4. 0
_~
C)
N
10
*1-4
P.
E-0
C
z
< c:
.0
x
x
II
I
II
I
I
I
-
I
I
r-q
C40
I
Lr
I O
V-4
CN
N
N
I
- J
s
wnf
En
>
-'-4 w
2 H C
tt -r
~-S
E-
0)
4mJ
_-
.- 4
C
^ r
C0E--4
V
Z
A.
00"0
~1< =z Z
M
V
; av
u
~4Z~
CD
< XE-4
C4<-4
;z
I
Y
_
CJ~
- 1E E-3
-1
N
00
00 -I -q10
0)
C0
'- Q)I
1-4
r-
> 2
C
t1
0)
-S
0c
C
00
oO
-4
C)
-4
I 1 00
O O
4
4
0
C
CN
%C
00
N
1 4D
!I
I
I
u~)
I
I
I
CI)
C
Q
C< r O
%s.
a~
%
.
)C
)0)
3
-U4t
505
i0U:
0;
0s;
0;
5-iu
U
Ho
0)
o D
CZ
cx w
000P
2
F<
4
0 -
'0
1-0
1-4 .- I
C) =
C
--
'
Ce
E
Ai
-.
00
Lr -I -4I-
VI)
-4 IC/
U0
^i co0
'0
0
C t_
0
m
O
I
4
rs
-S O L1) 0
I
I
I
I
I
,
Iu I u
I I c 4I II I N
0J
U
0
-W
CU
_
0
00 w0
". 00
to
A0 u) j-
E
a)
.4-4
U U
5v
-,4
Cl
0D
I
0)
0
, .
OO
N
I
UnUn I un O I O O O O O O O
C
"C
O CD
rI_
m Cq
"No
O no
m
N
I
U
o o 0 : 00
C/ eCt~
-S
OC Ut o0
U:S;
rE)
Sc
w
w
. kl
.
,
r-4-4
o Cr C
C w-4
$
S.
+
--4r
E)
QE
. -4
C:
m a
--
D
E
'V
C 2
2
E
3
xOo
2ws
<w
C H
0 m
: O2
s<
Si
; On
s..;o OcnU-U
OD-4>cX
¢)
rv
c
U
>:
C
,
w:
C
19'7
;
E
-
E
;0
cD
Co t
C
0CA
-E
4-
C
m
U
'-
I
3:
-
o
t,0
aJ
-a)
4r N .0
o(A
I
.-
.'
.
0
IC,
I
Ci._
.ll-C
p
C:
ocooo
0
*..@.,," _ _~
en *..,-
o
s.
0
-7
0· O00O
0
a,'
4-
OO00 0
_
In
1
0*
0"I
*
+4
40 O
0
o
0
4.CO
0.
,I
0<N
0
0.4
*
.0
C
I
-
Li
cn
V
0
0
,
41
ell
-
4-i
N
++1
een- 3
*4
-4
'0
*
0
c
0
N
N
CL
C
*
ri
'0
E
CU
a)
00
.7.00
000
e
0'o i.
.
. 4
.
-4 64N 1%e
. '30
*
O4-
-440
44<
N
ci
aU
.0 i
hi
0
_-4
N>
t4
N
rt
0
-4C
.0
.
.
.
r
0'
..
_4
.
.
a).
E-
a).
1e--
"0
0
-C
-
I-- .i
0
LE
0
.
o
0 la
-4
14 a
'a-4
'00
0
000"
4(~
N
l_
-
N
N
N
4-'
en000-44
U-
0
!
'fl
C
C
Cs .4
*
0
0
4'
0
_
*
_en
,N
O
.
o0o0o
en
.-
_
wr O
u U
0
0
w o
-
0a .0
.0
0
1a0
.4)i
4-4-
C
N
'0
-
*
o -o
C
O
.4
T)
edn
00
' 0 ,i0 ll
J2
~4
oa
.
N
-* -404-'
40
5
N
.
U,
'm
a
4."
en
2
hi
o
.- 4)
a)
C
04it
0 -?
Lz
S-
u
la
. N. t/'
C)
0
47
la
I0
I
o
.-
0
wI-i
CL
1
N
I¢1Ci +
! .-+; [ ..+.i.+I|i I
o 4C9.0-4oNo4O
0lt
4-
U-4.
41
* 0000.|!000l^4
n m1 0' 0; '3 4 . 4.)
-4
*
.4 4
4S
_-
rN*
a
CV
0
!-
e0
0 0
4-
c
9.9. -o 0 . 0
-: (N '3 -J
0
0
-)
C3
0
. ..
0-00
-.
0
4-
0
· ,,,o
I
cn
a-
a)
e-
0
0
e-
"0
C
0 o
_' _r
_
o
.
0 00
~
4-)
3
I-+i
4-
C
v,
(/)
Uo
i
Lo
1.I
C
4-
0
19%
,
13
C 'C
06
- -- - O.
t
L
U
'
D.a
CZ
-e
OO
=
.N
Cs
I
Table 4.1.2.4-5
Mass Balances for Trace And Minor Elements Around ANL's 6.0 in. Diameter.
Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Combustor (Swift, Vogel, Pek,
Combustion in
Alumina Bed
Flement -
TR-3
Reco cry'
('ombu.llao in
Dolos ite kd
TR-SA
TR4B
MwasBalancesBlH d on Sol.- ,.4 I uc;as
lag
F
':
56
120
TR6
Aalvis
43
110
29
180
Afapee
BIlances Based on Solids Analysis(Only
26
9
lip
37
23
62
I
.
S
Ptb
110
120
78
S6
71
Be
63
As
85
1'
8S
0
3
36
Br
Co
79
100
88
64
83
Cr
27
120
95
I'e
92
120
1
77
K
120
>74
89
La
1'0
110
110
Mn
Na
79
120
85
110
110
83
Sc
25
240
3S
160
20
56
95
87
>83
1
96
12
92
74
1
1
100
.88
23
36
100
69
8S
18is
91
74
100
90
104
330
96
98
*Percentof element enteringcombusturaccouned for in product steams.
"Avtr.ge rcover) for experiments in which a balaice as determined.
e10l mejns indeterminatedue u incompleteconcentrationdata for some
amples.
199
Jonke, 1975).
Table 4.1.2.4-6
Associated
Classes of Known or Suspected Carcinogenic or Cocarcinogenic Compounds
(continued).
with Processing and Utilization of Coal
Inca,'n. C St.t-ncos
Ca3 (AsO4 ) 2
As
tricalcium rsenate
Se
selenide salt
cobalt ulfide
CoS
Co
;li
nickel carboyl
:i (CO)4
Beryllium o::ide
BeO
Be
Cr
chromate salts
[t-l2] CrO4
Pb
lead chrcate
PbCrO4
Zn
zinc chrcrlate
ZnCrO4
Hg
mercury
eleumantal
Hg
Cd
cadmium sulfide
CdS
200
-
[r.+2]Se
Figure 4.1.2.4-1 shows the levels of some of the carcinogenic trace
metals as they have been recorded as varying with temperature.
The
deviations for this figure represents two standard deviations or
approximately the 5% and 95% confidence range. This tentative model of
emissions is for pressurized FBC as no atmospheric data is available.
It would be useless to-attempt at this time to draw out any other
parameters for the trace metal models due to the lack of a wide range of
operating or design parameters in the available experiments (see Table
4.1.2.4-7).
The forms of the trace element emissions are as follows (Fennelly,
Durochee, Klemm, Hall, 1975)
Gas Phase
1 ppm
1 ppb
(<2um material)
F, Na
As,Pb,Hg,Br,Cr,Ni,Se,Cd,V,Be
Solids
(>2ummaterial)
1 ppm
1 ppb
0.1 ppb
AL,Ca,Fe,K,Mg,Si,Ti,Cu,Zn,Ni,U,V
Ba,Co,Mn,Rb,Sc,Sr,Cd,Sb,Se,Ca,
Eu,La,Sn,Ta,Th
Based upon a worst case analysis in that study, where all input of the
trace element is emitted, the following elements show cause for concern
from the health effects perspective:
In emitted phase: Be,As,U,Pb,Cr,V,Cl
Possible enrichment on <2um particles: Pb, Cr, Se, Br, Hg
The compounds formed by the trace elements are extremely important in
determining health impacts, for example, Ca (As04 ) , N(CO 4 ), CO(CO),
ZnCrO4 and others in Table 4.1.2.4-6 are potentialy potent pollutants.
Analysis of emissions as minute as these, however, is not available and may
well be beyond present analytic capabilities.
The possibility of additives or sorbents being used in the bed to
reduce trace element and alkali metal emissions has been an area of some
investigation. The focus of these studies has been to reduce the corrosive
potential of the combustion gas stream before it reaches the turbine
blades. Numbers useful for trace element modeling are not yet available.
A potentially useful control measure that can be used on trace metals
is physical coal cleaning. Although no specific results are available, it
is known that arsenic, beryllium, copper, and antimony are closely
correlated with the pyritic material in coals.
Another important control device for trace metals may be the use,
especially in atmospheric FBC, of unnecessary additional particulate
collection devices. Table 4.1.2.4-8 distinctly shows the preferential
collections at further downstream collectors, due to the smaller sizes
predominant in the downstream catches (see Figure 4.1.2.4-2).
201
100
90
80
dp
70
0co
,-
0
0)
to
0
r4
+
beryllium
30%
coLJalt
15%
7%
mercury
85%
5%
lead
20%
15°%
10%o
60
50
t: 40
a)
Ed
30
20
0
£
900
range
Bed T
orpenur
Figure
950
°C
0
conventional
emperature
4.1.2.4-1i
Trace Metals Released from Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustors.
Table 4.1.2.4-7
Summary of Average Operating and Flue-gas Compositions for Trace-Element
Experiments
(W.M. Swift, G.J. Vogel, A.F. Panek and A.A. Jonke, 1975).
System
Prchsure Cual.
atim
lb/hr
Run
Bed
Time. Tump.
F
I:%pt. -
:ced Rates
Dolumite.
Gas
Velocity.
IlueGas Analyss
Dry Basis
(O.
SO,.
NO.
ppm
P i,
ppm
cO.
ppm
Ib/hr
Air.
scdm
CaIS
Ratio
0.0
0.0
67.1
63.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
2.4
30
3.9
16.0
I6J
2180
16600
110
180
70
120
6.1
14.2
.67.9
75.5
1.2
2.9
3.4
.,0
2.9
3.8
16.S
19.0
440
140
150
200
39
35
O,.
fseC
Experimcnts'in a Fluidied Bedof Atumin;
TR-SA
TR-3
6.(0
4.0
1670
1560
8
10
29.4
24.9
.xpcriments in a Iluidiicd Ied of TymoshteeDolomite
7.5
4.75
TR.6
TR-40
--
.
...
.
.
..
......
8
1660
1550
..
.
I
.
.
.
29.7
28.2
I
tAll experimenls
mudewith as-r.ceivedArkwright coual
Low valuedue to malfunctiono(SO t IR analyyr.
203
'able 4.1.2.4-8
Concentrations of Trace, Minor, and Major Elements in Particulate Matter Recovered at
Various Stages of Removal from Flue Gas (Vogel, Sept. 1974).
Carbon Free
Pb,
Be,
ppm
pp
Concentration
Pb,,Be
Source of Solids
Ca,
9
pp t
.
wt
m_
i
(ExperimentTRACE-3)
Primary Cyclone
Secondary Cyclone
95
2.65
51.3
0.86
1.29
195
5.44
260
5.95
29.2
1.80
1.80
367
8.40
(Experiment TRACE-4B)
Primary Cyclone
70
1.55
2.3
4.5
72
1.59
Secondary Cyclone
180
5.20
13.1
2.6
15.4
5.58
207
5.98
Filter
300
6.77
8.4
3.1
6.65
328
7.39
(ExDerimentTRACE-SA)
Primary Cyclone,
15
2.29
34.1
1.8
2.11
22.8
Secondary Cyclone
13
6.62
16.8
2.5
2.02
15.6
7.96
Primary Filter
22
6.75
6.6
4.9
2.89
23.6
7.23
SecondaryFilter
46
8.05
-
-
-
-
4.8
8.11
19.9
2.79
30.4
6.35
TRACE-6)
(Exoeriment
Primary Cyclone
16
Secondary Cyclone
Primary Filter
2.24
19.6
27
5.63
11.3
3.1
4.89
96
7.70
5.2
4.3
5.44
-i
-
I-
i
7
Trace Emissions
l
O&J
w
N
a
LU
-
101.3 8.12
- i
-
_
A_
.
..
IuU
3.47
I'
I
~~~~~
_
A1
80
.;
0
60
w
U,
o
40
o.
I- 20
mm
_
C.
n I
0.1
I
0.2
_ .
I
0.5
1
2
DIAMETER,
5
10
20
50
100
u.rr
Figure 4.1.2.4-2
Particle Size Distributions of Primary and Secondary Cyclone Catch (Strom, et al., 1976).
204
4.1.2.5
Particulates
The problems that have been recognized in the area of particulate
loadings in the fluidized combustor flue gas have been "significantly, but
not hopelessly difficult" (ANL, 1976). Thus, the experimental
investigations of fluidized bed particulate emissions have been aimed not
at the parametric
studies,
as for the preceding
emissions,
but at
alternative technologies for bringing particulate levels down to reasonable
levels. Some add-on technologies that have been studied are the "hot side"
electrostatic precipitators, cyclones (centrifugal collectors), wet
scrubbers, and stone, ceramic, porous metal, granular bed, and various
other types of gravity and momentum collectors and filters.
The reasons for the high particulate levels in the offgases include:
(1)
presence in combustor of numerous additive and sorbent
incombustible particles,
(2)
the entraining and elutriating capabilities of the upward flow of
fluidizing air, and
(3)
combustion temperatures below slagging point of coal ash.
There are a number of predictions from design studies that particulate
loadings can be controlled down to the 0.1 lb/10 Btu (.00095 lb/kWh
electric, .01 g/kWh thermal) EPA New Source Performance Standard (Farmer,
Magee, Spooner, 1977), (Shaw 1977) (GE, 1976). The actual experimental
data are for uncleaned emissions and pressurized (8 atm) combustors, and
show ranges of 7 to 39 lb/10 Btu heat input depending upon original size
and degradation of sorbent (Jonke, July 1976), Ca/S mole rates (see Figure
4.1.2.5-1), fluidizing velocity (Vogel, Swift, Montagna, Lenc, and Jonke,
1975) (see Figures 4.1.2.5-2 to -6), design (bed internals, freeboard), bed
depth (Keairns, et al., Sept. 1975) and apparently depending on combustor
size (Dow Chemical, July 1975).
The constituents of the particulate material include (Keairns, et al.,
Sept.
1975):
(1) fly ash,
(2) soot
(3) unburned or partially-burned coal, and
(4) calcined or sulfated SO 2 sorbent.
The mean size and size distributions of uncleaned particulate matter
have been characterized as shown in Table 4.1.2.5-1.
205
.
Zl
26
a
%A
i
_
i
I
i
_
iii
w
I
I
l
TEMPERATURE: 50O-16SO F
EXCESS AIR:-15 % %O 'N FRLLUE
GAS
rFLUIOIZED
-SfW tIGHT: 3ft
- GASVEL
22
20
0"'
°0'
A-
0o
0-II
81I
;E-14
-j12
W=10
G!
bS9
z
a4 Ga
0
-O
I
1I
_
CeIS
I
2
I
3
4
RATIO
Figure 4.1.2.5-1
Solids Loading of Flue Gas Leaving Combustor
(G.J. Vogel, W.M. Swift, J.C. Montagna, J.F. Lenc and A.A. Jonke, 1975).
206
- (,.
-- I-I II
-
.
I
I
I -I
i
. .
I
I
l
I
I
tow
0
_0
40
·
0
.
1
.0 I-
z
9210
so
a
w
I t~I 1111111
_
8U
I ,$
-
0
2
1
0
I
-
I
-
1
I
-
I
-
2
I
-
I
-
I
-i
5
6
7
I
-......
I
-
I
I-
I
I
10 11 12 13 14
SUPERFICIALVELOCITY, FT/SEC
4
3
9
Figure 4.1.2.5-2
Particulate Emission Rate Versus Superficial Velocity - Stone 1 (Strom, et al., 1976).
.M
I
- I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
80
60 1U
W
40
M
I
0
0
IL-t
0
20
a
z
9
10
a
8
w 6
F
3
i
I- !2 2
I
.
0
I
1
I
2
I I I I I I ,!,_ I I I1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
SUPERFICIALVELOCITY, FT/SEC
Figure 4.1.2.5-3
Particulate EmissionRateVersus
Superficial Velocity - Stone 3 (Strom, et al., 1976).
207
100
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
so
60
40
:II
I:
aE
e
0-
0
-J 20
0
0~~
9
10
u2 a
is
t6
I
.
1j
--ji
2
0
3
-I
4
I
5
I
6
I
7
I
8
I
9
I I I
10 11 12 13 14
SUPERFICIAL VELOCITY. FT/SEC
Figure 4.1.2.5-4
Particulate Emission Rate Versus Superficial Velocity - Stone 7 (Strom, et al.,
1976).
us
!
-=
wTo
E
0
'a
a.
0
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
SUPERFICIALVELOCITY, FT/SEC
Figure 4.1.2.5-5
Particulate Emission Rate Versus Superficial Velocity - Stone 8 (Strom, et al., 1976).
208
9
at
I
SUCti
GS VELOCIt.,
It5an
Figure 4.1.2.5-6
Entrainment as a Function of Superficial Gas Velocity
(G.J. Vogel, W.M. Swift, J.C. Montagna, J.F. Lenc and A.A. Jonke, 1975).
209
Table 4.1.2.5-1
Characterization of Particulates
Mass Media Particle Size
Reference
20 m
100 m
"shifted to larger size", >20um
"looks favorably coarser", >20um
design studies 35um to 150um
~71m
conventional combustor
(Jonke, Swift, Vogel, 1975)
(Osborne, Bulger, 1976)
(Iammartimo, 1976)
(Keairns,
et al.,
Sept.
1975)
(Fennelly, Durocher, Klemm, Hall
1975)
95% less than 10um,
85% less than um
(Nack, et al., 1977)
Properties
not soft or friable
highly resistive
(Shange and Chronowski, 1975)
(Strom, et al., Feb. 1976)
The empirical model developed for uncleaned particulate emissions is
shown in Table 4.1.2.5-2 and Figure 4.1.2.5-7, see (Gruhl, Tung, Schweppe,
1978) for details.
The size characterization of mass median diameter of uncontrolled
particulates, using only the experimental studies (with >20 modeled as
40Um) and heavily weighting (3 times) to the smaller measurement due to the
expert sentiment (ANL,1976) that it is far more accurate in the smaller
particle range:
Ps = uncontrolled particulate size (by weight) distribution
geometric means:
Ps = 9.1Um
(gsd = 4.3)
geometric standard deviation of size = 2.25
210
Empirical model of outlet dust loading for all observations
Table 4.L.2.5-2
for which values of all variables were published
Symbols:
U = outlet dust loading, in tonnes/day
V = fluidizing velocity, in m/sec
A = bed area, in square meters
X = excess air, in percent
C = calcium to sulfur mole ratio
Z = coal top particle diameter, in microns
F=
G =
T =
P =
Q =
1 or 0 indicator of fines recycled or not
MgO to CaO ratio in sorbent
bed temperature in degrees centigrade
parameter for effect of coal source
parameter for effect of calcium source
Model based on data base for all experiments:
U = .1576(1.+min[O.,{-16.774+24.56V-3.54V
2
]) (1.+3.53A)
(1 .-. 0055X)*
(1.+. 2124C+.00627C 2 )(1.+. 000097Z) (l.+.2165F)(1.-.014G)*
(1.+.0000122[1.8T-1555.] 2 ) P Q
[fit=arithmetic stand dev 2.94]
on 118 experiments
Tables of parameters:
coal source
Pitt seam 8 washed
Pitt seam 8 unwashed
Peabody Coal Co.
Pitt seam unspecified
Commonwealth Edison
Park Hill coal
Illinois coal unspec.
Welbeck coal unspec.
Pdata base
0.783
0.927
0.067
1.000
0.117
0.328
0.063
2.794
calcium
source
BCR1337 dolom
BCR1360 limes
BCR1359 limes
BCR1359H hyd lm
Tymochtee dolom
US limestone 18
UK limestone
Stow-on-Kent
Qdata base
3.090
1.720
3.713
2.674
3.707
0.143
2.785
1.000
<
211
0.
50.
h.-,---.--.-I
1._--...........
I
400.
100.
1. ,I....
.w
_!
...I
150.
.
I·I
.
200.
I ---
I
.
!
.
.
.
.
.
!
250.
- II.....mi-=......I
-.-.- -.....
I
.
.
!I.....__.
I
_
.
.
300.
.
.
350.
I---.
!
.
.
.
.
.
400.
I----...
!
.
.
.
I
_
_.I
I
I
I
.&
-,
..
*·
.
s-
*
.=350.
*
*
~~ ~ ~
*
C-
.-
a
.
*
0-
a
:*
o50.
.:.
,*
I
I
I
I
*4Jh
*
.-....
o
C * C
*
2
1
*
.
.:
11
.
..
. .
H
;..
.C .
E
_...
.. 0
-
E
·.
.*
'E
.R
R
t
.
'.
.
rz
C
z 2F
-EI
*'
i.:
*
l
6*
- 0. 7G
.0.
*
C
).'..
C
.:.
,
.....
.
:...
~~~~~~.
e
E
G
------- I
50.
i 1-
.f,
,.
100.
.......
1I-----.
150.
... ,,e, o-,.,
'_ .
:-
:.
_ ~~ ~ ~
·
..
E
I
.t
*
*,
2.50.
-
t
..
,
.-.-
..-.
.
.
R~~~~~~
*'
.,
~ ~ ~ ~~
.,
DD
CFF*
·
C
H8
- -GE F FHH
-
.
u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~
* HI
..
*CH
'·
*
C2C
RRR *
1'o00.
'
0-~~~~~~~~~~~~-
CR
C
I
D
150.
'
CCC *
C
D
.-.,
..
.o.
.a
&H
...
.'.
.'
.
Im
~~~
.
* C
I
CL200.
~~
*
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
-
...
.. v
,;
.
.. ., ,
..
;.
*:
...
a
*
.
*..*....
I-- - -I.-I
...-.
.... . .....
200.
250.
300.
350.
Actual Dust Loading (lb/hr)
. . ...-- I
400.
Figure .1.2.5-7Scatterplot of utlet dust loading in lb/hr for observations
versus predictions, the 118 points are fit with an
arithmetic standard deviation of 6.48, lb/hr*.4536=tonne/day
212
Figure 4.1.2.5-8 shows a counter distribution, while 4.1.2.5-9 and -10
show mass distributions including those after a cyclone dust collector.
Ps
=
particle size (by weight) distribution after cyclone dust
collector, microns
geometric mean P
= 5.6 microns
(gsd
= 1.3)
geometric standard deviation of size = 2.38
(gsd = 1.09)
From Figure 4.1.2.5-11 it can be seen that some idea of streams 1 and
portions of 3 have been modeled. Figure 4.1.2.5-12 shows the emissions
from the carbon burnup cell tests, so if one is used this emission can be
modeled. Regression models have been fit to the carbon burnup cell
emissions by Pope, Evans and Robbins:
E(part) = particulate emissions lbs/hr/ft 2
Bd = bed depth (static), inches
T = temperature,
OF
A = air feed rate, lb/hr/ft 2
C = carbon feed rate, lb/hr/ft
I = inert feed rate, lb/hr/ft2
E(part) = 15.57 - 0.00664T - 0.00134A
-0.03034C + 0.00461 I
+0.0034 CI
+
0.02 3 6 Bd
(geometric mean error = .956)
(gsd
1.51)
To complete this picture it is necessary to have mass and size
collection efficiencies for all of the control technologies for FBC
emissions. This is not available. For atmospheric FBC, where turbine
blade corrosion is not a problem, "it seems probable" that available
control technologies can bring particulate levels down to the standard..
Low temperature electrostatic precipitators probably won't work well due to
high electrical resistivity, and hot precipitators may not perform well due
to low combustion temperatures, that will leave the important alkalis
unvaporized
(Strom,
et al.,
1976).
It is believed,
however,
that
a
combination of "two cyclones in succession to collect the coarser particles
followed by a low-pressure-drop bag house for finer particulates would be
suitable (ANL, 1976). Figure 4.1.2.5-13 shows typical abatement
performances for conventional combustors, which is of limited
applicability.
213
__
IMn
I
6 0 - - .... =====
60
!
10---
',
=. ,$t
-
=
-
--
_
·
/
zZ0
4
LA;
N
t!
w
Q)
-
U.,
I.a-
6, . . . .. iWX
~F
i0
--
,
41~~0
* .O->___
.V
A-2
~ ~
6
1
-...
2
-
0.1 0.2 0.5
, II
._-A A-4-A
- 0 A-4-B
.O
V-V C-2
0-0 G-2
-
-
1
2
-
5
10
20
30
40
50 60
% LESS THAN
70
80
(COULTER
90
95
98
99
99.8 99.9
99.99
COUNTER)
Figure 4.1.2.5-Z
Particle Size Distribution of Elutriated Ash in Inert Bed Tests (Strom, et al., 1976).
214
=
-
-
10(
6c
4c
Cn
zo0
2C
,
.,
C;
Ui
-1
,
0.
II:
l
0.10.2
0.5 1
2
5
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
80
90
95
98 99
99.8 99.9
99.99
WEIGHT, PERCENT LESS THAN
1
Coulter counter assuming equal density
2
Exhaust stack after cyclone dust collector
spheres
Figure 4.1.2.5-9
Particle Size Distributions from Pose, Evans and Robbins Test (Strom, et al., 1976).
215
W.T %
2 _5
THAN. STATED
SMALLER
10 15 20
30
40
60
70
SIZE
80 85 90
95
°3 t
JwU
E
U,
I0 LU
cr
U
0
0
U
0%
w
6-J
0-
Figure 4.1.2.5-10
Flyash Size Distribution (Pope, Evans, and Robbins, 1974).
216
PRIMARY
DUST
COLLECTOR
FLUIDIZE
COMBUSTC
.g
5-%
Figure 4.1.2.5-11
Fluidized
Bed Combustion System Flow Sheet (Strom,
217
et al.,
1976).
0.45
9-
=
0.44
a
043
"
uZ
0
0
u,
0.42
a
vim
UJ
0.41
.U
I
-
co
0 39
0.39
1
2
4
3
PARTICULATE
5
6
7
8
EMISSION, LBS PER 106 BTU
Figure 4.1.2.5-12
Particulate Emissions from Carbon Burnup Cell Tests (Strom, et al., 1976).
218
I C,I
.L
L.-
.m
it-
Hi h
Cc-'!ular
L cL
U
.O
(110
cU
Particle Size, I.m,
_
Al
Hi -h
Uet
:,
C>'cicnLI
I,,
f-
-4
0' Thro-,hcut :i
20"
C ¥ C, 1:
L
_/
2-0 3.40
50
Cyc
0 20 40
24 0i,
0 $3 1! 0
Particle Size,
60' Ir,
C'.-c-',,-
0 20 40 60
;m.
,.f
t"'
SD iCO
Particle Size, pm
c.)
!'-L,
.
C ,
.....
.-
0
,,oi1 .
2rL Spray Tacver 4
e
F.. ..
.)
C-.
,
L3
CZ
0 10 23
39
Particle
SiZe,
r:
20 25
Particle Size, pm
0
m
5
10
15
Particle
60
Siz/!e,
4
ipm
i
.
60 7
l 'etDyrD
C-)
._2
. _
_._
050
.. ...
]
:si
20 '-
Rcr,, '"'e
0
2
4
6
3
o5
10
O
._)
Part cT.o :Si,
5
10
Particle
pm
23
Size, lumn
C"
tl
L......._.
20,'!fScrub:ber
: p;r
L'tParticIe
.. 1Su
Size, pmn
C=
01C'..
tm
0
-
10
2
2
4
8
''.',,.
6
8
-4 6
100
C)
..
D!firy
UC.
C-,
sV
C_
0
c.)
-j
,, ,j ;
i
15
Psrlicl~ Size,
60,-T
,
-...
2_ 23
pin
0
-I/rri'
c
510
Partic 3
-c
~].,
],
c.
-i
.
:15
20
Si ,
2
Particle Size, pmn
>:=
0
,
Figure 4.1.2.5-13
Survey of Particle-Collection-Systems
219
(Stairmand, 1956).
The speculation about a 0.02 lb/10 BTU standard for fine particulates
(Balzhiser, 1976) apparently would also not cause a problem for the
atmospheric FBC. Meeting this standagd may well bring down the overall
particulate level to below 0.05 lb/10 BTU.
4.1.2.6
Carbon Monoxide
Emission levels of CO from the fluidized bed are not of concern
technologies.
There are several reactions that influence the CO levels,
but it is generally believed (Beer, 1977) that CO concentrations are
proportional to both the level of feed of coal volatiles and the level of
fines in the feed (see Figure 4.1.2.6-1). CO is possibly produced in the
dense phase of the bed (Louis, Tung, 1977) and by carbon fines carried to
the freebgard. Concentrations between 0.04 (General Electric, 1976) and
1.2 lb/10 BTU (Shaw and Cain, 1977) and 2000ppm (ANL, 1976) have been
projected for atmospheric FBC. There does not appear to be any manner of
correlating the experimental levels with measured parameters. An inverse
relationship with excess air is somewhat (Coates and Rice, 1973) indicated,
but is not elsewhere borne out.
Table 4.1.2.6-1 shows a series of CO measurements for experiments
that all have excess air greater than 10%, thus 461ppm is the prediction
from the above model. The results of that Table show an arithmetic average
of 2042ppm and an arithmetic standard deviation of 3761ppm, and the EPA
analysis at Battelle (Battelle-Columbus, 1977) shows a range of 7902090ppm. Obviously the CO concentrations are very much dependent upon
variations in designs. The model developed on the EPRI data base (Strom,
et al., 1976) is shown in Table 4.1.2.6-2 and Figure 4.1.2.6-2.
220
3
2
I
,
1.0
!&
it.
G
OC
12
*.COI
,.
6
8
&
u*
w
^C
g.2~
c **t
5~5
.t;EO'IT :.,,v
D;
,5)5
CJSTfliJT;
| *t
10
(tn)
1'~*5
~~~2
0
J20·
Figu.re 4.1.2.6-1
The Effect
of
Coal
Feed Size
and Volatile
in the Bed and the Freeboard (Beer, 1977).
221
Content
on the
C02 , CO and
2 Concentrations
Table 4.1.2.6-1
Flue Gas Compositions (Strom, et al., 1976).
FREEBOARD
VOL.X,D.B.
TEST-NO.
02
-- ------
C02
20
21
5.3
4.2
4.0
22
4.5
23
24
4.3
3.7
25
5.6
26
37
3.9
4.0
3.6
3.4
4.2
3.8
3.6
4.3
3.a
3.2
3.0
33
4.1
14.5
13.4
40
3.6
14.1
41
4.1
13.4
1
27
23
29
33
31
32
33
35
35
PPM, D.B.
12.6
12.5
13.2
12.8
13.4
12.3
12.4
13.9
14.2
14.5
13.9
13.7
14.0
14.6
13.3
13.9
14.1
S02
CO
683.
1943.
1717.
1648.
8100.
10800.
6750.
1316.
6210.
5400.
12960.
3240.
5940.
5400.
5670.
5400.
1140.
1 890.
961.
9450.
7020.
7020.
5670.
18630.
14040.
11 3 40.
3375.
7290.
1477.
1342.
790.
850.
1012.
384.
623.
1540.
1062.
696.
983.
282.
318.
581.
NOTE: CO MEASUREMENTS
AS HEAT-EQUIVALENT
DUST
LOAD
GRN/SCF
WET-SCRUBBER INLET
_ __- -_ -__-…_-, - ___
-m….__….__
VOL.X,D.B.
PPM, D.B.
DUST
_________
-
-
- -
--
-
- --
- --
-
- -
--
LOAD
02
C02
S02
CO
NOX
GRN/SCF
12.9
12.3
11.8
13.0
13.2
2.7
2.5
3.0
3.0
14.1
839.
1475.
2700.
285.
13.3
14.1
11 2 6.
215.
1 90.
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.0
2.7
3.5
2.7
1107.
1673.
1403.
1265.
3240.
270.
14. 2
14.3
14.8
13.8
14.6
14.6
14.6
15.2
14.5
14.5
14.8
3.3
3.7
3.3
300.
12.0
12.1
12.0
13.6
11 .1
10.0
13.8
15.9
11.4
18.8
27.1
3.1
3.1
22.0
19.3
17.4
2.9
3.0
19.1
3.0
REPORTED IN
THIS
CO.
D.B. = Dry Basis
222
3.1
TA9LE
5400.
334.
3.5
0.
56.
3.9
3.4
2.7
379.
1350.
213.
1080.
810.
3.9
849.
589.
285.
322.
3.9
11 4 3.
O.
O.
O.
233.
303.
233.
270.
14.4
14.6
14.4
1502.
1035.
676.
0.
1546.
O.
992.
O.
930. 162G
00.
14.1
-895.
8910.
14.3
14.3
14.6
387.
524.
484.
2700.
0.
0.
15.1
212.
ARE TOTAL COPSUSTIBLES
213.
0.
269.
246.
296.
190.
199.
313.
265.
4.3
3.4
3.2
4.0
4.4
3.5
6.4
7.2
7.3
9.2
.6
8.6
8.1
REPORTED
…
Table 41.Z.G-2Empirical model of CO concentrations
at outlet
Symbols:
0 = CO concentration at outlet, in ppm
A = bed area, in square meters
Z = coal top particle diameter,
X = excess air, in percent
in microns
F = 1 or 0 variable if fines recycled or not
L = sulfur content of coal, in percent
V = fluidizing velocity, in m/sec
Model based on least-squares best fit to all available data:
0o = max[
50.,
1
-2.6A- 2 )(l.-.00008Z)(-22.276+l.lg99cX+15]
(-303+149.A-
)(l.+1.087F)(1.-.04116L)(l.-. 0 3 7 7 V) ]
+98.12EX+15]-
[fit=arithmetic stand dev 1010 ppm]
on 124 experiments
223
X10**3
2.0
0. 0
X10**3
I......i
..
4.0
------1
6.0
.I--- --. ----. =. -i. ---
8.0
10.0
10.0
i------=---
I
I
I
K
II.
E
CL
-
*
I
[~
8.01
~..
-
*
·
a)
*
K
4-
*
0
6.01
rs0
C.)
+3
a
*
*
*
I
I
I
I
I
6.0
+j
to
01
*
K
*
K
*
I
*
I
*
I
A
a,
5o 4.0
2
A
I
I
*
* JB
4
B
K
B
2.0'
2K *
B
B
A
I
2J
*
-
2
2
A
12
*
2
A
K
*K
*AK
4
K
K
2K
11 A
H2
*
2J2 *
A
2J H2
*2 JJ J
0.0
I JJJ J
36 3+4
.1min
0.0
A
: . mj=S~a~t
i n
X
2.0
4.0
-------
i--- --------= -=I
i
6.0
8.0
Actual CO at Outlet (ppm)
Figure 4 .. 2.4-2Scatterplot
showing the relatively
poor fit
10.0
X10**3
to the
wildly varying COdata, this is for all the data
together and is very similar to the superposition
of scatterplots from the separate cluster modeling
efforts
224
4.1.2.7
Other Flue Gas Emissions
Based on rough estimates using equilibrium calculations based on free.
energy minimization (Fennelly, Durochee, Klemm, Hall, 1975) the following
concentrations are likely (ranges are assumed to be spreads of one
geometric standard deviation)
emissions of X
E(X)
E(CO2 ) = 15.4%
(gsd
1.10)
E(HF) = .24ppm
(gsd
= 2.96)
E(HCN) = .118ppm
(gsd
1.69)
=
E(NH3 ) = 3.6ppm
(gsd = 1.99)
E(HC1) = 40.0 ppm
(gsd = 1.09)
E(SO 3 )
=
5.5ppm
(gsd = 17.)
E(C 2 N2,COS,H 2 SH
3)
3 S0O4,HNO
= 1.0 ppm
(gsd = 3.16)
E(O03 )
=
.0001ppm
(gsd = 3.16)
4.1.3
Other Than Flue Gas Air Emissions
Aside from the flue gas emissions the major air pollution concerns at
fluidized bed power plants will involve the process of handling coal and
sorbent. A list of these potential problems (Jahnig and Shaw, 1976)
includes:
-
Wind action on coal storage and handling
Wind action on sorbent and wastes
Water vapor from grinding
Air and rust from cooling tower
Possible fugitive dust from area
Transients due to upsets, cleaning, and so on
There is no reason to believe that the same control measures developed
for conventional coal-fired power plants with scrubbers and cooling towers
would not be sufficient to control these emissions.
225
4.2
Air Emissions of Pressurized FBC
In most cases the emissions from pressurized FBC can be described in
terms of the atmospheric FBC emission projections. There have been a
couple of experiments that use pressure as a parameter, and from these
pressure could be an additional term in the previous empirical equations.
There are several reasons why this is not advantageous:
(1)
the relationships would be based on very few data points,
(2)
the empirical equations for pressurized FBC seem to be quite
different from the atmospheric equations, and
(3)
only pressures in the 8 to 10 atmospheric range are of interest.
These new empirical equations are fit to the pressurized data.
4.2.1
Air Balance
The air balance n the pressurized combined cycle design of
(General Electric, 1976) is shown in Figure 3.3.3-1Z, Tables 3.3-1
and -2
show the gas and steam flow rates for two of the parametric cases
investigated by Westinghouse for ECAS (Wolfe, et al., 1976).
4.2.2
Flue Gas Emissions
In general, the.emissions situation for the pressurized FBC is much
like the atmospheric FBC except for sightly smaller magnitudes. These
smaller magnitudes are not solely due to the decreased used of coal for
given power levels, but also includes more favorable kinetic reaction rates
for key reactions.
Sulfur Oxides
Experimental data on pressurized FBC emissions is not as abundant due
to the substantially fewer number of parametric studies conducted on
pressurized vessels. In addition, there are apparently no systematic
collections of pressurized data as there is for the atmopheric FBC
emissions (Strom, et al., 1976). Parametric studies of the effect of Ca/S
ratio on sulfur retention are shown in Figures 4.2.2-1 through -10. In
terms of ppm emissions these results can be seen in 4.2.2-11. Temperature
has very little effect at the high pressures (see Figure 4.2.2-12) and thus
it is readily apparent that the addition of a new pressure parameter to the
atmospheric FBC SO emission model is not going to be adequate.
Fluidizing velocity is the other parameter of concern in this
empirical model. BCURA has also conducted pressurized studies (Nack,
et al., 1975). The net results of all these studies can be shown in the
empirical equation:
Nso
Ca
sulfur NOT removed in percent
= Ca/S ratio valid in range 0.4 to 2.5
226
100
0a
I90
U
0
IS0
70
60
o-a
uJ
N
02)
50
EXXOJ GATCHUNIT
NCB
N.L.
ARGONNE
40
30
EXXONUI'INPLAfT
600-800 kPa
750-920cC
I
20
1N
0
·
,
!
I
,,
2
,
I
I
3
4
q
5
CaS (OLE/JOLE)
Figure 4.2.2-1
Sorbent (Hoke, et al., 1976).
Comparison of SO2 Removal Results - Limestone
227
filAA
IUU
a
so80
,m
-j
0
60
a
0
BATCH UNIT DATA
U'
I-
U
C.
40
AJL
_
L
ATA
0
p4
20
_
!
0
0
2
CALCIUMr TO SHlFR
MOLAR
I
I
3
4.
5
RA-
Figure 4.2.2-2
Comparison of SO2 Emissions from Batch Unit and Argonne N.L. Study Dolomite Sorbent
(Hoke,
et al.,
1976).
228
- -
Wr
~~~~~~~~~
Ttg&TI*Zu
1rW
'CT.g13M
.- ~-.att'~rr[
aij
/S~l-SlS Oe
90
FrwnRs
X He
OaTh)
IC
I,
so
r
I
!
ip-
70
I
I
4W
I
I
0
ird
I
I
WIN,
L
TA
C.-
.6
10
30
so
I
o
Cs
*at
aIG
.
0
4o
So
Figure 4.2.2-3
Sulfur Retention Capabilities of Additives Compared Molar Basis
(G.J. Vogel, W.M. Swift, J.C. Montagna, J.F. Lenc and A.A. Jonke, 1975).
C
2
C
I
2
3
4
S,
US ht. Ratao
Figure 4.2.2-4
The Effect of Ca/S Mole Ratio on Sulfur Retention.
c
.
III raSmGISU
CL
Figure 4.2.2-5
Sulfur Retention Capabilities of Additives Compared Mass Basis.
K!
//
..K1
,
KaD
.I
o/
,2/
!~~.....................
I
F4
1.
Tesst twtf
sat
CB
' W
~
Figure 4.2.2-6
Effect of Excess CombustionAir on Sulfur Retention.
230
C .
,
.
.
II
. -
'
..- C..
I
I:
I
I
.
I.
,1
C,
s
-I
. 50
..o..
c.:.
.-
I';
f
L
sC
ii
/R.trz:c
.1
-
.-
-
a-
.M
3
In
CCJS:IAo! r .,
x HFovy i :; oil
0 Col
Figure 4.2.2-7
Effect of Ca/S Net Ratio on Sulfur Retention.
K
:N.
'--
v ·
9'
t -
.,
V9
~~~~~~~~
L.
S ,
o
b~'
tl
_
·
'
go , x
[.
tI
tC .
,'-
.. ¢,,,.°, ..
..
J
~:"-:~_i
I I~~~~~~~~~~
I-- I)
-.
C
..
_-4
.=I
.7
EC
4.11
'
r -- --
-
L
0
'
-
<-I"~~-
*'' ' - -r
ow~~
\\ .1|1
I-
. - rs YRt-1:-1:
'W
1_
*,
. *
L
co
';crpcraurc
!u
II
; C.
i
)
(°C)
Figure 4.2.2-12
Effect of Temperature on Sulfur Retention.
231
rn
L VUU
w-
90
4.
8/-
-
CALCULATED FROM
BATCH UNIT
RESULTS
.
2
w
0
LL
.Z
80
w
i-
70
cm
C?)
0
*
o
0
as
CI
0
--
.-
60
,.mm,,
50
m
z
0
0
0
40
.m ,
Miniplant Data
0
0
two
cen
30
20
0
o
Eastern
0
Illinois No. 6 Coal
I
I
1
2
Ca/S
Coa
l
MOLAR RATIO
Figure 4.2.2-8
Comparison of Desulfurization
(Hoke, Nutkis,
Kinzler,
1977).
232
Results, Batch and Miniplant
Units
100
90
DOLOMITE
-
(840-950°C)
I
80
LIMESTONE
(925-950°C)
70
)NE
0°C)
60
0-
0z0
-
I-w0
50
W
0
Cn
40
30
760"C)
one (760°C)
20
10
0
-
-750 °C)
-
I
1
I
I
I
2
3
4
Ca/S MOLAR RATIO
Figure 4.2.2-9
Effect of Low Temperature Operation on SO2 Retention (Hoke, Nutkis, Kinzler, 1977).
233
4-C
C
L
tLL.
eO
c5~
ri
UJLLI
WcC
Z
0)
LO
v
.)
(-)
0
II
D
I1
0\
-
'
-
-
-
-
Ua
0
-
W
...........
-
0
0
0
Lnf
-To I
7.
-
)
Ln
n
0
+u
O0
t
O
r%0
cl-0c,
r
c,
Itoo
0
rou
0
.-I
Ur-
I
I
q~
to~
soa
0
so
n
X
n
d
900
750
-n
.
Li.
'iDOLOMI
450
-=
-,-
LIMESIONE
150
o
L6
I.300
Z
ud'
., 300
u
O
U
N
O
S
10
I
0
!
2
1
!
4
.
5
CALCIUM TO SULFUR MOLAR RATt
Figure 4.2.2-11
Comparison of SO2 Emissions from Limestone and Dolomite Sorbents.
(Hoke, et al.,
1976).
235
Batch Unit Data
0
C, valid in range from 800 ° to 950°C
Tb
= bed temperature in
Vf
= fluidizing velocity in ft/sec, valid in range from 2.0 to
5.0
Sp
= parameter for effectiveness of dolomite used, by source
NN
= SP
098
0.04 -
a
[gsd
- 8001[0.95 + 2Vf ]I
tsooI
1500
Ca]
= 1.10]
This formula has not been fit to a data base, as none currently is
available, so although the functional forms may be considered useful, the
coefficients are highly speculative.
A smoothed parametric SO 2 model developed at Argonne National Labs is
The mathematical fit to this model is:
shown in Figure 4.2.2-13.
No
[5 +
so
5+4
x
3 C -3][2.86 - 0.00128 TI
Ca
a
.238 Vf - .191
where T = bed temperature in OF.
well as that previously derived.
This model does not, however, fit as
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen oxides levels from pressurized FBC's are much lower than
The reason is apparently that elevated
those from atmospheric combustors.
pressure offers an overall more effective NO reduction environment. The
limited data available on adiabatic pressurized FBC (that is the type
without heat transfer surfaces in the bed and with temperature controlled
by large amounts of excess air) show levels higher than the more common
design
(Keairns,
et al.,
1975).
Argonne National Laboratory experiments (Nack, et al., 1975) show a
sharp drop in NO emissions as the pressure moves from 1 to 4 atmospheres,
at which point tere is a leveling off (see Figure 4.2.2-14).
Concentrations ranged from 120 to 270 ppm and correlated with Ca/S ratios,
(see Figure 4.2.2-15). Experiments at ESSO have verified the occurrence of
an NO and SO reaction. BCURA showed ranges of 70 to 250 ppm. Experiments
at Exxon (Hole, et al., 1976) indicated increasing NO levels with
increasing excess air, although some of these points ave been contradicted
by similar tests at CPC (Nack, et al., 1975), (see Figures 4.2.2-16 through
-18.
236
a
Figure 4.2.2-13
Effect of Bed Temperature,
Fluidizing Gas Velocity and Ca/S Mole Ratio on
Sulfur Retention in the Bed During Combustion
(G.J. Vogel, W.M. Swift, J.C. Montagna, J.F. Lenc and A.A. Jonke, 1975).
237
240C
220C
°C = (OF- 32) x5
E
a 2000 r
9
Pa
M/s = ft/sec x 3.048 E - 01
1800
<L
psiax 6.894 E + 03
o0. 1600
4
u'
w
0z
CD
NOX-I SERIES:
1400
ARKWRIGHT
p-
U
L.
0
U_
z
0
IO
z
)
U
z0
C( oAL
ALUNDUM -EC
1200
1550 °F
ED TC
3.5 ft/sec GAS VELOCITY
1000
NOX*- SERIES:
800
ARKWIRIGHT
TYMOCHTEE
600
Ca/S
RATIO
CC)AL
O( )LON1ITE
= 1. 5
1550 °F BED TE'MP
Ui
3.5~\ ft/sec GAS)/ELOCITYf
X
400
200
0
SERIES
i
I
0
"NO
-
I
I
I
15 30 45
I
I
I
60
90
-I SERIES
120
PRESSURE, psia
Figure 4.2.2-14
Effect of Pressure on NO with Inert and Dolomitic Bed Materials
(Vogel, Swift, Montagna, Lenc, Jonke, 1975).
238
C
a
"I
a
a
hJ
2-j2
3
2
hi
0
I2
MOLERATIO.CPS
Figure 4.2.2-15
NO Concentration
in Flue Gas as a Function
239
of Ca/S Mole Ratio.
0
0N
Y-
00
r,
-A
cn
0co
E
0F=
r-
C.)
t
4a)
D:3
LU
0
tD
u0
X
* CM 0O
To~~~~~~~c
.e0
,r-
(A
V')
*1_
E
E
.f-
I.J. z
0
Itr
0
(AIS
(I.
/ZON 8) SNOISSI
WVfZONS ) SNO tSStv43
0-0
'ON
X ON
240
x
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.
S
0o
z
0.4
x 0.3
0.2
0.1
n
20
0
60
40
80
100
120
EXCESS AIR, /
Figure 4.2.2-17
NO
x
Emissions (Hoke, Nutkis, Kinzler, 1977).
241
140
Pressure (156-1013) a
Temperature (73--1038)C
Ca/s Molar ratio (.5-8.3)43
Superficial velocity (.
1.2
In
12
0
Desulfurizaclion (6-100):
Coalcomposcition:
(.72-1.61) N
(.53-4.4) S
I
-2.1 7)=,sec
.8
,-
az
.
1.
D0
.;
.5'~
.. 1*
Ii..%
0
Ji
U
I
I
75
·
=.
-
I
Y
150
--
25
'
0
375s
excess air
Figure 4.2.2-18
Composite Plot of Pressurized Fluid-Bed Combustion Data of Argonne, Combustion Power,
Consolidation Coal, Exxon and NCB (Keairns, et al., 1977).
242
The correlations of NOx emissions pressurized FBC is:
No = NOx emissions in ppm
NO,dry]
N c = nitrogen in coal in %; valid in range 0.8% to 1.7%
Ae = excess air in %; valid in range 10% to 70%
P
= pressure in psia; valid in range 15 to 120psia
T
= bed temperature in °C; valid in range 625 ° to 1000°C
-Ca = calcium to sulfur mole ratio, valid in range 1.0 to 3.0
p
205 + 9.2Ae][1- - .66 log1 0 15
e
01
[1.1 1T -. 125)2 ] + 40 Ca-2.0]
N = No
o1
a
)]
125
[1.31 = gsd]
This equation has not been fit to a data base, so although the functional
forms may be useful, the coefficients should not be considered accurate.
The addition of fluidizing velocity and other parameters would reduce the
uncertainty in this prediction, but parametric experiments indicating the
effect of other parameters are not available.
The adiabatic FBC 6 would have NO emissions of about 330 ppm (NO,dry)
or about 0.4 lb N0 2 /10 BTU input (Keairns, et al., Sept. 1975). This is
based upon CPC data and is verified by extrapolations of Exxon and NRDC
data. Figure 4.2.2-19 shows excess air requirements of adiabatic
combustors, and Figure 4.2.2-18 showed the experimental levels at these
levels.
N
= NO
N
= 330
0
x emissions in ppm
NO,dry]
Hydrocarbons and Trace Metals
The only available hydrocarbon data is displayed and fitted with a
model in section 4.1.2.3, although this is for the atmospheric pressurized
system. The trace metal emissions have been experimentally studied and
these models, for the pressurized FBC, are displayed in section 4.1.2.4.
Particulates
As we displayed in section 4.1.2.5 the particulate levels and sizes
for a pressurized FBC can be modeled by the empirically derived formula
given in that section. For combined cycle configurations it is estimated
(Keairns, et al., Sept. 1975) that the constraining factor in particulate
levels may well be the permissable erosion and loading of he turbine
blades, not the EPA standard. Thus, levels below .1 lb/10 BTU are likely
if pressurized
FBC are to be feasible..
600
10 ATM
Cr
400
_
Cn
w
I
I-)
z
L
0
200 _
La
!
600
!
!
I
800
TEMPERATURE,
!
1000
°C
Figure 4.2.2-19
Excess Air Requirements for Adiabatic Combustor (Levy, Chen, 1977).
24&
The only proven "hot-side" control for particulates is
form of
cyclone (Strom, et al., Feb. 1976). The best results to date (see Table
4.2.2-1) have come from two cyclones in series after a 6 inch combustor,
reducing the loading by .91 to .93 (Vogel, Swift, Montagna, Lenc, Jonke,
1975):
Pc = controlled particulate emissions in
P
0
ib/10BTU input
= uncontrolled particulate emissions
np = efficiency of a particular control configuration
np = .91 to .93 for two cyclones in series
n = .988 to .996 for two cyclones and a single granular bed
filter
n
=
= .9999 for two cyclones and two granular filters
(Nack, et al., 1977)
(1-n
)P
Additional efficiencies are shown in Figure 4.1.2.5-1. It would appear
that the problem is easily solves, the two cyclones and one filter
translates to .085 to .148 lb/10 BTU, with two filters this yields .0017
lb/10 BTU. It is, in fact, true that the emission standard is apparently
easily met, compared to the requirements of the turbine blades.
Westinghouse research as shown in Table 4.2.2-1 displays the severe
requirements of the blades on particulate loadings in certain size ranges.
If the FBC emissions were in proportion to the acceptable loads at the
various sizes, then .11 to .16 lb/10 BTU would be the acceptable range (a
little above the standard). With the FBC, particulate size distribution as
it apparently is, he overall particulate emission may well have to be as
low as 0.010 lb/10 BTU to meet the turbine requirements (ANL, 1976)
r0.0017from (Nack, et al., 1975) seems to be a one digit mispring]. This
would, of course, automatically satisfy the speculated 0.03 lb/10 BTU
emission standard for 3um or smaller particulates.
Stating the turbine blade requirements in terms of size versus
loadings carries and implicit assumption about the corrosive potential of
the particulates. Alkali constituencies of coal ashes vary to such an
extent that the size versus loading requirements will have to be made with
specific coals in mind (Strom, et al., 1976) (Burns & Rec, 1977). The major
portion of this corrosion/erosion research, as outlined in section 3.1, is
yet to be completed.
Carbon Monoxide
As in the atmospheric FBC the pressurized FBC shows a very large, but
still insignificant, rang! of CO concentrations; levels between 0.in
6
(Nutkis, 1975),0.02 lb/10 BTU in (General Electric, 1976) and 0.93 lb/10
BTU (Shaw and Cain, 1977) or 170 ppm ANL, 1976), 150 to 650 ppm averaging
400 ppm for the Exxon batch unit, 50 to 150 ppm in the Exxon Miniplant,
(Hoke, 1975). These figures range from 1/2 to 1/12 of the atmospheric FBC
245
OE
4J
Is_
O
19,
C-°*
*b
I
C-
I-0
3i
C
C-
5
0
C
4j
0
rU
C-
w
U
4j
L.
to
._
e.-=
_
_ _
E
o
0
.
e9 _-'
_* Li
O
C
S.
4-
_
_
C
=.
-
=1
_
-0
L
-j
0
oC
,
C
_=.
_~
Z;
3,
4J
*
~:
-
I-.
-t
O.
S.
*t
r_
4
-
0CC
C
".
-C.
D9
t:5
(--
_.
=
Li
a
-
'J
'
r_
._
E
3
_
"e-=
c-
C_
-1 .
246
K_
_
r
'9
;
4
I
Table 4.2.2-2
Proposed Dust Loading Distribution Acceptable for Gas Turbine Feed (Archer, et al., 1971).
.~
~ ~ ~~%.
--.
~-.
Coxicentrations
in
wt.
dia.
Avec.parti::Ic
Cccetr= in
_
~.--~.
Size rnee
gr/SCF
< 1w
76.8
.08-.12
1-2
2-3
3-4
16.6
4.7
1.6
.02-.03
4-5
.2
5-6
.1
lira
6-7
I=-_ :
.:_ . ..:=-
.005-.008
. 002-.003
.0002-.0003
.0001-.0002
0
0
.
Alan
247
.c
levels. The reason for the decline with pressure is not definitely
decided, but the equation (Strom, et al., 1976)
2NO + 2CO
2C02 + N
provides a reasonable explanation. Experimental data show a nearly
constant value of CO + CO2 concentrations.
Although, this reaction is by
itself very slow, it is catalyzed by CaO or dolomite, and inhibited by CO2
levels higher than 17%.
Experiments at Exxon have shown a considerable variation, a factor of
four, due to unsteadiness of coal feed (Hoke, 1975). This source also
claims a temperature dependent term, but without published backup
information. In the absence of other information the same type of model as
was used in the atmospheric CO prediction is used here, scaled to reflect
the lower values:
Eco = emissions of CO from pressurized FBC in ppm
co
Cf=
dry]
nondimensional parameter for regularity of coal feed
Cf=
1.0 for unsteady batch feed
Cf = 0.25 for very smooth constant flow
P = pressure,
Eco = Cf
[gsd
4.2.3
in atm
1.10 - .099P]
Eco (atmospheric)
2.43]
Other Air Emissions
The kinds and amounts of these emissions would be nearly identical to
those listed in section 4.1.3. There would be some scaling necessary due
to slightly different distributions of waste heat and different energy
efficiencies. Experimental data is limited to the conventional coal-fired
power plant experiences.
4.3
Air Emissions from Potassium Tooping FBC
Although no experimental data are available for this advanced energy
cycle, it is useful to relate the analytic speculations of the manner in
which emissions would be scaled in comparison with the other FBC
technologies. These scalings are primarily due to differences in
efficiencies and changed output configurations.
4.3.1
Air Balance
Published analytic models of the materials balances are limited to
those displayed in section 3.3.4. These can be useful for determining new
values of gaseous, liquid, and solid emissions.
248
4.3.2
Flue Gas Emissions
Emissions from a potassium topping cycle using a pressurized FBC heat
source are essentially the same as the pressurized FBC emissions--at least
for HC and particulates there has been little change predicted from
analytic studies.
Table 4.3.2-1 Summary of Analytic Projections
for Potassium Topping FBC Emissions
83.
, ~,~
~~ ~~~~
SO
2
lb/10 6 Btu
Emission
SO2
0.692 c ,
0
.7 2 3 ,
10- 4 lb/kwhr
53.3c
1 .18 8
54.-74.a, 83.3 b
0.0 a ' 0.1 64 0
c
b
0.0 aa·
, 12.5
~ , 13.2
HC
0.0 ac
0. 0 a 'c
CO
0
NO x
N0~~~
Particulates
193b
0.9
~ ~~~~~~~
.0 a,
0
.0 20 c ,
0
.0 9 6 -0.3 7 9 b
b
a
<0.006 , 0.037-0.042 , 0.100
a:
(Deegan,
b:
(Shaw and Cain, 1977)
c:
(General Electric, 1976)
0
c
.0a,
1 .5c, 6
.6-2 6 .3b
b
0.07 , 3.1-3.5 a , 7.7 c
1976)
It should be noted that there are no experimental data in this area, so
these results are speculative. Minor differences have been perceived for
SOx and NOx emissions as described in the following text.
Sulfur Oxides
Design studies have shown a 0.6% increase in sulfur oxide emissions
from the pressurized FBC case (General Electric, 1976), (Shaw and Cain,
1977). The same formula is, therefore, used with this slight scaling. The
per Btu input effects are changed by:
No
[pot top] = 1.006 No [press
FBC)
The mechanism supposely responsible for this effect is not explained.
Considering the (speculated) substantial increase in efficiency of the
potassium cycle with about 18% (Jahnig and Shaw, 1977) less sulfur entering
the system about 18% less would be emitted in the flue gases.
Trace Metals
In the absence of speculation to the contrary, it perhaps could be
assumed that trace metals would experience a similarly reduced level of
emission, that is, in proportion to the ratio of cycle efficiencies.
249
Nitrogen Oxides
Based on design studies the potassium topping cycle shows 8% higher
NO emissions than pressurized FBC's in (General Electric, 1976) and 25%
lower emissions in (Shaw and Cain, 1977).
Any increase would be counterintuitive, considering the 11% decrease
in use of fuel. The scaled down formula as for pressurized FBC is thus
assumed:
N O = NO x emissions in ppm [NO, dry]
Nc = nitrogen in coal in %; valid in range 0.8% to 1.7%
Ae
=
P
= pressure
T
= bed temperature in C; valid in range 625 ° to 1000°C
assuming vertical coils
excess in air in %; valid in range 10% to 70%
in psia; valid
in range
15 to
120 psia
Ca = calcium to sulfur rates, valid in range from 1.0 to 3.0
No = 0.75 N
[205 +
9
.2 Ae] [r-.66log 1 0 P ] x
15
[1.1 - .1 (T-875)2] + 40 [Ca
125
-
2.0)
It would be possible on the basis of (Beer, 1977) to separate the fuel
and atmospheric sources of nitrogen to get a more exact formula. In the
absence of any experimental data, this effort does not seem to be
warranted.
Carbon Monoxide
The analytic study (General Electric, 1976) projects no difference
between potassium topping pressurized FBC, while (Shaw and Cain, 1977)
projects a 20% reduction in the topping cycle's emissions. In light of
these comparative results, a slightly reduced (perhaps 10%) version of the
pressurized FBC may be useful if a preliminary analytic model is desired.
The geometric standard deviation would have to be adjusted upward
accordingly.
4.3.3
Other Air Emissions
Aside from the same concerns outlined in section 4.1.3 the liquid
metal topping cycle has an additional concern. Any failure in the liquid
metal cycle would probably result in the emission of hazardous metal
hydroxides through the flue. Special control and containment procedures
would probably be required to limit these emissions.
250
4.4
Emissions to Water
It is generally believed that heat and other aquatic emissions "at
power plants equipped with fluidized-bed coal combustors can be
accomplished by standard industrial practices such as are now in use in
conventional coal-fired utility plants" (Argonne Nat. Lab, ANL-ECT-1,
1975). Since there are no published experimental data for fluidized bed
combustor facility water emissions, the information on conventional
coal-fired facilities is presented in Table 4.4-1.
Table 4.4-1
Water Emissions of Conventional Power Plants (Teknekron, 1977)
Central
Region
Controlled
Acids
0
Bases
Unknown
Central
National
Region
Controlled
Uncontrolled
21.9
Unknown
0
Unknown
National
Uncontrolled
19.9
Unknown
Other Dissolved
Solids
41.1
0
37.2
37.8
98.1
5.14
53.0
0
0
Suspended Solids
0
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
0
0
All values in tons/106 BTU input.
In (CEQ, 1975) is the result that pressurized FBC have 18.2 tons/10 1 2
BTU total dissolved solids and .003 tons/10
Btu organics. Other than
this the best that can be done to make the Table 4.4-1 values applicable to
the various fluidized bed cycles is to scale these numbers by plant
efficiencies.
Other water emissions data, created by various analytic studies is
presented in Table 4.4-2. The potential additional concern of water
contamination by the liquid metal cycle accidental releases is nowhere
addressed quantitatively.
In addition, there is considerable potential
(Strom, et al., 1976) for highly acidic water emissions due to leaching of
the landfilled ash and sorbent (see Table 4.4-3). Quantities of CaO, on
the order of- 60% of the spent additive, would be the prime concern (see
Table 4.4-4), although CaS forming H S would also occur. Leaching of trace
metals from fluidized bed residues is another potential concern (see Table
4.4-5). The thixotropic nature of scrubber sludge, if caused by Ca S03,
would not be a concern in fluidized bed residues.
4.5
Solid Effluents
Solid waste from FBC cycles is composed of several types of materials
(see Tables 4.5-1 and -2). Identification of levels of wastes is a fairly
straight forward analytic procedure, depending to a certain extent upon
design and operating parameters (see Table 4.5-3).
251
TABLE 4.4-2
Total Water cd
Water Use in FBC Cycles
(given by references, since there
are obviously discrepancies in designs
and definitions).
Conventional
Furnance
gals/Kw-hr
-cooling waterCd
c,d
-condensate makeupc
-waste handling slurr
-scrubber waste water
d
-
d
Total Water , gals/,whr
Cooling Evaporation
gals/kw hr
b
Cooling Blowdown ,
gals/kw hr
b
Plant General Use,
gals/kw hr
b
Condensate Makeup ,
gals/kw hr
b
Water Discharge ,
lb/kw hr
Atmospheric
FBC
1.208-.905
1.035-.757
.01033-.01027
.1063-.0899
.05619-.04753
Pressurized
FBC
.973-.837
.822-.694
.00851-.00693
.0985-.0887
.05275-.04751
Potass Top
FBC
.839-.653
.662-.530
.00697-.00494
.1097-.0797
.06012-.04369
-
0.611
0.548
0.414
-
0.453
0.405
0.306
0.140
0.127
0.096
0.018
0.016
0.012
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
1.32
1.19
0.90
Makeup Water
tons/day/MWe
32.7
31.1
23.8
17.0
Cooling Water
tons/day/MWe
2864
-
2260
1611
Note:
Extreme cases in (c) and (d) were omitted
conversion factors of 96 x gal/kwhr = tons/day/MWe
and 12 x lb/kwhr = tons/day/Mle do not reconcile the differences in numbers.
a:
b:
(Jahnig and Shaw, 1977)
(General Electric, 1976)
c:
(Wolfe,
d:
(Deegan, 1976)
1976)
252
_
-
-
\
/
-
-
\
-
w
-
-
-
"
iK- /
241
Ii
.
I
V.
. .
.s
\
'\
1
-
-
I
."I
N
"
\\'
'- -
r
f-
A
,\
\ ;x,
LLJ
0
I-
I/
%A
00-,
O
.-
lx~
JXX
XXX
I..
in
C-
i D
....
P4.
ar;
I
X,l
. §a
I
,NO>
4i
E
0
o
\\ y
'\N
E
.7
v
'-4
n_
sC
10
C
C"
-
.,0
,; z s
i a
o
m
E.
2
Q00
0
-o
I
N
41
C.
.-
2to
I
.,0
N
4-
C.)
E
OA
C,
v
41
.3Z
V)
.0
48
ci
v
V
V
V
0
ci
a
C
-
a
41
2
E
0
5E
_j
%a
C,
._
E
0
(.)
,_.
. 5--
"
0
.: E
C
a,
U
0'
8r
F-
C
O,*-
-
w
&-
a.
U_
C
S
IE
-41 =
,
':
-C
2
C
o
I
'
w
0
C
-
Cs
-c
I f
2
a
%-0a
_-
.n
.er
= a
Ca
C-
a 0
CL
-
0
'Irea
!-2.
b.
I4
41
|E
_O -
ma
2
1
C
.
_
c
. E
253
w ca
ID--
0°
4-i
o C)0
0
C-
41
2
..
Izo
p..d
C)
:
00
C.,
-C
:
-
to
4-i
'4
-e
w-C
%I I
od
C: -H
.
X
I
E
tn
4
(U
a-
-j
0
Ai
0
0
C=
E
O
4
41
=
_
v
O
"
g;
%2
.L-
'4
IE
C4
C
0
'4,
4CZ
-
V
W
C
E
-i
O
d
V
v
C
C
4^
0
VZ
41
U
C-)
gm
cZ
Z
0
4--
v
4
-' .
E
I-
O
-
*"
S;
~
4
V
a
C;:~aV
¢u
02
o
Table 4.4-4
Leaching of Bed Material from the Pressurized Combustor (NRDC, no date).
Sample
A
.
~
B
C
D
~~~~~~~~~~~~
,
Analysis of Samples
CaO wt %
31.3
30.2
30.0
MgO wt %
21.6
20.9
22.1
1.76
wt %
9.0
8.3
11.80
9.60
CO 2 wt %
10.0
11.0
0.33
0.07
10.5
10.8
S
43.4
Analysis of Solutions
pH
Ca
mg/1
Mg
mg/1
107
101
2.0
SO03 mg/1
237
1.9
~
219
.
11.1
163
11.6
224
0.2
0.2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
217
201
,
Proportion Dissolved
Ca
%
47
46
Mg
%
2
2
100
100
SO3. %
i3
iiiii
76
0.2
72
73
0.2
83
iii
Sample A
Taken during NCB/APCO Test 2.5
Coal: Pittsburgh; Additive: U.S. Dolomite 1337
Temperature 1465°F; Pressure 3.5 atm
Sample
Taken during NCB/APCO Test 3.2
Coal: Pittsubrgh; Additive: U.S. Dolomite 1337
Temperature 1480°F; Pressure 5.0 atm
B
Sample C
Taken after Test 3 (Present work)
Coal:
Illinois; Additive:
U.S. Dolomite 1337
Temperature 1655°F; Pressure 5.6 atm
Sample D
Taken after Test 4 (Present work)
Coal: Illinois; Additive:
U.K. Limestone
Temperature 1740°F; Pressure 5.9 atm
254
L
a)
e
ow a - u - .
16
0
(I)
-)
"
-
U.;a
-
a-
0-
a
4.o4
0
0
o_
o
0
o
o
a
o
o
oM
0
M.
D C.
C
2 .
86 14
4a
In
C
.-
1
I
I
o aY ov ov ov
v°
woC
o
0
0
0 0
C4
'.4
V
V
V
CWto
-41 V°1
a
C
C"
I,
V1
V~
0
I
V.
Go
11
-
t
X
-4
I
I
I
WI
'.4
o
0 Iv
J
C.
C
"a]
ai
!
@
',
1
00
IC;
0 ~
'
01
!
Ia
S-
o
o
a
l,.
0-
¢4
0.
.
ojo
o o16
o
.
I
110,11to-
4I2 .
I
a
cl)
U,
(
C;
II
.)
-
9o
I
,,.4
Vl
'c3
4 v
U'b
WI
o so 00
- -0
I Id'I
I
cn
a
C
.
4.
9
o1w
.
I-"l
o
I.
110
I
la
0
I
C
a
-4
4'
V.
V
I
I
a
I
U4
U
.0
<
0_
CL
o
09
,P..
.
C7
a
a
o
0
.
V
0
I
-t
,
4Uw4
oo
,
*
Ia
V
l.
o
0
oN
0
ao=
04
:I
0
-44
00 .0
0
v
0
0
0
'.4
-el
.Ow'.4
U
C
a
-
0
o(....
n C
.
4=
a)
I -
@
.4
-4
0
00
V
.0
44"
..
z~
V
It
a)
I-
C.
r
(U
X
-
V
01oj
0
4
,-
08
,
a
0
0 .010
o v .. Io
.0
.
-
-4
4
.
44
.
V
U
·
o
l
.-
C,
C -V
- '
6! C
o
=
"
1
- _.
<:
0
&.
I
6
_
.
a
2.
-4IC
_
C4 W v
aN
1
-4
V
C
-
I.
X
0S
P.
*
ciaf
0C
255
2
6
44.
.4
O
'
e
U
2 a
1C
S
C
0
*
Ui
0
v
a
0
0
o0
. 0.
a
,,
oo
V
I.
2
_
.
0
. I2
-
a
.¶
a
-.
S
4Q
.
v
@.
e%
9
0
o
at
.
Oi
0D.
*
w
o
0v
-~
U
C
4.
a
I
oa~
I
X.
0
2X)
a
4
C
.44W
o
V
U
*
A
he
L6
a
o"r
C
-4.
U
U
*
2
_
014v
WA
-
A
49
v
S
S
-a
-4
P.-
V
v
o"
-i
o-
0
V
.
I
U
IC
x
'.4
0
2
111
_
',
0
o
0
o
o4
4 ..
v
444Cra
V
0l
2.J
S
.
.99
0
0
.010.
0
0
0
.0
.o0
0..
010V
v
.
a.
0
0o
-4V
.
O
·
44
'.4
0
441
C
o
0
0
.4
V
-%.0 -4
0
44
'o
O0
V
CV
U-
a)
4410
0
.cori
o oO C;
C4S
4)
'.40
4 0 C.090
00
e2
C)
4.
I
a
'.4
'.4
I
el
.)
I
*
01
LO,
a
. .
.444
.I-
L_
4
a a
0
010
~~~~~*
I
O
V
V
a
r
V
-
0
-
U.
a
o
V
_
I
v
_4
C
_
m
V>b
'IU
0.
Y
C
a
:.
46I4
S.
5
a
46
:0.
Iii
0
"
nB
I,
K..
46
45
44
Table,4.5-1 Composition of Solid Waste Material (General Electric, 1976)
Atmospheric FBC
Ash
Calcium Sulfate
Unreacted Lime
Magnesium Oxide
Carbon
Pressurized FBC
31%
42%
24%
0%
3%
Potassium Too. FBC
26%
42%
26%
13%
16%
13%
16%
4%
256
-
en
4i
IV -4 en
0 ^4
Aii
-
c
-4
*
'0
I
1
'0
0'
-%
4
%
*
0
-
_
0
'-
'.4
Is.
I
A
I
A
I
I
t
3
3
I
e
I
I
-4
I
i
*
i *0
C;
c
-4
0
o
a'
v
eM
-
0
0"
1.'
I
*
0
0
o I
'0
-
'0
19
0
'-'
0
I
I
I II
'4.,
Ii
i
'-
9
a
.4
.
a
0
0
-4 PI
2 1
o -4
-4 ft
U,
o
4-) eS,- UC)
C o (A
S-E
E
0
LI.I.
40.
O
-..-
o
0
cr .
VC.
DC
In
'.4
-4
I
_
0
*
40
19
%
19
19
3
C
U0
S-
.)
C;
'.=
0
..
0~
'.,q
&n
~ r
-C
-d
~ ~
I
.3
'
t%
'
Lf
-
co 4.
4
o
3
4-
1
t
I
a0
.-
A
S
%d
3
I
3
1
I
I
I
-4
0
-,
,-'
A
'
"
"o
.
-..
t
_
I,
I
I
' 5
'
I
I
II
A
I
"
V - ,,.
4
: -3C.C
14 ; w
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
.
c,,i
0%
0'
'.
n
(
cu
a
I
I
.44
P.
0
Ai
4e
Uo
a o,1.5
oiuo
0
14
O
O
I
'
-
-4
*'4
0"
oI rC
O
"
3
'a
O
4-)
a~
no
0
'a
-4
0-C
0
0
_
64
-4
CO
0
p.
U
to
V-4
V)
-
40.
-r"'
o
(**
(0
.9.
aJ
0.
-
Li..
o
4.
Z3
4 C,
N_
0
r
E
I
>
C
..4
;19 ('C4
o
0; 0
'
0
'
I
'
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
a
AJ
W ,..,
$ao C
00
..
9.3
.J CA
O
I
In
Q
0
~0-
A0
O-
Cs
0O
_,
O
.
o
U
1s
0.00
,.
0
-4 A -4
0
m
00
4
C Ie
14
i co
S1 0
V'
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
(4 I
.-
,4
m
I%
,O
tn a I,
19 19 ern I,
.
I
I
.
o
ao
-,4
0 .1=9 to
Ai, 0
ci
LI Cv
U
.0
Cl
0
aC
U
° °o 8 o>
0O
0:
IL u
u0
Oa
=
a
9k
257
°
.,
<o U
o
w
=
.
0 "::
, X4
u
E
e0 II
1-4
AM
_
O
_.
'S0o.4
4.4KD
vE~~~~~~~~~~~~~o..
c
1.. ,.
r. 13
e
0
0_
_
.
U,
TABLE 4.5-3
Solid Wastes and Materials Use in FBC Cycles
Conventional
Furnance
Coal
d, lb/kwhr
c,d
d
Sorbent
,
lb/kwhr
Atmospheric
FBC
Pressurized
FBC
Potass. Tp
FBC
.936-.792
.819-.740
1.421-.728
.495-.419
.476-.392
.530-.385
Coal , lb/kwhr
.776
.778
.715
.582
a
Sorbent , lb/kwhr
.186-.207
.264
.186
.152
.294
.353
.236-.259
.192
.884
.808
.714
Sorbentb , lb/kwhr
.227
.372
.326
Spent Solidsb
Conglomerate lb/kwhr
.292
.342
.302
a
Total Waste Solids,
lb/kwhr
b
Coal , lb/kwhr
Note:
a:
b:
c:
d:
-
Extreme cases in (c) and (d) were omitted conversion factots of
12 x lb/kwhr = tons/MWe-day
(Jahnig and Shaw, 1977)
(General Electric, 1976)
(Wolfe, 1976)
(Deegan, 1976)
258
.. The most difficult effect to model is the regeneration process.
Regenerated sorbent is less reactive than fresh sorbent, thus the calcium
to sulfur ratio must be higherofgr a given desired level of sulfur
reduction, in fact R = 0.77 N ' where R is the utilization efficiency and
N is the number of cycles was the best fit in an experimental study of this
phenomenon (Zielke, et al., 1970). This effect will somewhat offset the
effect of the average number of reuses of sorbent before it is disposed.
This number will be determined by the particular regeneration scheme (see
Figure 4.5-1), as well as the operating parameters chosen for that scheme.
The following analytic models are for solid wastes from any of the FBC
cycles:
As
ash output, tons/hour
S
= spent sorbent output, tons/hour
S
= sulfur content of coal, %
0
c
Ca = calcium to sulfur mole ratio used in bed
Ip = percent inerts in additive
A
= ash content of coal %
Bc = btu content of coal btu/lb
M = megawatt size of facility
. .s
Ef = efficiency of facility %
.....
n_= average number of uses of sorbent, 1.0 for no regeneration;
up to 7.0 for regeneration
As = 1.706 x 103 A
= 4.73 x 10 3 Sc
Th rageo
c
S
M
B -1 Ef
1
a Ms B
c
1
Ef 1(1-.01I)-1
f C1.1p
R -1
nJ
The range of values of ash output for the ECAS liquid metal topping
cycles (Deegan, 1976) was .033 to .045 tons/MWhr.
Spent sorbent outputs
ranged from 0.182 to 0.188 tons/MWhr.
Although some specific mass balances are presented in sections 3.3,2,
3.3.3, and 3.3.4, some general balance computations are possible using
Figures 4.5-2 and -3, and the following definitions:
..
-X
= fraction excess air
Y = amount of elutriated char expressed as a fraction by weight of the
-coal fed to the combustion
zone
Z = fraction of sulfur in coal appearing in stack gas
259
q.
c
c
.2
c
S
LA~
U
_
=
I a, = --.
* 2 ft t '-, 't
S
_
C
r_
0
-h
a
_
_
-/l
1a
.S
i-
_
U CM C C
4J1
1
.-
as
~-
.4)
I
utn
a,
'I)
4
0
in
cL
0E
S.0
0
S-
I
oE
Q-
a,
*
0-
LI
260
)5
= -'-(A
nn
>-
0
-'.St1 -s430
I
LS
UmESTONE 125C3
J076U
CLI
24 - J:71Yf
^
IOLS
COCO
3
SJ0
IIII - CL3Y
%v
07
CL124mAq
o.006436
x.
X
SX
Q124&Z
G
2
1 19M *
7
C0S7
3DC- 44*Q0
OA
0o~
a3c
GUS
coAL: 100
,°C1
.OLS
C4
S
77.32Y
2.Y
0.794Y
ASH
20.00Y
CL3Y
0.03(Y
10MOY
GUS
C
73
H2
02
ASH
I
7
t0
S
IC
CLIG - CLO Y
24
.2
0.1
N2
G..1S
QO35
t0
110
H20
0.C124MR-1 * .CL03Y
ARi - 0
4
0.1241Z
.124 - LO36Y- 0.1248Z
0.0064
MntS
&17
2
,
.~~~~~~~~~~
~
U-
-I
Figure 4.5-2
General Mass Balance for Fluidized Bed Combustor (Strom, et al., 1976).
RA-l0
IASIS:
X - G10
Y
Q0
Z 0.10
GaS(1550F -
5TC
3Q
GUS
Co2
1H20
LIMESTONE(25-C)
G S
CCO 3
2
37.4736
SiO2 1.1589
0.3744
3LS325
0.3936
MOLS
25&9437
58156
4JL1366
26719
G734
23.5072
D80
.i m
0.0192
K2
G012S
77.2826
27.6689
1103.6709
36.9035
SOLIS (843V
CHAR
GL4S
COAL
C
H2
oz
ASH
S
100
(2°C)
GMS
Ml
73
S
&o
7
10
4
I20
17
100
H2Ct
4.17
S
0.261
ASH
2000
0.03300
10.000
0.12130
0.13320
LOW
0.07964
C0.0O83
SoNT IUE
C30
-c,
C.50 4
60PF - 316
0357
0.1043
41231S
7.732
ASH
2.4
0.2
0.1
u.
MOLS
C14
SaC2
GUS
N2
_OL
774.2823
2.
135O8
7J455
10a333
3
IL737
S111663
14.1S31
1.158S
34779
0.27044
0.10396
CLO1929
0.309
FiSure 4.5-3
Specific Mass Balance for Fluidized Bed Combustor (Strom, et al., 1976).
261
i5
15.754
zM
7.240
1.991
0.034
74.976S
100.00
mole ratio of Ca in limestone to S in coal
R
Ao = area of bed cross section, ft2
0
V0 = superficial gas velocity, ft/sec
W
s
= coal feed rate, tons/hr
Q1 = heat transferred to cooling surface, Btu/hr
Q2
=
o
= approximate nominal retention time of solids in bed, hrs.
heat release from combustion of coal, Btu/hr
then from (Strom, et al., 1975)
-1
Ao = 294.7 W s V0
Q1 = 1.67 x 107 W
Q2
=
2.38 x 107 W s
Q1/Ao = 5.66 x 10
V0
= 808
0
Q /A
2 0
e
x 104V
= 83.0 H(1-e) V o
where e appears to be the basis of the natural log system [although a
sample computation shows e = .70 in (Strom, et al., 1976)].
4.6
Noise. Odor. and Aesthetics
Effects of noise pollution on the general public can generally be
effectively dealt with by proper siting of the facility. Occupational
hazards in the form of measurable hearing impairment have been observed in
most power plant employees. Potential solutions to these problems are the
same as those outlined for conventional power plants (Jannig and Shaw,
1976).
The primary odors from FBC are likely to come from SO2 collections
during stagnant atmospheric episodes. These and the other emission and ash
pond smells will be very similar to conventional power plant odors. There
is, however, the potential for much larger quantities of H2S from the FBC
cycles, and this could pose a distinct odor problem.
Aesthetics has been a problem for conventional power plants and is
likely to receive about the same magnitude of concern for the FBC cycles.
The fact that the pressurized units will be smaller in size is one
potential advantage, otherwise the conventional types of aesthetic
solutions are likely to be considered: various types of shielding,
clustering, enclosing and squaring off structures, imaginative painting of
larger structures, and simulation of high-rise apartments.
262
4.7
Other Fuel Cycle Effects
There are undesirable environmental impacts that result from all of
the various processes within the total fuel cycle of fluidized bed coal
combustors: mining, transportation, handling, storage, and preparation of
coal and sorbent stone. To the extent that these effects have been
examined, (Argonne National Lab, ANL-ECT-1, 1976) and (CEQ, 1975) for
example, these problems are presumed to be of the same type and the same
magnitude as those currently controlled by "standard industrial practices
such as now in use at conventional coal-fired utility plants" (Argonne
National Lab, ANL-ECT-1, section 6.3.6, 1976). Of course, with the FBC
cycles requiring significantly less coal per MWe, they will thus have
proportionately less impact than the conventional systems. The best data
base for computing these fuel cycle effects is the EMDB at Brookhaven
National Labs. This data base contains information about the common
pollutants but is deficient concerning the various trace elements and
different kinds of hydrocarbons.
Another deficiency, not only of this data
base, but of the available knowledge, is the lack of quantified
occupational hazards. Table 4.7-1 is a list of the types of hazards that
are likely to be of concern for FBC's.
263
'lable 4.7-1
Combustion hazards in
BC systems and preventive
Rao, 1975, pp. 352-7)
steps, from
COMOiF.NT
COALPREPARATION
Coal crusher
Coal dryer
COALSTORAGE
Silos
Hunkers
Bins
SAlETlY
HAZARD
CAUSI!
EI:1I:CT
Fire
Igrition due t mech- Propaga
tion of firc
t-xplosion anical riction. and
and cxploion
mechanical impact.
throughducts to
other components.
F:ire
Explosion
!gnition of coal fines
and volatilc gascs
evolvingfrom coal
due to heatinr.
Propagation
of fire
through ducts and
devielpmenctof
detonation.
Fire
Ignition of coal dust
duc to accumulation
of combustiblegasc
andcoal lines.due to
local temperature
buildup.
Damace vwillbecx.
tensyve.affecting the
total plant and surroundings.
Explosion
PREVF.NTIV!.STliPS
IN DESIGN
IN OPERATION
Providepressurerelief
valve alhlowproper wpa.
ration from other cornmponents and sut,.y.tcms,
designto operate with
Ilow vclocity greitcr
than flame speed. Consider installing a rupture
disc.
Provide pressure relief
valvecs.alloUw
props'r
spartion fironl oither
cuilIlponelnts.
Provide ventilation and
air circu!ation,file d,
tection and fire fighting
equipment. ounding
alarm. and relief valves,
allow proper enaration
fron the plant. Provide
saleguards t proletv
Us lss reactivecrrcr
gas, maintain coal'air ratio
beyond combustion limits.
maintain proper llow vloc.
ity to prevent flatme prorpagiin uptreatil. Monitor
(, concentration.tenrmperalure and pressure.
Same as above.
Minimi/c coal dust accunulation by periodic reinovalof coal fines.
Monitor temnperature
3t
"critical" I)cation to
detect snouldering
firesand lames at an
early %stafe.
ftn tiaturalcalaitics (flir example.
li'htning arrestcr).
COALTRANSPORT
C(onveyorn
(M:chanical)
Conveyors
IPncumatic
Fire
Ignition
Propagatlionof fire
.Allowproper physical
to other components separation. providefiare
and sul)sstems.
detection and firc fighting lquipment.and
sounding alarm.
Fire
Lxplosion
Ignition due to mechanicalfriction and
heating. and due to
electrostatic charge
buildup and lame
proparation.
Propaga:innof fire
and developmcnt of
detonation. 'ropagalion of ha.al;dto
other huh%)steltis
and componcnit,.
Provide physical harriers
and amnle eparation,
dc .. st,
vecpa minimunim
flow veloclit.
grc.ater than l.amte
velocitl,. provide good
rroundin. and alety
valves.
l)csign with adequate
lacltir of.atty.
Monitor emperatury
at critical l'alion%.
ntinintmueaitumulation
of coal l ne,. cIJhlichi
iperating condllon%
and procedurc,and
ope'atleaccoirdingt
the net
proe'ures.
Monior emrpratlure
at rltiel locJtions us
les reactivec.arier
lct sJ.
nliitain.ll cijl .'airratil
lieytond oiobuslion
llm . mint,
mllllc leaking
t te sur-und ilng
amosiphlcre.
Periodir chc:k lot ncth
annealintmrtl).
Rupture
Explosion r rnmeci- l.eakageof coal lines
anical failuredue to
Int: the ,utrounding
crosion.
air can result in
econdaryhtresand
Ruptutar:
Same as above.
Sal-Cas above.
Same as ahove.
Fire
Explosion
fgnitiolndue to mechanical friction. heating. clecitostatic
chalrgebuildup nd
flnimepioplratioatn.
Propag;ltonof flame
and Jdcvclpmnt ol'
detonation. Illiad
prlI;a lin t1 oilh:er
'rovide lphyical harrie.s t les reactwive
c:lrrlle
and atmplesep'ralion.
g:a. minnimc lejakingtat
goid gr-unding and
the urroundlng ajtlno%
sItcly vulvs.
phere.
explosil.s.
Ducts
264
Same %abtne.
Table4.7-1
COM'PONENT
COAL :ELDERS
Pneumatic fceders
(tor coal. coa!fines
and carbon-containing fly ash)
Mechanical feeders
rjavityfeeders,
screw feeders)
AIR SUPPLY
Air compressor
Air blower
WAIlFR SUPPLY
Water pumps
(continued)
SAFEtTY
HAZARD
CAUSE
.EI:r.'Cr
Ignition due to heat
feedback. electrostatic chargc buildup.
and flash b ,ck of
flame. Coat/salt
feeder pluggingdue
t.o ) groscpic sawit
andcakingcoal can
induceflame prupa.
Falloinupstream.
Ignitiun due to heat
feedbacl.mechanical
friction. heatingand
pressurialion due to
plugaing.
Flame propagation
and explOsioncan
spreadto other sub.
systemsand cormponents.
Providemeansto unplug.
design to maintain a mini.
mum flow rate exceding
fnam:-spced. Provide
ventsand alety alves,
rupture diw.
itonitlelitemperatureand
pesuur. . It Litilcal kLat.
lions. maintain the deugncd fnninun laaw
fate. uc icle actVe
carrier gas.
Sameasabove.
Providemea.nsto unpl
provide safety ah-ce
and adequateconrols.
Monitor temperature at
sutical localion.
IFalure
Mechanicalor
,lectrical.
IncompleteAmbutlion or coal yields
Vsplsive mixture
of combustiblegas.
PIwovide
adequate ar.ttols, and stand-by
sure for ail supply
Monitor gafs ompoltian
at criti'al Ilationts.
Explosln
Accumulation
of
Intiition of wc'nd.
lubricating il.
Sameasabove.
ay fire andexpluiaun
haard.
Pevent amumulatbd of
oil.
Fire
Explosion
Fire
Explosion
Iailure
fMeeianieal
nr
clctrical.
Ileat exchange tubes
and watrf wallIetl
yaverheatedand
rapture pressurising
Ceolliobustr.
FB COMBiUSTOR
Combustor vessel
Ailrdistributor
Start-upburner
PRIVIKNTIVE STIPS
IN D.Sl;N
IN OPE:RATIlON
Rupture
I'xplhason
Failure
I xCcsive stres.ses
due tIs,thernialand
dynamic slrssws.
picssiureinduvced
sltc-. thermal shiwk,
f:tigu.!. andaccumuIition of cunmbustible
gass in V.llaeiludes
uolOlevratin. run
awayctalhusticn.
'Thermalstrc.s.
I'aligue,bucklitrg.
)esttuctionof avilef.
tire and explosion
propapgtlon tit 1the
parts of the plant.
-
Pronwvide
,fand-by watfer
Manit. %eat.exchant
supply w'urce.adequate ktalltteerature at critical
cont.rls. including
presUre relief valve.
oisatisnsp.
ati
Prvwideadequate pressure
rlief and cuntrls. sound.
in alarmnarid lire fight.
ing equipmen:. and
pityskl barrier between
the bailer and operating
petssmnel.
Changesin luidi/a.
Allow for thermalc%tien chaoctertistis
p.ansin.
may esultin bd
lempeLatur, est;ulsa in stine t:regions%
F:ire
Flame pripagatin
Flame pspapatlion
Provideflame arrester.
I-xplOsiun upstreamdue ts heat upstream tt tther sub and pressure. relief. and
feedback.anddevel- systemsand tamadequateContnls.
up:nent tafdetinaponent. esplilsin
tlin.
ol bhsilvrasnpsannts.
M,,nrit-Iaapeuatasg
rafldfri
tlhni. maintain neat no'r
nmaldvesigntandatiins:
·nal. ait and limest-ne fIed
ratesneedadequate con
,lnitr
temperatule,af
t'd material at illlerent
lwatians. I'eridac h
hairk.
Istablish safe toraing
prtedures. llow the op.
latinf provdues. motm.nalIr critical vafriAhlsef
itpelatilon. and qualit ef
lioidtatian.
265
idi
Table 4.7-1 (continued)
(alt)MN;N
r
lIWa t XCI.&NGI.RS
InitlrfmA lub.s
and tutWbundles
I!'r;lie
'
I 11I MAI' RIAL
'I ANSPit)t
Withdiaaal
'ailufe
Kupture
......
Pu VI
RunawayItnw-.all dutu it evm%
ttaulnetnd arbh.in.
.;a.plaitmn:.
IV.
I
PrI VI.IIVF 11 s
I I SI;N
IN OPI ItA!I )N
rfl
mra. 1lani v,la- Prt.vide addnual¢,n.
I".miin. hnical
and %fc s :4amfiotn. butuir by 'ltam. p.!,. tril, Iairfucl and aUr
thetmjIl and dynamic du. liun sail&'billbulht,:pilaul% olt'~,:ult
Mdhal
aNs. adeiluCqa,
'kINM'.vi!bfdlhm
tduo'.'
dimaln i-l- ibm&P.a anld].t quen- da'lgit
duliJ Intludec
'hil*1lIvcin lhl
Indl tlftipivaluef.
1t1w Tifatiniat tulw
q;aaiaabu.t.
.adufa.
a, pa.*,bhlal.
theftinal ahik.latiPrat
gue. and pedtatatn
fa We
imavitratitin
qara.
ttlm
in tedu'm.n:
lliaq
phetr.
glamaTi
tandl vlia.p
FUl'i'L4.*a
_S
I.I.l.('r
C'AUs.
SAI L' Y
IIAZ KI)
Mil t'd natiadlleak. ,Ntwtle fur fivillmg
Ilngitit iI.ImTpilt
L'aaslapmC. adt quai
4
lubr can awuatw rv
',nllotl fi1 ful and
brat .ataletia Ittugh.ndry
fife..d'o
pul~. rt~l tde incaM
· Mtmilirtamarbutan gas
trnap-ralute and ,Jmpqsa.
tiln,. Idantly
rafrlig Ilr WIs¢
ajVtali1an.ratabhuda.
nd
k|ntabson
vint
a1bd mi itgcal.iPetuadK
CwaIk -i AIVI3111alwsund-
1,' unplup.
r.41 rlc Ll.
51PA
llAWI-~t
SI PARAIoRS
t )aiW.ia reltu
WPar.lll%.
I raduni erpa. qn
A't. umulalon il
Iive
I %415i%i111l
aCdfIialtaii%'llldlail)
ilutror'ill dn ia.
Ily adi. s.aaIhuslwlk' failur ,,I dUa ltng.
Priawstfr
afeqUale
IPwae
did'q.a
at'lofiltl,.
I %Iabih Wae rtaal
W
piaacdutt. Fa;4anIaIf
,Jtlal vtt0.lhlh
.,id,
%rnd plul:mr .
IratsiaaJ!ifilter
I Adlr
Sitalk ind ,)nJmK
%';
1. llUt.'
sfltM l
IviAtll.
Prfrk
Ill granilav mi.
It,,&.dcarn %hu.J
*'.,d)
qttldI
ll.
qstdllt, Ja^
) n~i s 't%f.
llaae
aflia %p~iren,-.
Iltt rfcalUir
I Ur
I trllaaii
Iraldte drdmwaiiu*.l-
iqiasli .aataM.Wd.mtli
A.it unmualaianiii
lsCJf.hiin
.tmnt.
ing
1ania
adbaar.
lisa!..
paca.U4ir
fallgu¢r.
erasom
'l.a-.
'lantiau %luui.-al
yatublet.
he .k I'ftll
ll.alh
die m raflb'
riallaat Udlfaiptialkn pit-
,ldull
...n-
.
.%amaa, at%* C.
I!) ds-.andlStinitp hIdi,
IOr
i lsahin
hl' tile g%..
Axvnullaimn iii ;at-
IIn .TIJnlssn)
1i)
min
I4ql
%'lllldfilfl,'
l %maaitititllr
Il
ltmanld
flarild prltpag.8llm
h)' w',knddf) irc~
nand
CsldiJvPmq
ad' quglallrt-
ptl d.
a tasai
hula.
t a%.I'nlflln
lu: itsa
,vi. itaa..tatu i ha.
b
al sfals...
Ad pmUnrataaanulaan
'ilaifailr, autI
plttc
a.
v;Alw'n aqtlni
b3
ret.adi.
iarnaaa.al.
luialdup.
I Irv'lrmlifi
pfet..Iatal.,fr
I it
I xpltsan
ALkutioulalial tat
ItAi4l Ial. ail'Ji:,hIfi
kailaln tl.i?.tining
I)
l, .6di1.ta CslIu.v
l
tale
bt.
and
.,Wn-.a) flir
PIt.n dr Jadeqluafe *ar,
It...%
rlsa..mt.
NSainiltet , ltalk
IA
ilhli.,.
pletft auiulullIln l
V.O111th ]e $AJM' nd
ctabil
.,nfletrtIby ptclad
Ifrowsl.
AIR tPl.Ill.A1
;RS
Air pt-hemif
I I.lungttnt typaI
l Ifr
III; Ilaai,, p pagaliin
by Wt%nalJ}rlifv%
c l.Osl
i la11rfl i.1%1%. atiracplitin%.
('rth.n
;alaanIg
I plh.mn ada.(0. 11C
In h.i
%ill all: r' ullang iI .
Ilt1h p.urniiMl larlilt
aniM
Cplimn.
266
Awsa umingthew yqrs
rflt'lm. ,rflreJ
Mlinum.. kkling id alt in-
a1 pe
Ismr
lA anrul'
ci
blrtet W.lI.
5.
Conclusions
This study of mass and energy balances has been aimed at the
development of empirical correlation models of the energy efficiencies and
environmental emissions of various fluidized bed combustion technologies.
These empirical correlations consist of probabilistic models that have been
fit to published experimental data. In several instances, there have been
comparisons of these empirical models with available analytic models.
Extensive bibliographic research and identification of on-going projects
was also completed as a portion of this task.
From the standpoint of recommending future work in this area it would
be desirable to have an updated data base of fluidized bed emissions and
efficiency information. An on-going project at MIT is concerned with
putting together just such a data base. There are several advantages to
having such data bases available for all of the advanced energy
technologies:
(1)
they can be used as design tools to search for
attractive configurations and operating parameters,
particularly those unexpected synergistic effects that
could be identified and exploited;
(2)
they can be a ready source of latest information
on the performance of that energy cycle;
(3)
analytic models can be systematically tested against
such a data base to evaluate the gap between theoretical
and experimental information; and finally,
(4)
they can be used to systematically identify and quantify
the need for key pieces of information that are now
inadequately known.
This final objective is perhaps the most important in that it could be
a mechanism for developing R & D strategies.
The process involved in
developing the R & D priorities begins with the use of probabilistic
empirical models to define probabilistic data on economic, efficiency, and
emission performance. This type of data can be compared for alternative
energy cycles to develop ratings of the relative attractiveness of those
alternatives.
It may be that the data is too uncertain to allow for
necessary decisions between alternatives in which case R & D efforts can be
aimed directly at the key pieces of information needed to reduce the
uncertainties.
In addition, the risk of potential problems in the
economic, efficiency, and emission areas can be quantified. The relative
attractiveness of the various energy cycles can also be used to set
priorities on R & D projects that would increase the chance for
technological feasibility of those energy cycles. In the fluidized bed
technologies, some of the areas which are highlighted (because they
contribute the greatest uncertainties in the probabilistic models) include,
in order of importance as perceived during the work of this project:
267
(1)
particulate removal to achieve as-turbine
reliability and long life (in pressurized units);
(2)
up-to-date economic data and projections of the FBC
retrofit potential of conventional boilers;
(3)
combustion efficiencies;
(4)
coal and sorbent feed continuity;
(5)
boiler tube material and heat transfer information;
(6)
turndown, load following, combustion transients and
instabilities;
(7)
trace metal control;
(8)
reductions in solid waste amounts and data effectiveness
of disposal schemes;
(9)
hydrocarbon control; and
(10) sulfur oxide control predictions due to sorbent and coal
characteristics and design configuration variations.
All of these areas of uncertainty must be investigated with due regard
to the consequences of scale-up to commercial sizes.
268
6.
References and Bibliography
Most of this bibliography is from the source (Strom, et al., 1976) with
a number of additions. A very large, but untyped, bibliography is
available for a reproduction charge, hard copy or microfiche:
Gruhl, J.
and N. Gruhl, 1977, "Fluidized Bed Combustors - An Informal Bibliography",
MIT Energy Laboratory, Cambridge, MA 02139, September 1977.
This list of references is primarily frcm those listed in (Strom, et
al., 1976). Additional references have been selected and spliced into that
bibliography with the principal criteria for selection being (1) relevance
to this reports' topics and (2) most recent citations. These selections of
additional references were made from an extensive (1000 source) list
generated in the course of this report and from three computerized
literature searches cmplied at Exxon Research Engineering Company in
Linden, N.J. by Karen Landsberg.
T. A. Afaneseva and others, Kinetics of the Aggregation of Particles of a
Fluidized ed, zbk. Dokl. Nauch.-Tekh. Konf. Invanof. Khim-Tekhncl. Inst.,
1973, pp. 40-42.
V. G. Ainshtein, Heat Transfer Between a Fluidized Bed and a Surface,
Chem. Engr., January 1966, Vol. 6, No. 1.
Int.
E. K. Akopov, Reversible Adiagonal System of Sodium and Potassium Chlorides
and Sulphates, Zhur Obsrhchei Khim, Vol. 24.
C. W. Albright, Coal Carbonization
August 22, 1967.
Process, U. S. Patent 3,337,417,
P. G. Alfredson, Behaviour of Pulsed Fluidised Beds - Part I:
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 1973, Vol. 51.
P. G. Alfredson, Behaviour of Pulsed Fluidised Beds - Part II:
traction, Trans. nstn. Chem. Engrs., 1973, Vol. 51.
Bed Expansion,
Bed Con-
American Institute of Chemical Engineering, Third Internationa Heat Transfer Conference, August 7-12, 1966, Papers 113-151 - Volume IV.
L. J. Anastasia, Pollution Control Capabilities of Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
October 4-7, 1970 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
Anastasia, L.J., et al., International Conference on Fluidized
Bed Combustion, 2nd Proc., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1970.
Anon., Better Theory for Fluid Bed Design, New Scientist,
Vol. 31, No. 85.
July 14, 1966,
Anon., A Big Leap Forward for Ecology, Industrial Gas, February 1971.
269
Anon., Breakthrough in Coal Combustion,
42, No. 503, pp. 626-628.
Heat. Vent. Engr., June 1969, Vol.
Anon., British Coal Research - Significant Breakthrough for Coal with FluidBed Combustion, Colliery Guardian, March 1969, Vol. 217, pp. 151-152.
Anon., Coal-Burning
1968,
Fluidized-Bed Combustion
System, Coal Res. CSIRO, April
No. 34, pp. 2-5.
Anon., A Coal-Burning Fluidized-Bed
Heat Technoloqy, September 1968.
Combustion System, Journal of Fuel and
Anon., Commercial Breakthrough Likely in Fluidised Bed Boiler, Electrical
Review, March 15, 1974, Vol. 194, No. 4, pp. 233-234.
Anon., Cost Assessment for Large Fluid Bed Boilers, Electrical Review, Lond.,
January
29,
1971,
Vol.
188,
No. 5, p. 163.
Anon., The Design of Fluid Bed Boilers - I, Steam and Heat. Engr., March
1971, pp. 6-12.
Anon., The Design of Fluid Bed Boilers 1971, pp. 28-34.
II, Steam and Heat. Enqr., April
Anon., Fluid Bed Combustion, Works Enineering,
Anon., Fluid Bed Boilers, Chemistry
January 1969.
Ind., February 6, 1971, No.' 6, p. 171.
Anon., The Development of Fluid Bed Combustion, Steam and Heat. Engr.,
April 1969.
Anon., The Development of Fluid Bed Combustion - 2, Steam and Heat. Engr.,
May 1969, Vol. 38, No. 450, pp. 50-54.
Anon., Fluid Bed Combustion, Works Engineering, November 1970, Vol. 13.
Anon., Fluid Bed Combustion and Coal Sales, Steam and Heat. Engr., May
1969, Vol. 38, pp. 4-5.
Anon., Fluid Bed Gasifier Reduces Sulphur Oxides Emission, Steam and Heat.
Engr., September 1970, Vol. 39, No. 466, pp. 32-34.
Anon., Fluidised Bed Combustion, Journal of Fuel and Heat Technology,
March 1969, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 2-5.
Anon., Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
C&EN, August 27, 1973, Vol. 51, No. 35.
Anon, "Fluidized Bed Combustion - - Full Steam."
n 2 Feb 1976 p 120-121.
Environ Sci Tchnol
Anon., Fluidised-Bed Combustion - The Present State of the Art,
Engineering, July 1972, pp. 19-2i.
270
orks
v 10
Anon.,
Vol.
Fluidised-Bed Combustor
155,
No.
18, pp.
Research by NCB, Electl. Times, May 1969,
106-107.
Anon., Fluidised Bed Starts Growing Up...with Coalplox
New Scientist, March 1973.
Close Behind,
Anon., Fluidized-Bed Advance Made, Oil & Gas Journal, January 1973.
Anon., Fluidized-Bed Hydrogenation,
Oil & Gas Journal, May 29, 1972.
Anon., Fluidized Bed Steam Generators for Utilities,
Tecnnology, November 1974, Vol. 8, No. 12.
Environmental
Science &
Anon, "Fluidized Combustion", Volume 1, Institute of Fuel, London, England,
Symposium Series, 1975.
Anon., Last Hope for Coal, Nature, Lond., March 1, 1969.
Anon., NCB Develop Fluidised Combustion System as Core for Their Coal.. -Based Energy Complex, Chem. Age Internal., December 1972, Vol. 6.
Anon., NCB Pins Hope in Fluidised Combustion System,
May 2, 1969, Vol. 184, No. 18, p. 634.
Anon., New Coal Combustion
Vol.
5,
Electrical Review, Lond.,
System, Energy International,
December 1968,
p. 30.
Anon., New Method of Combustion, Nature, Lond., May 3, 1969.
Anon, "Optimization of Limestone Utilization and Sulfur Capture in a Single
Combustion Zone Fluidized- - Bed Boiler." US Off of Coal Res. Res and Dev
Rep n88 Final Prep by-ope, Evans and Robbins, Inc. New York, N.Y.' for US
Dep of the Inter. Off of Coal Res (Rep PER 545-72). Washington, D.C., Mar
1974. 43 p.
Anon., Pressurized
Fluid Bed Coal Combustion,
Combustion, October
1972.
Anon., Smokeless Fluid Bed, Chem. Age Internal., February 9, 1973, Vol.
106,
(2795),
No. 12.
Anon., Sulphur Removed by Fluid Bed, BR Chem. Engr., October
No. 10.
1970, Vol. 15,
Anon., Utilisation of the Fluid Bed Combustion Technique for Power Generation and Industrial Steam Raising, Steam and Heat. Engr., June 1969, Vol.
38, No. 451, pp. 12-13.
D. H. Archer, Coal Gasification
Paper, 1973.
for Clean Power Production, Coal Symposium
D. H. Archer, Coal Gasification for Clean Power Generation, Proceedings of
Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion (EPA), December
1973.
271
D. H. Archer, Evaluation of the Fluidized Bed Combustion Process Volume I Summary Report, Office of Air Programs (EPA), Contract No. CPA 70-9,
November 15, 1969 - November 15, 1971.
'D. H. Archer, Evaluation of the Fluidized Bed Combustion Process Volume II Technical Evaluation, Office of Air Programs (EPA), Contract No. CPA 70-9,
November 15, 1969 - November 15, 1971.
D. H. Archer, Marketable Designs for Fluidized-Combustion Boilers, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
D. H. Archer, A Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Boiler Development Plan, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(EPA), December 1973.
Archer, D.H., D.L. eairns, J.R. Homm, "Evaluation of the
Fluidized Bed Combustion Process", Vol. II, Technical Evaluation.
Westinghouse Research Labs., Pittsburgh, Pa. Nov. 1971.
Archer,
et al., 1970.
"Evaluation
of the Fluidized
Bed
Combustion Process", Westinghouse Research Labs, Pittsburgh, PA.
Argonne National Laboratory, 1976, "Environmental Control
Implications of Generating Electric Power from Coal", ANL-ECT-1,
Argonne, Illinois, December.
D. T. Argyriou, Bubble Growth by Coalescence
Annual AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
in Gas Fluidized Beds, 60th
H. R. F. Arnstein, Big Economics from Pressurized Fluid-Bed Combustion,
The Engineer, July 24, 1969.
J. B. Arots, Studies on Fluidized Bed Incineration and Pyrolysis of Shipboard Wastes, Aerospace Division of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 74-ENAs-19, July 29-August 1, 1974.
Z. Asaki, Thermal Decomposition of Limestone in a Fluidized Bed,
Metallurgical Transactions, February 1974, Vol. 5.
R. C. Attig, Additive Injection for Sulfur Dioxide Control: A Pilot Plant
Study, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Research Center Report 5460, March 27,
1970.
M. M. Avedesian, Combustion of Carbon Particles in a Fluidised Bed,
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 1973, Vol. 51.
H. S. Avery, Hot Hardness of Hard Facing Alloys, J. Welding, 1950, Vol. 29,
No. 7.
H. S. Avery, Surfacing by Welding for Wear Resistance, Composite Engineering
Laminates, Ed. by A. G. H. Deity, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1969.
272
Babcock and Wilcox, 1977. "Effect of Sorbent Particle Size on Sulfur
for EPA February.
Fixation in Fluidized Bed Cnbustors,"
Babcock & Wilcox, Steam, Babcock & Wilcox Company, 1960, 37th Ed.
Badin, E.J., 1976, "Utilization of By-Product Ash from Fluidized Bed
Corp./METREK Division, MIR-7339, September.
Combustion of Coal," MRE
A. Baerg, Heat Transfer in a Fluidized Solids Bed, Canadian
Research, August 1950, Vol. 28, Section F, No. 8.
J. Baeyens, An Investigation into Slugging Fluidized
Engineering, 1974, Vol. 29, pp. 255-265.
Journal of
Beds, Chemical
A. H. Bagnulo and others, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed Boilers,
Office of Coal Research, Res. Develop. Rept. 36, 1971, Vol. I, (PB 234 343).
R. C. Bailie and M. Ishida, Gasification of Solid Waste Materials in
Fluidized Beds, AIChE Symposium Series, 1972, Vol. 68, No. 122, pp. 73-80.
R. C. Bailie, Solid Waste Incineration in Fluidized Beds, Industrial Water
Engineering, November 1970, pp. 22-25.
M. H. I. Baird, Spontaneous
Science, 1973, Vol. 28.
Oscillation of a Gas-Fluidized
Bed, Chem. Engr.
F. J. Ball, Dry Fluidized Activated Carbon Processes for Stack SO2 Recovery
as Sulfur, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Assoc., January 1972, Vol.
22, No. 1, pp. 20-26.
Balzhiser, R.E., NOx Control Technology, Report of Work in the Fossil Fuel
and Advanced Systems Division, EPRI Journal, No. 1, 30-32, Feb. 1976.
T. E. Ban, Conversion of Solid Fuels to Low Btu Gas, Am. Chem. Soc., Div.
of Fuel Chem. Prepr., 1974, Vol. 19, pp. 79-98.
J. J. Barker, Heat Transfer
in Packed Beds, Part 1, I&E Chem., April 1965.
J. J. Barker, Heat Transfer
in Fluidized Beds, Part 2, I&E Chem., May 1965.
M. H. Barker and S. J. Wright, Heating Apparatus, U.S.
June 29, 1971.
Patent 3,589,342,
M. H. Barker, Fluid-Bed Boilers, Inst. Mech. Engrs. Convention on Steam
Plants for the 1970's, London, April 1969.
W. J. Bartel, Heat Transfer from a Horizontal Bundle of Bare and Finned
Tubes in an Air Fluidized Bed, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 69.
Battelle, 1973. "Environmental Considerations in Future Energy
Growth", Columbus and Pacific Northwest Labs, for EPA.
273
Battelle-Columbus Labs, 1977. "The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Fluidized Bed Combustion Program 1977", Battelle,
Columbus Ohio, February.
F. N. Bartholomew, Heat Transfer from the Wall of a Tube to a Fluidized
Bed, AIChE Symposium Series, No. 4.
W. Bartok, Laboratory Studies and Mathematical Modeling of NOx Formation
in Combustion Processes, December 1971, (PB 211 480).
A. P. Baskakov, Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of a Bed Fluidized
in the Presence of Banks of Horizontal Tubes, Int. Chem. Engr., January 1973.
A. P. Baskakov, ondecarburizing Heating of Steel Parts in Fluidized Bed,
Trans. from Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, January 1973,
UDC 621.785:66.096.5.
A. P. Baskakov and others, Heat Transfer to Objects Immersed in Fluidized
Beds, Power Technology, i, 1973, pp. 273-282.
W. G. Bauer, Fluidization - Its Implications for Lime and Nonmetallic
Industries, Pit and Quarry, May 1962.
W. G. Bauer, Fluidization - Multipurpose Process Tool, Pit and Quarry,
Part 1: Minerals Processing Potential, June 1965, Part 2: System Components, July 1965.
B. J Baxter, Fluidized-Bed Combustors Used in HTGR Fuel Rprocessing
Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(EPA), December 1973.
Becker, H.A., J.M. Beer, B.M. Gibbs,
Coal."
"Model for
Fluidized
Bed Combustion
Fluid Combust. Conf. Proc. Imp. Coll. of Sci and Technol. London
Engl.,Sep 16-17 1975, Pap Al, 10 p.
1. v 1), London, Engl. 1975.
Publ. by Inst.
of
of Fuel (Symp. Ser. n
Beer, J.M., 1977. "The Fluidized Combustion of Coal", MIT Dept.
of Chemical Engineering, Cambridge, MA, June.
~
.~~~~~
_ .
_
.
~
Beer, J.M. and G.B. Martin, 1976. "Application of Advanced Technology for
NO Control: ALternate Fuels and Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion," AIChE
69fh Annual Meeting, Chicago, Ill.,
November,; 28.
J. L. Beeson and others, Coal Char Gasification in a Continuous Electrofluid Reactor, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., 1970, Vol. 9, No. 3,
pp. 460-465.
C. Bennett, Heat Treating in the Fluid-Bed Furnace, Metal Progress, April
1961, pp. 82-87.
Beranek, Jaroslav, 1977, "Contribution of Fluidized-Bed Technology to
Protection of Air Cleanliness", USTAV Teor. Zakl. Chem. Tech., Csav Prague
OChr. Ovzdusi 8 12 77-83.
274
R. R. Bertrand and others, Combustion of Coal in a Bed of Fluidized Lime,
Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem. Prepr., August 1973, Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp. 25-29.
F. V. Bethell, Mathematical Modelling of the Limestone-Sulphur Dioxide
Reaction in a Fluidized-Bed Combustor,
Fuel, April 1973, Vol. 52.
G. N.
hat, Studies on the Gaseous Fluidization of Solids, British Chem.
Eng., Part 1: Wall Effect on Fluidization
Characteristic,
December 1963;
Part 2: Correlating Head Loss during Flow through Fixed and Fluidized
Solids Beds by Means of Dimensionless Groups, March 1964; Part 3: Incipient Bubbling in Fluid Beds, May 1964; Part 4: Effect of Temperature on
Fluidized Beds, July 1965; Part 5: Wall-to-Bed Heat Transfer Characteristics,
September 1965.
D. Bhattacharyya, Radial and Axial Velocity Distributions within Packed
Beds Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974,
Vol. 70.
C. E. Billings, Mercury Balance on a Large Pulverized Coal-Fired Furnace,
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Assoc., September 1973, Vol. 23, No.
9, p. 773.
T. J. Birch, Hydrogasification of Brown Coal to Produce Methane Natural
Gas, Aust. Chem. Process. Eng., October 1971, Vol. 24, No. 10, pp. 29-36.
T. J. Birch,
Hydrogasification
of Brown Coal Char in a 20-ft
Fluidized Bed Reactor, Journal of the Institute
Continuous
of Fuel, January 1969.
J. W. Bishop and others, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed Boilers
Pope, Evan & Robbins Final Report, Prepared for OCR, Vol. I, June 1965February 1970.
J. W. Bishop, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed
September 1972, (PB 234 344).
J. W. Bishop, Fluidized-Bed Boiler Cuts Pollutants,
January 15, 1973.
Boilers, Vol. II,
Electrical World,
J. W. Bishop, Method for Regulating Heat Output from an Oxidi.zing Fluidized
Bed, U. S. Patent 3,565,022, February 23, 1971.
J. W. Bishop, The Modular Fluidized-Bed Boiler Concept, Proceedings of
Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
J. W. Bishop, Status of the Direct Contact Heat Transferring Fluidized
Bed Boiler, ASME Winter Annual Meeting and Energy Systems Expo.,
December 1-5, 1968.
R. J. Bishop, Formation of Alkali-Rich
Journal of the Institute
Deposits by a High Chlorine Coal,
of Fuel, February1968.
275
J. G. A. Bitter, A Study of Erosion Phenomena - Part I, Wear, 1963, Vol. 6.
J. G. A. Bitter, A Study of Erosion Phenomena - Part II, Wear, 1963, Vol. 6.
C. H. Black, Effectiveness of a Fluidized Bed in Removing Submicron
Particulate from an Air Stream, I&EC Des. and Dev., October 1969, Vol. 8,
No. 4.
Bloom, S. G. et al., 1977. "State of Technology on Fluidized Bed
Combustion," Battelle Columbus Lab, Columbus, Ohio, February.
The Role of Chemical Thermodynamics
R. H. Boll,
Problems in Boilers, ASME Paper 60-WA-182.
in Analyzing Gas-Side
R. H. Borgwardt, Kinetics of the Reaction of S02 with Calcined Limestone,
Environmental Science & Technology, January 1970, Vol. 4, No. 1.
R. H. Borgwardt, Properties of Carbonate Rocks Related to S02 Reactivity,
Environmental Science & Technology, April 1972, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 350.
D. C. Boteler, Partial Devolatilization of Coal in Two Entrained-Bed
Carbonizers, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 7843, 1973.
J. S. M. Botterill, The Achievement of High Rates of Heat Transfer, 60th
Annual AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
J. S. M. Botterill, Achieving High Heat Transfer Rates in Fluidized Beds,
British Chemical Engineering, July 1968.
J. S. M. Botterill, Comeback for Coal in the Fluidized Burner, New Scientist,
February 1969, Vol. 41, No. 638, pp. 445-447.
J. S. M. Botterill, Progress in Fluidization, British Chemical
January
1965, Vol.
Enqineering,
10, No. 1.
J. S. M. Botterill, Progress in Fluidization,
August 1968, Vol. 13, No. 8, pp. 1121-1126.
British Chemical Encineering,
Botterill, J.S.M., D.E. Elliott, 1977, "The Contribution of Fluid-Bed
Technology to Environmental Protection and Energy Saving", Energy Environ.,
(Proc.) Sect. 2 Man His Environ., Symp. 295-305.
K. McGregor Bowling, Filter Aids from Coal, Commonwealth of Australia
291,778, June 17, 1969.
-
K. McGregor Bowling, Fluidized-Bed Coal Processing, Coal Res. CSIRO,
December 1971, Vol. 45, pp. 39-46.
K. McGregor Bowling, Fuel Processing in Fluidized Beds, British Chemical
Engineering,
August
1968, Vol.
13, No. 8, pp. 1127-1133.
K. McGregor Bowling and P. L. Waters, Some Theoretical and Experimental
Studies on Fluidized Gasification of Solid Fuels, Mech. Chem. Enq. Trans.,
1968,
Vol.
4, No. 2,
pp. 234-240.
276
H. Brauer and others, Gas Residence Time Distribution in Multistage
Fluidised Beds, Warme- und Stoffubertragung 3, 1973, pp. 153-156.
D. H. Broadbent, Development of Fluidized-Bed Combustion for Firing Utility
Steam Boilers, Proceedings of Second International Conference on FluidizedBed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
J. E. Browning, Fluidized-Bed
1971, Vol.
78, No.
Combustion
Broadens Its Horizons,
Chem. Eng.,
15.
R. W. Bryers, Design Features of Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Boilers, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
Bryers, Richard W., Wayne E. Kramer, "Status of Technology of Fluidized
Beds for The Combustion of Solid Fuels", TAPPI Eng Conf. ap. Houston, Tex.
Oct 4-7 1976 Publ by TAPPI, Atlanta, Ga., 1976 Book 1 p 27-54.
D. B. Bukur, Analysis of a Model for a Nonisothermal Continuous Fluidized
Bed Catalytic Reactor, Chemical Enineering
Science, 1974, Vol. 29.
Burns and Roe, Inc., 1977, "Conceptual Design of an Atmospheric Fluidized
Bed Combustion (AFBC) Electric Power Generating Plant, AFBC State-Of-TheArt Report," Edward J. Cosgrove, Burns and Roe, Inc., June.
I. A. Burovoi, The Determination of Mixing Coefficients in Fluidized Bed
Reactors, International Chemical Engineering, October 1965, Vol. 5, No. 4.
R. S. Burton III and R. C. Bailie, Fluid Bed Pyrolysis of Solid Waste
Materials,
Combustion, February 1974, Vol. 45, No. 8, pp. 13-19.
R. S. Burton, Municipal Solid Waste Pyrolysis, Fluidization and FluidParticle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
F. R. Campbell, Transport Properties of Porous Lime and Their Influence on
the'Decomposition of Porous Compacts of Calcium Carbonate, Chemical Enaineering Science, 1970, Vol. 25, pp. 929-942.
Campbell, E.K., J.F. Davidson, 1977, "Combustion of Coal in Fluidized
Beds", Fluid. Technol., Proc. Int. Fluid. Conf. 2. 285-8.
E. L. Carls, Review of British Program on Fluidized-Bed Combustion:
of U. S. Team Visit to England, ANL ES-CEN-1000, August 1969.
N. S. Carslaw and J. C. Jaeger, Conduction
University Press, Oxford, England, 1959.
of Newtonian
S. Chalchal, Coal Combustion and Desulfurization
Bed Reactor, October 1974, (BNL-19308).
Report
Solids, Oxford
in a Rotating
Fluidized
A. V. Chechetkin and A. I. Dementev, Aerodynamic Processes in a Unit of
Variable Cross-Section for Heating and Calcining Coal in a Fluidized Bed,
Coke Chem., USSR, 1965, Vol. 10, pp. 15-19.
277
P. Cheremisinoff and B. Rao, Fluid Bed Free Board Design, Process Technology,
March 1973, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 121-124.
L. Cheung, Minimum Fluidisation Velocity of a Binary Mixture of Different
Sized Particles, Chemical Enqineering Science, 1974, Vol. 29, pp. 1301-1303.
Chronowski, R.A., Benjamin Mlayem, 1975, "Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions
from Atmospheric Fluidized-Bed Boilers", Am. Soc. Mech. Eng., (Pap.) 75WR-4. 7 pp.
S. F. Chung, Longitudinal Dispersion of Liquid Flowing Through Fixed and
Fluidized Beds, 60th Annual AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
B. T. F. Chung, A Model of Heat Transfer in Fluidized Beds, Journal of
Heat Transfer, February 1972.
A. R. Ciuffieda, Petroleum
Conversion Processes.
Industry Material Selection as Related to Coal
Claypoole, George T., Herbert Finfer, William H. Hayes, "Conceptual Design
of a Utility, Multicell, Coal Fired, Fluidized Bed Steam Generator
Combustion Control System", Adv Instrum v 31 1976, Proc of 31st Annu ISA
Conf. adn Exhib. Houston, Tex. Oct 10-14 1976 pt 1 Pap 560, 5 p.
N. H. Coates and others, Combustion of Coal in Fluidized Beds, AIME Transactions, September 1970, Vol. 247, pp. 208-210.
N. H. Coates, Fluid-Bed Combustion of Various U. S. Coals, Proceedings of
Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
N. H. Coates, Sulfur Dioxide Reduction by Combustion of Coals in Fluidized
Beds of Limestone, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium
Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
Coates, N.H. and R.L. Rice, "Sulfur Dioxide Reduction by
Combustion of Coals in Fluidized Beds of Limestone", Bureau of
Mines, Morgantown, W. Va., May 1943
W. E. Cole, Fluid Bed Combustion of Natural Gas, Proc. Conf. Nat. Gas Res.
Tech., 1972.
W. E. Cole, Studies on the Combustion of Natural Gas in a Fluid Bed, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(EPA), December 1973.
Combustion Power, Energy Conversion from Coal Utilizing CPU-400 Technology,
OCR 94 International, November 1974, Period July 1973 - June 1974, (PB 237
028).
Combustion Power, Energy Conversion from Coal Utilizing CPU-400 Technology,
Monthly Progress Reports No. 1 (July-August 1973) through 12 (July 1974).
278
Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, January 1969, Publication No. AP-52, (PB 235 817).
Control Systems Division (CSD), Pressurized Fluidized-Bed
Coal (EPA), March 1, 1972.
Converting Solid Wastes to Electricity,
August
1970,
E. D. Cooper,
Vol.
Environmental
Combustion of
Science & Technology
4, No. 8, pp. 631-633.
Pilot-
and Plant-Scale
Fluidized
Bed Calciners,
Chem. Eng.
Prog., July 1965, Vol. 61, No. 7, pp. 87-96.
COPAC-4, Abatement of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources,
National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council.
G. G. Copeland, Design and Operation of Fluidized Bed Incinerators,
Wastes, 1970, R-245-R-249.
Ind..
G. G. Copeland, Disposal of Solid Wastes by Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(EPA), December 1973.
Tappi
G.G.,. "12 Year Peview of Fluidized Bed Technology."
Copeland,
27-29
Oct
Va,
Alkaline Pulping Conf Prepr 1975, for Meet. Williamsburg,
1975 p 53-65.
C. E. Copes;, The Pseudo Particulate Expansion of Screen-Packed
Beds, 60th Annual AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
Gas-Fluidized
Coughlin, R.W., et al., 1972, "Air Pollution and its Control," AIChE
Symposium Series No. 126, Vol. 68.
Council on Environmental Quality, 1975.
CEQ, Washington, D.C.
"Energy Alternatives",
R. W. Coutant, Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for
Capturing S02 from Flue Gas, August 1968, (PB 180 834).
R. W. Coutant, Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for
lue Gas, June 1969, (PB 184 945).
Capturing S0 2 from
R. W. Coutant, Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for
Capturing S02 from Flue Gas, November 20, 1970, (PB 196 749).
R. W. Coutant, Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for
Capturing S02 from Flue Gas, October 1971, (PB 204 385).
J. W. T. Craig, Chemically Active Fluid-Bed Process for Sulphur Removal
during Gasification of Heavy Fuel Oil - Second Phase, November 1974,
(PB 240 632).
J. W. T. Craig, Study of Chemically Active Fluid-Bed Gasifier for Reduction
of Sulfur Oxide Emissions, Esso England Interim Report, APCO Contract CPA
70-46, June 22, 1970 - February 22, 1971.
279
J. W. T. Craig, Study of Chemically Active Fluid Bed Gasifier for Reduction
of Sulfur Oxide Emissions, Final Report, June 22, 1970 - March 1972, June
1972.
J. W. T. Craig, Sulphur Retention in Fluidized-Beds of Lime under Reducing
Conditions, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion (EPA), December 1973.
R. R. Cranfield, Large Particle Fluidisation,
1974, Vol. 29, pp. 935-947.
Chemical Engineering Science,
D. E. Creasy, Gas Fluidization at Pressures and Temperatures above Ambient,
British Chemical Engineering, July 1971, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 605-610.
M. S. Crowley, Influence of Particle Size on Erosion Resistance of Refractory Concretes, Ceramic Bulletin, 1969, Vol. 48, No. 7.
CSIRO, Gasification
May 1969, No. 37.
of Coal in Fluidized Beds, Coal Research in CSIRO,
I
G. P. Curran, Coal-Based Sulfur Recovery Cycle in Fluidized-Lime-Bed
Combustion, Proceedings of Second International Conference on FluidizedBed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
G. P. Curran, The C02 Acceptor Gasification Process - A Status Report Application to Bituminous Coal, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion (EPA), December 1973.
G. P. Curran, The C02 Acceptor Process, Coal Processing Technology, CEP
Tech. Manual, 1975, Vol. 2.
G. P. Curran, Low-Sulfur Producer Gas via an Improved Fluid-Bed Gasification Process, Proceedings of Third International Conference on FluidizedBed Combustion (EPA), December 1973.
G. P. Curran, Low-Sulfur Producer Gas via a High Temperature Sulfur Removal Process, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium
Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
G. P. Curran, Production of Low-Sulfur Boiler Fuel by Two-Stage Combustion Application of C 2 Acceptor Process, Proceedings of Second International
Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion (EPA), October 4-7, 1970.
G. P. Curran, Studies on Mechanics of Fluo-Solids Systems, Office of Coal
Research, R&D Report No. 16, Interim No. 3, Book 1, Contract No. 14-010001-415, July 1964 to June 1968, (PB 184 718).
G. P. Curran, Phase II.
Physico-Chemical
Studies,
Bench-Scale
R&D Report
Research on CSG Process, Laboratory
No. 16,
Interim
o. 3, Book
2,
(PB 184
719).
G. P. Curran, Phase II. Bench-Scale Research on CSG Process, Operation of
the Bench-Scale Continuous Gasification Unit, RD Report No. 16, Interim
No.
3, Book
3, (PB 184 720).
280
Cusumano, J.A. and R.B. Levy, "Evaluation of Reactive Solids for
SO Removal During Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion", Catalytica
Associates Inc. for EPRI, October 1975.
A. J. B. Cutler, ASME, Journal Engr. for Power, July 1971.
A. D. Dainton, Seventh World Power Conference, Moscow, 1968.
C. N. Das and S. Sarkar, Heat Transfer
Indian
J. Technology,
September
1967,
in Dilute-Phase
Vol.
Fluidized Bed,
5, No. 9, pp. 276-279.
D. C. Davidson, The Retention of Sulphur by Limestone in a Pilot-Scale
Fluid-Bed Combustor, Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 4-7, 1970.
J. F. Davidson, Bubble Formation at an Orifice in an Inviscid Liquid,
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 1960, Vol. 38.
Davidson, D.C. and A.W. Small, 1970. 2nd International
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Hueston Woods, Ohio,
October 4-7.
J. F. Davidson, Differences between Large and-Small Fluidized Beds,
AIChE
Symposium
Series,
Vol.
69, No.
128.
W. L. Davis, Jr., Large-Scale Fluidized-Bed Drying of Iron-Ore Concentrate,
Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974,
Vol.
70.
L. Davies,
Gas Interchange between Bubbles and Continuous Phase in a
Fluidized Bed, British Chemical Enqineering, August 1967, Vol. 12, No. 8,
pp. 1223-1226.
Deegan, et al., 1976.
Labs, Pittsburgh, PA.
"ECAS Studies", Westinghouse Res-rzh
R. H. Demmy, gnifluid Boilers for an Electric Utility, Proceedings of
Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
R. H. Demmy, Ignifluid Boilers for an Electric Utility, 69th National
Meeting of AIChE, May 16-19, 1971.
R. J. Demski, Bureau of Mines Test of Fluidized Bed Combustor of Pope,
Evans, and Robbins, Alexandria, Va., Bureau of Mines Report, March 1973.
. C. A. Depew, Heat Transfer to Horizontal Gas-Solid Suspension Flows,
ASME-AIChE Heat Transfer Conference, August 3-6, 1969.
The Development of Fluid Bed Combustion - 2, Steam and Heat. Engr., May
1969.
281
Desulfurization of Coal in a Fluidized Carbonizer, United Engineers &
Constructors, Inc., September 1956.
B. R. Dickey, Application to Combined Cycle Power Production of Fluid-Bed
Technology Used in Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing, Proceedings of Third International. Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion (EPA), December 1973.
B. R. Dickey, Waste Heat Disposal Using Fluid-Bed Wet-Dry Towers,
Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 70,
1974.
E. K. Diehl, Desulfurized Fuel from Coal by Inplant asification, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
I. Di Federico, Plane Cross-Flow Heat Exchangers with Heat Generation within
a Fluid Stream, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1971, pp. 41-53.
Deleted
S. Dobner, Production of Low Btu Gas from Coal with High and Low Temperature
Sulfur Removal Schemes, AIChE Workshop, 1975, Vol. 6, Presented at Mtg.,
Chicago, Ill., October 17, 1973.
DOE, 1977. "Proceedings of the Fluidized Bed CombustionTechnology
Exchange Workshop," Vols I and II, cosponsored by EPRI, NTIS:
CCF-770447-P-1,-2, April.
DOE, 1976, "Program Plan for Fossil Demonstration Plants," DOE Fossil
Energy, Division of Fossil Demonstration Plants, Nov. (FE-2213-22-02.
M. A. Doheim, Fluidisation
national, October 1974.
in the Ferrous Industry, Iron and Steel Inter-
K. Doichev, Energetic Aspects of the Transition between Aggregative and
Particulate Fluidization, Chemical Engineering Science, 1974, Vol. 29,
pp. 1205-1210.
W. M. Dow, Heat Transfer between a Vertical Tube and a Fluidized Air-Solid
Mixture, Chem. Eng. Prog., December 1951, Vol. 47, No. 12.
Dow Chemical, "The Effect of Experimental Scale on the Emissions
from Fluidized Bed Combustion Units", Dow Chemical U.S.A. for
USEPA, July 1975. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1329.
A. N. Dravid, Power Generation Using the Shell Gasification Process, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion (EPA),
December 1973.
D. D. Dunlop, Fluidized Bed Report Surrounded by a Fluidized Sand Heat
Exchanger, U. S. Patent 3,562,115, February 9, 1971.
J. den and L. Grainger, Fluidised Bed Boilers at the Crossroads,
Review, Lond., October 30, 1970, Vol. 187, No. 10i, p. 620.
282
Electrical
S. Ehrlich, Air Pollution Control through New Combustion Processes,
Environmental Science & Technology, May 1970, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 396-400.
S. Ehrlich, Combustion of Carbon-Bearing Sly Ash in a Carbon-Burnup Cell,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combusticn,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
S. Ehrlich, Development of a Fluidized-Bed Boiler, AIChE Symposium
Vol.
68, No.
126.
S. Ehrlich, Part II - The Fluid Bed Boiler and Its Applicability
tion Control, AIChE 69th National Meeting, May 18, 1971.
Ehrlich,
S., 1971.
Carbon-Burnup Cell,"
NTIS #PB 231977.
Fluid. Combust. Conf.
Imp Coll of Sci and Technol. London, Engl. Sep 16-17 1975 Pap C4, 10
p. Publ by Inst.
of FueI (Symp Ser n 1 v 1.) London, Engl. 1974.
S. Ehrlich, NOX Emissions from Fluidized-Bed
Vol.
to Pollu-
"Combustion of Carbon-Bearing Fly Ash in a
Ehrlich, Shelton, "Coal Fired Fluidized Bed Boiler."
Proc.
Series,
53, p.
Boilers, Fuel, October 1974,
284.
S. Ehrlich, Particle Emissions from a High Temperature Fluidized-Bed Fly
Carbon Burner (Abstract), Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE
Symposium Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
Ehrlich,
S., et al., 1971.
"Development
of a Fluidized
Bed
Boiler", AIChE Symposium Series, 68(126) pp. 231-240.
D.E.
Elliott, Exploiting Shallow Fluidized Bed Technology, Unknown Source.
D. E. Elliott, Fluid Bed Boilers Challenge to Nuclear, Electrical Review,
Lond.,
November
28,
1969, Vol.
185,
No. 22, p. 786.
D. E. Elliott, Fluidised Beds for Combined Cycle Plant, Electrical
Lond., arch 6, 1970, Vol. 186, pp. 360-361.
D. E. Elliott, Has Coal a Future?, The Chartered Mechanical
1970,
Vol.
Review,
Enoineer, July
17, No. 7, pp. 299-303.
D. E. Elliott, Possible Use of Fluid-Bed Combustion and Heat Transfer,
Paper 22, Institute of Fuel, Total Energy Conference, December 1971,
Proc.
Vol.
1, pp. 361-372.
D. E. Elliott, Small-Scale Applications of Fluidized-Bed Combustion and
Heat Transfer (The Development of Small, Compact Fluidized-Bed Boilers),
Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(EPA), December 1973.
Elliott, D.E., "Fluidized Bed Boilers." Energy Eng. Conv. of Lines of Dev.
In Energy Eng. Prepr. Duesseldorf, Germany, May 5-7 1975, p. 95-104. Publ.
by VDI-Verlag. Duesseldorf, Germany, 1975.
283
D. E. Elliott, Some Economic Aspects of High-Temperature Steam Cycles,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
,U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
S., B. Palancz, "Mathematical Model for Combustion Coal in Fluid
Endrenyi,
Bed"
Int Semin on Future Energy Prod - - Heat and Mass TrnsferProbl.
Dubrovnik, Yugosi, Auf 25-30 1975 Publ by Hemisphere Publ
D.C. 1976 v 2 p 579-587.
Corp. Washington,
Environmental Protection Agency, Atmsopheric Fluidized Bed Vapor Generator,
Pat. Appl. 324,041, January 16, 1973, (PB 221 703).
Environmental Protection Agency, Document on Fluidized-Bed
Sulfur Dioxide Control, June 14, 1971.
Combustion for
Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings of International
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion (2nd), Research Triangle
Park, N.C., 1970.
EPA, 1975. "Strategic Environmental Assessment Systems", EPA,
Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1977, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fluidized Bed
Combustion Program, FY 1976," Interagency Energy-Environmental Research and
Developnent Program Report, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, February (EPA-
600/7-77-012).
EPRI, 1976, "Digest of Current Research in the Electric Utility Industry,
Electric Power Research Institute, May, EPRI RD-2.
J. W. Evans, Application of a Porous Pellet Model to Fixed, Moving, and
Fluidized Bed Gas-Solid Reactors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop.,
13, No. 2.
1974, Vol.
.
~ ~ ~~~
.
.
~
~~
*-
~
~
~~~~~~.
Farmer, M.H., E.M. Magee, F.M. Spooner, 1977. "Application of
Fluidized Bed Technology to Industrial Boilers", Exxon Research
and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J., p 220, January.
W. Fehndich, Wear Studies on Boiler Pipes, Mitteilungen der VGB,
49(1):58-70, February 1969.
H. L. Feldkirchner, Coal Desulfurization Aspects of the HYGAS Process,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
H. F. Feldmann, Fluidization Properties of Coal Char, Potential Paper
Prepared by Bureau of Mines.
Fennelly,
Cleaner
Paul
F.,
Hans Klemm, R. Robert,
Donald F. Durocher, "Coal Burns
in a Fluid Bed", Environ Sci Technol v 11 n 3 Mar 1977 p 244-248.
Fennelly, Paul F., Donald F. Durocher, Hans Klemm, Robert R. Hall,
"Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Coal Fired Fluidized Bed
Combustion", Proc of the Int Conf on Fluid-Bed Coanbust. 4th McLean, Va, Dec
9-11 1975 Publ by MITRE Corp (M76-36), McLean, Va. 1976 p 475-491.
284
J. R. Ferron, Studies of Gas-Solid Heat Transfer in Fluidized Beds, 54th
Annual AIChE Meeting, December 2-7, 1961.
A. A. Field, Combustion:
Two teps for the Future, Heat, Piping Air Cond.,
February 1972, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 87-89.
M. A. Field, Combustion
England, 1967.
of Pulverized Coal, Cheney & Sons Ltd., Banbury,
N. F. Fillippovskii, Investigation of the Temperature Field in a Fluidized
Bed Close to a Heated Plate and of Heat Transfer between Them, International
Chemical Engineering, January 1973, Vol. 13, No. 1.
D. H. Fine, Nitrogen in Coal as a Source of Nitrogen Oxide Emission from
Furnaces, Fuel, April 1974, Vol. 53, p. 120.
I. Finnie, Erosion by Solid Particles in a Fluidized Stream, Symposium on
Erosion and Cavitation, ASTM Special Tech. Pub., 1962, No. 307.
I. Finnie, Erosion of Metals by Solid Particles, Journal of Materials,
September
1967,
Vol.
2, No. 3.
I. Finnie, Some Observations
January
1972, Vol.
19, No.
on the Erosion .nf Ductile Metals, Wear,
1.
W. H. Fischer, Proceedings of a Workshop on Regeneration of Sulfated Limestone/Dolomite for Fluidized Bed Combustion, ERDA Fossil Energy, Washington,
D. C., March 3-4, 1975.
L. R. Fleisher, Investigation of Corrosion-Deposition Phenomena on Gas
Turbine Blades, Westinghouse Research Labs, 1973, (PB 221 095).
Fluid Bed Combustion
- 1, Steam and Heat. Engr., April 1969.
Fluid Bed Gasifier Reduces Sulfur Oxides Emission, Steam and Heat. Engr.,
September 1970.
Fluidization Fundamentals and Application, AIChE Symposium Series, 1970,
Vol.
66.
Fluidized Bed Combustion Company, 200/800 Megawatt Fluidized Bed Steam
Generator Proposal, June 18-24, 1974.
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Should Reduce Air Pollution, Power, July 1970,
p. 46.
Fluidized Beds Take on New Life, C&EN, December 14, 1970, pp. 46-48.
Fluidized Combustion Company, "Program Preparative:
200-MW Atmospheric
Fluidized Bed Steam Generating System, Prepared for Consumer's Power
Company, March 1976.
285
A. J. Forney, Decaking of Coals in a Fluid Bed, Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigations 6797, 1966.
A. J. Forney, Steam-Oxygen Gasification of Various U.S. Coals, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
Foster Wheeler, Multicell Fluidized Bed Steam Generator Development,
Interim Report, July 1974, Report No. 1432-0001-1237-FWC-1.
A. P. Fraas, A Fluidized Bed Combustion
1973,
March
Vol.
System, Chemical
Engineerinq Prooress,
69, No. 3.
A. P. Fraas, Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion System Coupled to a Potassium
Vapor Cycle, AChE Symposium Series, Vol. 70, No. 137, Conf. 721106-2.
Fraas, A.P., 1977, "Application of the Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion System
to the Production of Electric Power and Process Heat", Report Conf-760402-
4, 23pp.
Fraas,
Steam
A.P.,
Boiler"
"New Approach to a Fluidized Bed
M.E. Lackey,
G. Samuels,
ASME Pap n 76-WA/Pwr-8 for Meet Dec 5 1976 12 p.
J. A. Francisovich, Method of Subsurface Burning of Quantities of Refuse
Material, U. S. Patent 3,518,952, July 7, 1970.
D. A. Furlong, Combustion of Municipal Solid Wastes in a Fluidized Bed,
Prepared for 69th AIChE Meeting, May 16-19, 1971.
J. D. Gabor, Wall-to-Bed Heat Transfer
January 1972.
Gamble,
R.L.,
1977.
in Fluidized Beds, AIChE Journal,
"Development of Fluidized Bed Combustion Systems," in
(DOE, 1977).
of the Rivesville Multicell Fluidized-Bed Steam
"Design
R.L.,
Gamble,
Generator", Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Corp., McLean, Virginia, 1976, pp.
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, The M
151.
B. W. Gamson, Heat and Mass Transfer Fluid Solid Systems, Chemical
neering Progress, January 1951, Vol. 47, No. 1.
133-
Engi-
Gasner, L.L., 1977. "Enhancement of Sorbent Utilization by the use of
Additives," in (DOE, 1977).
D. Geldart, Gas-Solid Reactions in Industrial Fluidized Beds, Chemistry
and Industry, January 13, 1968, pp. 41-47.
D. Geldart, A Strategy for the Design of Fluidized Bed Chemical Reactors,
The Chemical Engineer, June 1970, pp. 147-155.
286
D. Geldart, Types of Gas Fluidization, Powder Technology,
pp. 285-292.
May 1973, Vol. 7,
N. I. Gel'Perin, Heat Exchange between Finned Tubes and a Fluidized Bed
of Granular Particles, Khim i Technologiya Tupiiv i Masel, September 1972.
N. I. Gel'Perin, Heat Transfer between a Fluidized Bed and Staggered Bundles
of Horizontal
Tubes, International Chemical Engineering, January 1969,
Vol.
9, No. 1, pp. 137-142.
,
N. I. Gel'Perin, The Heat Transfer Coefficient between a Surface and a
Fluid Bed, British Chemical Engineering & Process Technology, October 1971.
N. I. Gel'Perin, Heat Transfer Measurements from a Fluidized Bed to a
Surface in the Presence of Longitudinal and Traverse Gas Flow,
Khimicheskaya Promyshlennost, 1958, No. 6.
General Electric Co., 1976. "Study of Advanced Energy Conversion
Techniques for Utility Applications Using Coal or Coal Derived Fuels,"
Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady, New York, February.
W. E. Genetti, Heat Transfer in a Fluidized Bed Tubular Heat Exchange,
A Thesis Submitted to Oregon State University, June 1968.
F. J. Gerchow, Specifying Pneumatic Conveying System, Chemical Engineering,
February 17, 1975.
R. W. Gerstle, Air Pollutant Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Report
No. 2, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, February 1965,
Vol.
15, No. 2, p. 59.
R. N. Ghar, Calculate Degree and Time of Mixing in Fluid Beds by Quick
Method, Process Engineering, March 1973.
..
...
.
.
.
.......
Gibbs, B.M., J.M. Beer, "Pilot Plant Study of Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustion."
High Temp. Chem. Reaft. Eng. Symp. Proc. Harrogate. Engl.
June 16-18 1975, Pap 23. 11 p. Publ. by Inst. of Chem. Eng. (Symp. Ser. n
43). London, Engl. 1975.
Gibbs, B.M., F.J. Pereira, and J.M. Beer, 1976. "The Effect of Air
Staging on the NO Emission from Fluidized Combustion of Coal," 16th
International Symposium an Combustion, MIT, August.
L. G. Gibilaro, A Model for a Segregating Gas Fluidised Bed, Chemical
Engineering Science, 1974, Vol. 19, pp. 1403-1412.
Gibson, J., "Fluidized Bed Combustion."
Coal Energy Q n 7
inter 1975
p 9-17.
R. D. Glenn, Characterization of Emissions from Fluidized-Bed Combustion
of Coal and Control of Sulfur Emission with Limestone, Proceedings of
Second International
Conference
on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
287
Glenn, R.D. and E.B. Robison, 1970. "Characterization of
Emissions from Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal and ontrol of
.,SulfurEmission with Limestone", 2nd International Conference on
Fluidized Bed Combustion, EPA, PB-214-750.
Glenn,
R.D. and E.B.
Robison,
"Characterizationof Emissions from
Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal and 'Control of Sulfur Emission
with Limestone, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C., October
1970. PB-214-750/2.
B. J. Gliddon, C.E.G.B. Research Report.
A. A. Godel, Manufacture of Activated Carbon by Gasification in a Fluidized
Bed, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
A. A. Godel, The Scale-Up of a Fluidized-Bed Combustion System to Utility
Boilers, AIChE Symposium Series, 1971, Vol. 67.
A. A. Godel, Selective Extraction of Clinker at the Bottom of a Deep SelfAgglomerating Fluidized Bed, Proceedings of Third Internation Conference
on Fluidized-Bed-Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1973.
A. A. Godel, Ten Years of the Application of the Fluidised Bed Combustion
Technique, Rev. Gen. Therm., April 1966, Vol. 5, pp. 349-359.
W. M. Goldberger, Collection of Fly Ash in a Self-Agglomerating FluidizedBed Coal Burner, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1217, 1967, 67-WA/FU-3.
W. M. Goldberger, Fly Ash Emission and Erosion by Fly Ash from a SelfAgglomerating Fluidized-Bed Coal Burner, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle
Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
J. S. Gordon, Study of the Characterization and Control of Air Pollutants
from a Fluidized-Bed Boiler - The S02 Acceptor Process, July 1972, (PB 229
242).
J. R. Grace, Design of Fluidised Beds with
Process Engineering, June 1970.
Internal Baffles, Chemical and
J. R. Grace, Fluidization and Its Application to Coal Treatment and Allied
Processes, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series,
1974,
Vol.
70.
J. R. Grace, On the Two-Phase Theory of Fluidization, Chemical Engineering
Science, 1974, Vol. 29, pp. 327-334.
L. Grainger, Future Trends in Utilisation of Coal Energy Conversion,
Energy Digest, January/February 1974.
Gruhl, J., 1976a. "Health/Environmental Consequences of Energy Conversion
Alternatives
- A Bibliography," MIT-EL-76-020 WP, 30 pp., August.
288
Gruhl, J., 1976b. "Components for Modeling the Public Health Impacts of
Energy Facilities - A Bibliography," MIT-EL-76-024 WP, 34 pp., October.
Gruhl, J., S.E. Tung and F.C. Schweppe, 1978. "Robust Techniques
for Developing Empirical Models of Fluidized Bed Combustors,"
MIT Energy Lab, Cambridge MA, February.
Gruhl, J., et al., 1976. "Systematic Methodology for the Comparison of
Environmental Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Electronic Generation,"
MIT-EL 76-012,
216 pp, November.
P. Guigon, Particle Interchange between Stages in a Baffled Fluidized Bed,
Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974,
Vol.
70.
S. N. Gupta, Fluid-Particle Heat Transfer in Fixed and Fluidized
Chemical Engineering Science, 1974, Vol. 29.
J. F. Haggerty, Modelling Coal Char Gasification
October 1972, Vol. 51.
eds,
in a Fluidized Bed, Fuel,
Haldipur, G.B., T.D. Wheelock, "Desulfurization of Coal in a Fluidized Bed
Reactor", Am Chem Soc Div Fuel Chem Prepr v 22 n 2 Desulfurization of Coal
and Coal Char. New Orleans, La. Mar 21-25 1977 p 50-61
Hall, E., P. Choi and E. Kropp, 1976. "Assessment of the Potential of
Clean Fuels and Energy Technology," EPA-600/2-74-001, 185 pp, February.
Hall, E., P. Choi, E. Kropp, "Assessment of the Potential of
Clean Fuels and Energy Technology", Battelle Columbus Labs, Ohio,
Feb. 1974.
J. S. Halow, Fluidized-Bed Applications, Fluidization
Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
and Fluid-Particle
Hammon, G. and A. Skopp, 1971. "NO Formation and Control in
Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion Processes", presented ASME Winter
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Hammons, G.A. and A. Skopp, "NO Formation and Control in
Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion Processes", Esso Research and
Engineering Co., Linden, N.J., December 1971.
Hammons, G.A. and A. Skopp, "A Regenerative Limestone Process for
Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion and Desulfurization", Esso Research
and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J. 1972.
G. A. Hamnmions,NOX Formation and Control in Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion
Processes, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, November 28 - December 2, 1971.
G. A. Hammons, A Regenerative Limestone Process for Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustion and Desulfurization, Esso R&E Final Report, Contract No. CPA
70-19 for APCO, February 28, 1971, (PB 198 822).
289
G. A. Hammons, A Regenerative Limestone Process for Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustion and Desulfurization, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 68, No. 14.
G. A. Hammons, A Regenerative Limestone Process for Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustion and Desulfurization, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 4-7, 1970.
G. A. Hammons, Studies of NOx and SOX Control Techniques in a Regenerative
Limestone Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion Process, Esso R&E Interim Report,
Prepared under Contract CPA 70-19, January 1 - June 1, 1971.
Hanson, M.A. and D.G. DeCoursin, 1977. "Industrial Applications Fluidized
Bed Combustion Process," in (DOE, 1977).
Y. Hara, The Analysis for the Rate of the Thermal Decomposition of Limestone, Transactions ISIJ, 1968, Vol. 8, pp. 97-100.
H. Harboe, Fluidized-Bed Air Heaters for Open and Open/Closed Gas Turbine
Cycles, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion (EPA), December 1973.
Harboe, H., C.W. Maude, "Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion with Special
Reference to Open Gas Turbines." Inst of Eng. Aust: Annu Eng Conf.
Townsville, May 10-14 1976 Publ by Inst of Eng. Aust. Sydney, 1976 Pap
621/2 p 350-354.
R. P. Hangebrauck, Fluid Bed Combustion,
Requirements, NAPCA.
Its Potential and Its R&D
W. F. Harris, Environmental Assessment of S02 and Trace Emissions from
Coal Utilization, Presented at Coal and the Environmental Technical
Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, October 22-24, 1974.
D. Harrison, The Rate of Rise of Bubbles in Fluidised Beds, Trans. Instn.
Chem. Engrs., 1962, Vol. 40.
J. A. Harrison, Part 2 Instrumentation and Control, Process Enqineerinq,
June 1969.
P. R. Harrison, Time Variations of Lead, Copper and Cadmium Concentrations
in Aerosols in Ann Arbor, Michigan Atmos. Environ., 1971, Vol. 5, p. 613.
M. Hartman, Reaction of Sulfur Dioxide with Limestone and the Influence of
Pore Structure, Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Develop., 1974, Vol. 13, No.
3, p. 248.
M. Hartman, Reactivity of Limestones with S02 in Flue Gas, Int. Second
Congress on Chem. Eng., 3rd, Proc., Copenhagen, Denmark, January 28-30,
1974, Vol.
A,
p. 31.
J. D. Hatfield, Investigation of the Reactivities of Limestone to Remove
Sulfur Dioxide from Flue Gas, June 1970, (PB 202 407).
290
W. B. Hatfield, Development and Analysis of a Model for an Idealized
Continuous Fluidized Bed Chemical Reaction, PhD Thesis, University of
Minnesota, August 1970.
E. M. Healey, Fluidised Bed Combustion - Part 1 Heat Transfer Advantages,
Process Engineering, June 1969.
Deleted
Heat Transfer
- Research Studies for 1954, AIChE.
T. K. Heath, Process for the Thermal Oxidation of Spent Liquor, U. S.
Patent 3,635,790, January 18, 1972.
C. Van Heerden, Mechanism of Heat Transfer
1953, Vol. 45, No. 6.
in Fluidized Beds, IEC, June
P. M. Heertjes, The Partial Coefficient of Heat Transfer in a Drying
Flu-idized Bed, Chemical Engineering Science, 1956, Vol. 5.
D. B. Henschel, Minutes of Panel Discussion and Summary Session, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion
(EPA), December 1973.
B. C. Herod, New England Lime Company Obtains Efficient Results with
Fluidizing Calcium, Pit and Quarry, May 1956.
V. W. Heschel and E. Klose, Designing Thermal Fluid Bed Reactors,
Forsch'heft (508), 1972, pp. 121-163.
J. Highley, The Effect of the Spacing between Solid Feed Points on the
Performance of a Large Fluidized-Bed Reactor, AIChE Symposium Series,
Fluidization, pp. 219-227.
J. Highley, Reduction in Sulfur Dioxide Emission by Fluidized-Bed
tion, Salford University Symposium, April 1973.
Hill, B.J., "Fluidized Combustion."
Combus-
Energy Dig v 5 n 4 Aug 1976 p 25-30.
A. W. D. Hills, The Mechanism of the Thermal Decomposition
of Calcium
Carbonate, Chemical Enqineerinq Science, 1968, Vol. 23, pp. 297-320.
Hittman Associates, Baseline Data: "Environmental Assessment of
a Large Coal Conversion Complex", Columbia, Md. 1974.
Hittman, 1974, 1975. "Environmental Impacts, Efficiency, and
Cost of Energy Supply and End Use", Hittman Associates Inc.,
Columbia, MD.
Hoke, R.C., M.S. Nutkis, D.D. Kingler, 1977.
(DOE, 1977).
291
"Pressurized FBC Studies," in
Hoke, Ronald C., "missions from Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Coal
Combustion", Proc of the Int Conf on Fluid-Bed Conbust. 4th, McLean, Va.
'Dec 9-11 1975 Publ by MIRE Corp (M76-36), McLean, Va. 1976 p 559-576.
Hoke, R.C., R.R. Bertrand,
"Pressurized
Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal."
Fluid Combust Conf. Proc. Imp Coll of Sci and Technol. London,Engl.Sep
16-17 1975 Pap D5, 11 p. Publ by Inst of Fuel (Syp Ser n 1. v 1), London,
Engl. 1974.
Hoke, R.C., 1975. "Emissions from Pressurized Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustion", Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J.
Hoke, R.C., M.S. Natkis, L.A. Ruth, "A Regenerative Limestone
Process for Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion
and Desulfurization",
Exxon Monthly Report No. 53 for USEPA, July 1974.
Hoke,
R.C., et al., 1975.
"Combustion
and Desulfurization
of
Coal in a Fluidized Bed of Limestone", Combustion, January.
Hoke,
R.C.,
et al., 1976.
"Studies
of the Pressurized
Fluidized
Coal Combustion Process", EPA 600/7-76-011, September.
R. C. Hoke, Combustion and Desulfurization of Coal in a Fluidized Bed of
Limestone, IEEE-ASME Joint Power Generation Conference, Miami Beach,
September 15-19, 1974, 74-PWR 6.
R. C. Hoke, Combustion and Desulfurization of Coal in a Fluidized Bed of
Limestone, Combustion, January 1975, pp. 6-12.
R. C. Hoke, A Regenerative Limestone Process for Fluidized-Bed Coal Combustion and Desulfurization, Proceedings of Third International Conference
on Fluidized-Bed Combustion (EPA), December 1973.
R. C. Hoke, A Regenerative Limestone Process for Fluidized-Bed Coal Combustion and Desulfurization, National Environmental Research Center,
January 1974, EPA-650/2-74-001.
Horio, M. and C.Y. Wen, 1975. "Analysis of Fluidized Bed
Combustion of Coal with Limestone Injection", in Fluidization
Technology (D.L. Keairns ed.) , McGraw-Hill.
A. G. Horsler, High-Pressure Fluidized Beds, Chemical Engineering Progress,
1969,
Vol.
65, No.
10.
S. Hovmand and others, Chemical Reaction in a Pilot-Scale Fluidized Bed,
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., July 1971, Vol. 49, pp. 149-162.
W. B. Howard, Gas Mixing Patterns in a Fluidized Bed, 60th Annual AIChE
Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
Hoy, H.R. and A.G. Roberts, 1972. "Fluidized Combustion of Coal
at High Pressures", AIChE Symposium Series, 6, pp. 225-230.
Hoy, H.R., A.G. Roberts, 1977. "Further Experiments on the Pilot-scale
Pressurized Combustor at Leatherhead, Scotland," in (DOE, 1977)
292
H. R. Hoy, Fluidized Combustion of Coal at High Pressures, AIChE Symposium
Series,
Vol.
68, No. 126.
H. R. Hoy, Fluidized Combustion under Pressure, BCURA Industrial Laboratories,
Leatherhead, England.
H. R. Hoy, Pilot-Plant Experiments at BCURA, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
H. R. Hoy and A. G. Roberts, Power Generation via Combined Gas/Steam Cycles
and Fluid-Bed Combustion of Coal, Gas Oil Pwr., July-August 1969, Vol. 65,
pp. 173-176.
H. R. Hoy and J. E. Stantan, Fluidised Combustion under Pressure, ACS Div.
Fuel Chem., May 1970, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 59-77.
L. D. Hulett, Trace Element Measurements at the Coal-Fired Allen Steam
Plant - Particle Characterization, Presented at the Coal and the Environment Technical Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, October 22-24, 1974.
T. R. Ingraham, Mechanism of the Absorption of S 2 by Limestone, Chemical
Engineering Progress, June 1971, Vol. 21, No. 6, p. 347.
Institute of Gas Technology, Preparation of a Coal Conversion Systems Technical Data Book, OCR Contract No. 14-32-0001-1730, January 1975, Report No. 3.
Institute of Gas Technology, Preparation of a Coal Conversion Systems
Technical Data Book, ERDA Contract No. E(49-18)-1730, April 1975, Report
No. 6.
Institute of Gas Technology, Preparation of a Coal Conversion Systems
Technical Data Book, ERDA Contract No. E(49-18)-1730, May 1975, Report No.
7.
E. Ishigaki, A Burning Apparatus, U. S. Patent 3,625,165, December 7, 1971.
T. Ishii, Effect of Packing on the Catalytic Isomerization of Cyclopropane
in Fixed and Fluidized Beds, 55th National AIChE Meeting, February 7-11,
1965.
S. S.
Iskhakov,
Carburizing
in a Fluidized
Bed, Mletallovedenie
i
Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, November 1969, UDC 621.785.51.062.5:621.
785:66.096.5.
M. Jackson, Fluidized Beds for Submicron Particle Collection, Fluidization
and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974, Vol. 70.
P. J. Jackson, The Psyco-Chemical Behavior of Alkali Metal Compounds in
Fireside Boiler Deposits, CEGB Conf. Mechanisms of Corrosion by Fuel
Impurities, Butterworth, 1963.
293
R. Jackson, The Mechanics of Fluidised Beds, Part I: The Stability of
the State of Uniform Fluidisation, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. 1963, Vol. 41.
R. Jackson, The Mechanics of Fluidised Beds, Part II: The Motion of Fully
Developed Bubbles, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 1963, Vol. 41.
A. Jacob, Effect of Gas Thermal Conductivity on Local Heat Transfer in a
Fluidized Bed, Canadian Journal of Chemical Enqineering, June 1957.
C. E. Jahnig, Generalized Correlation for Free Fall and Multiparticle
Systems, Annual AIChE Meeting, December 8-11, 1957.
C. E. and H. Shaw, 1976. "Environmental Assessment of an 800 MWe
Jahnig,
Conventional Steam Power Plant," Exxon/GRU. 1 DJAD. 76, Exxon R&E Co.,
Linden, N.J., 54 pp, September.
S. C. Jain, Heat Transfer in a Screen-Packed Fluidized Bed, 69th National
Meeting of AIChE, May 16-19, 1971.
J. C. Janka, Estimation of Coal and Gas Properties for Gasification Design
Calculations, R&D Report No. 22, January 1971, OCR, Contract No. 14-010001-381.
R. L. Jarry, Comparative Emissions of Pollutants during Combustion of
Natural Gas and Coal in Fluidized Beds, Proceedings of Second International
Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
K. M. John, Design of Fluidized Bed Combustors, Chemical Enqineering, 1972,
Vol.
23, No.
1, pp. 33-37.
T. E. Johnson, Evaluation of the Regenerative Pressurized Fluidized-Bed
Combustion Process, February 1974, (PB 232 012).
R. D. Jolly, An Examination of the Net Pressure Drop in Fluidized Beds,
Chemical Engineering Science, March 1973.
D. C. R. Jones, Fluidisation in the Coal Industry, Fluidisation Papers
Joint Symposium, London, 1963.
J. F. Jones, Char Oil Energy Development, Office of Coal Research,
December 1971.
J. F. Jones, Fluidized Bed Pyrolysis of Coal, Chemical Enqineerinq
Progress,
June
1964, Vol.
60, No. 6.
J. F. Jones, Multistage Pyrolysis of Coal, Chemical Enqineerinq Progress,.
February
1966,
Vol.
62, No. 2.
J. F. Jones, Pyrolysis of Agglomerating Coals in Multiple Fluidized-Bed
Reactors, Chemical Processes to International Convetion on Fluidization,
Eindhoven, Holland.
294
J. A. H. de Jong, Homogeneous Gas - Solid.Fluidization,
February/March 1974, Vol. 9, pp. 91-97.
Powder Technology,
A. A. Jonke, Fluidized Bed Combustion:
A Status Report, Coal Processing
Technology, CEP Tech. Manual, 1975, Vol. 2.
A. A. Jonke, Fluidized-Bed
Combustion Related to Air Pollution.
A. A. Jonke, Pollution Control Capabilities of Fluidized-Bed
AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 68, No. 126.
A. A. Jonke, Reducing Pollution from Fossil Fuel Combustion
Control Systems, July 1971.
Combustion,
Instr. and
A. A. Jonke, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, Annual Report, July 1968- June 1969, (ANL/ESCEN-1001).
A. A. Jonke, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, Annual Report, July 1969 - June 1970 (ANL/ESCEN-1002).
A. A. Jonke, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, Argonne National Laboratory, Annual Report,
July 1970 - June 1971.
A. A. Jonke, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, Monthly Progress Reports Nos. 62 (December 1973)
through 68 (June 1974), October 1974.
A. A. Jonke, Work Plan for Continuation of the Project:
of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application
April 1971, p. 38, (ANL/ES-CEN-1003).
Reduction of
of Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
Jonke, A.A., J.C. Montagna, J.F. Lenc, G.J. Vogel, "The Regeneration of
Sulfated Dolomanitefrma a Coal-Fired FBC ((Fluidized Bed Combustion))
Process by Reductive Decomposition of Calcium Sulfate in a Fluidized Bed",
Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev V16 N.2 230-36 (Apr 1977) in English.
Jonke, A.A., W.M. Swift, G.J. Vogel, "Fluidized Bed Combustion: Development
Status." Argonne National Laboratory, Ill., Trans. Soc. Min. Eng. AIME, v
258 n 2 June 1975, p 159-167.
Jonke, A.A. et al., "Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the
Application of Fluidized Bed Combustion", (Annual Report),
Argonne National Lab, Argonne, Ill., 1969.
Jonke, A.A. et al., "Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the
Application of Fluidized Bed Combustion", Argonne National Lab.
Argonne,
Ill. 1970.
Jonke, A.A. et al, "Pollution Control Capabilities of Fluidized
Bed Combustion", AIChE Symposium Series No. 126, Vol. 68,1972 pp.
241-251.
295
J. W. Kaakinen, Trace Element Behavior in Coal-Fired Power Plant, Environmental
Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 9, p. 862, September 1975.
J. Kaspar and M. Rosch, A New Development in the Field of Fluidized Bed
Granulation, Chem. Eng. Tech., 45 (10A), pp. 736-739, 1973.
D. L. Katz, Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes to Provide Clean Fuels,
Part I, EPRI 206 001, February 1974, (PB 234 202).
D. L. Katz, Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes to Provide Clean Fuels,
Part II, EPRI 206 002, February 1974, (PB 234 203).
V. J. Kavlick, High-Pressure Electrothermal Fluid-Bed Gasification of Coal
Char, Fluidization Fundamentals and Application, CEP Symposium Series,
Vol. 66, No. 105.
Keairns, D.L. et al., "Fluidized Bed Combustion Process
Evaluation. Phase II. Pressurized Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion
Development", Westinghouse Research Labs., Pittsburgh, Pa.,
National Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., Sept. 1975.
D. L. Keairns, Design of a Pressurized Fluidized-Bed
AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 68, No. 126.
Boiler Power Plant,
D. L. Keairns, Evaluation of the Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process, Volume I,
Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process Development and Evaluation,
EPA-650/2-73-048a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
D. L. Keairns, Evaluation of the Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process, Volume II,
Fluidized-Bed Boiler Combined-Cycle Power Plant Development, Volume I
Appendices, EPA-650/2-73-048b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1973.
D. L. Keairns, Evaluation of the Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process, Volume III,
Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Boiler Development Plant Design, EPA-650/2-73-048c,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
D. L. Keairns, Evaluation of the Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process, Vol. III
Appendices, Contract CPA 70-9, Westinghouse Research Lab, November 15, 1969 November 15, 1971.
D. L. Keairns, Fluidized-Bed Boilers - Concepts and Comparisons, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
D. L. Keairns, Fluidized-Bed Combustion Utility Power Plants - Effect of
Operating and Design Parameters on Performance and Economics, Proceedings
of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
Keairns, D.L., (ed.), 1976, Fluidization Technology, Volnumes I and II,
McGraw-Hill.
296
Keairns, D.L., D.H. Archer, J.R. Ham, B.W. Lancaster, E.P. O'Neill,
R.A. Newby, C.H. Peterson, C.C. Sun, E.F. Sverdrup, E.J. Vidt, W.C. Yang,
Implications of Desulfurization by Limestone in Pressurized
"Systems
Fluidized Bed Combustion", Proc of the Int Con on Fluid Bed Cornbust. 4th,
McLean, Va. Dec 9-11 1975 Publ by MITRE Corp (m76-36), McLean, Va. 1976 p
493-523.
Keairns, D.L., et al., 1977. "Experimental and Engineering Investigations
for the Development of Fluidized Bed Combustion Processes," in (DOE, 1977).
D. L.
Keairns,
Fluidized-Bed
EPA-650/2-73-048d,
Vol.
Oil Gasification/Desulfurization,
Westinghouse
IV,
1973.
Research Lab, December
J. Keenan and S. Kaye, Gas Tables, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., N.Y., 1948.
E. Kellett, Boiler Systems, U.S. Patent 3,633,521, January 11, 1972.
K. N. Kettenring, Heat and Mass Transfer
Engineering Progress, March 1950.
in Fluidized Systems, Chemical
N. V. Kharchenko, The Rate of Heat Transfer Between a Fluidized Bed and an
Immersed Body at High Temperatures, International Chemical Engineering,
October 1964.
Kiang, K.D., H. Nack, J.H. Oxley, W.T. Reid, "Fluidized Bed Combustion of
Coals" Technol and Use of Lignite, Proc of a Synp. Grand Forks, ND, May
14-15 1975, Publ by DOE, Off of Public
Oak Ridge, Tenn. 1975 p 36-64.
Aff. Tech Inf Cent. (GFERC/IC-75/2),
in Fixed and Fluidized Bed Reactors,
K. J. Kim, Heat and Mass Tansfer
Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1967.
Engineering,
Chemical
International
C. N. Kimberlin, Jr. and others, Production of Coke, U.S. Patent 3,459,655,
August 5, 1969.
Klein, D.H., et al., 1975 "Pathways of 37 Trace Elements Through
Coal-Fired Power Plant", Environmental Science and Technology, 9,
p 973, October.
C. W. J. van Koppen, Fluidbed-Vuurhaarden,
pp. 37-43, March 1965.
DeIngenieur, Vol. 77, No. 13,
V. N. Korolev, Heat Transfer from a Surface to a Fluidized Bed, Heat Transfer,
Soviet Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-August 1971.
V. N. Korolev, The Fluid Mechanics and Structure of the Fluidized Bed in the
Vicinity
of a Plate Submerged in It,
Heat Transfer,
Soviet Research, Vol. 6,
No. 4, July-August 1974.
O. Kubaschewski, Oxidation of Metals and Alloys, Academic
p. 211,
1953.
297
Press, Inc.,
J. Kubie, A Model of Heat Transfer
Transfer, Vol. 18, 1975.
in Gas Fluidized Beds, Int.
J. Heat Mass
D. Kunii, Bubbling Bed Model (Model for the Flow of Gas Through a Fluidized
Bed), I&EC Fundamentals, Vol. 7, August 1968.
Enqineerinq, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969.
D. Kunii, Fluidization
V. P. Kurbatov, Heating in an Electrically Conducting Layer of Carbon-Containing
Particles, Metallouedenie i Teamcheskaya, UDC 621.785:66.096.5, June 1971.
J. Lambiris, Total Incineration Process, U.S. Patent 3,601,070, August 24, 1971.
W. C. Lapple, Generalized Mechanics of Fluid Flow Through Particulate Material,
M.S. thesis, Kansas University, 1957.
L'Ashkov, V.I., Yu. A. Streltsov, V.V. Streltsov, A.I. Derevyakina, "Design
Calculation of a Fluidized-Bed Fixed Packing Reactor Under Countercurrent
Conditions.
III.", IZV Vyssh Uchebn Zaved Khim Khim Tekhnol 1975 v18 N.4
678 Chem Abstr V83-208032 in Russian.
B. S. Lee, E. J. Pyrcioch, and F. C. Schora, Jr., Hydrogasification of Coal
in High-Pressure Fluidized Bed, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Ser., Vol. 66, No. 105,
p. 152,
1970.
B. S. Lee, Kinetics of Particle Growth in a Fluidizer Calciner, 54th Annual
AIChE Meeting, December 2-7, 1961.
R. E. Lee, National Air Surveillance Cascade Impactor Network II, Size
Distribution Measurements of Trace Metal Components, Environmental Science
& Technology, Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 1025, November 1972.
R. E. Lee, Trace Metal Pollution in the Environment, Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Vol. 23, No. 10, p. 853, October 1973.
M. B. Leland, Heat Exchange System, U.S. Patent 2,926,143, February 23,
1960.
S. Lemezis, Coal Gasification for Electric Power Generation, Combustion,
Vol. 45, No. 5, November 1973.
R. Lemlich, Heat Transfer to a Liquid Fluidized Bed, AIChE Journal, Vol. 4,
No. 3, September 1959.
M. Leva, Chemical
Engineering Progress, 43, pp. 549-554, 1947.
M. Leva and Grumer,
Chemical Engineering
Progress, 43, p. 633, 1947.
M. Leva, Fluidization, McGraw Hill, N.Y., N.Y., 1959.
O.
evenspiel, Bed Wall Heat Transfer in Fluidized Systems Heat Transfer,
Symposium
Series,
Vol.
50, No.
9.
298
Levy, E.K., and J.C. Chen, 1977.
Coal," in (DOE, 1977).
"Centrifugal Fluidized Combustion of
Levy, E.K., C. Dodge, J. Chen, "Parametric Analysis of a Centrifugal
Fluidized Bed Coal Cbustor."
ASME Pap n 76-HT-68 for Meet Aug 9-11 1976.
9 p,
W. K. Lewis, Entrainment from Fluidized Beds, 54th Annual AIChE Meeting,
December 2-7, 1961.
W. K. Lewis,
IEC, 41,
. 1104, 1949.
S. U. Li and others, Upflow Three-Phase Fluidized Bed Coal Liquefaction
Reactor System, U.S. Patent 3,644,192, February 22, 1972.
P. B. Liao, Fluidized-Bed Sludge Incinerator Design, Incinerator Design,
Vol. 46, No. 8, August 1974.
C. J. Lim, Residence Time Distribution of Gas in Spouted Bds,
Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 52, April 1974.
The Canadian
J. M. Limerick, Copeland System for Burning Bark, Debris, and Sludge Starts
Up at Great Lakes, Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada, Vol. 73, No. 1,
January 1972.
T. Linden, Inst. Mech. Engrs., 160, p. 235, 1949.
H. Littman and A. P. Stone, Gas-Particle Heat Transfer Coefficients in
Fluidized Beds by Frequency Response Techniques, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp.
Ser.,
Vol.
62, No.
62, pp. 47-55,
1966.
B. Locke, Fluidized Combustion for Advanced Power Generation with Minimal
Atmospheric Pollution, J. Inst. Fuel, 47 (392), pp. 117-147, 1974.
H. B. Locke, Combustion of Residual Fuel Oils in Fluidized Beds, Proceedings
of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
Locke, Brian, Howard Lunn, 1977, "Advances in Pollution-Free Heat and Power
Generation Made Possible by Developments in Fluidized Combustion
Technology", Cmbust. Syst. LTD., London.
Locke, H.B., H.G. Lunn, 1977, "Fluidized Combustion Power Cycles with
Environmentally Acceptable Stack Gases", Int. Congr. Chem. Eng., Chem.
Equip. Des. Autom., (Proc.), 5th S-J, SJ4.20. 7 pp.
Locke, Brian, Howard Lunn, "Advances in Pollution-Free Heat and Power
Generation Made Possible by Developments in Fluidized Ccnbustion
Technology", D. chema Momogr v 80 n 1616-1638 1976 p 77-104.
Locke, H.B., H.G. Lunn, H.R. Hoy, A.G. Roberts, "Fluidized Combustion in
Great Britain - - Environmentally Clean Steam and Power Generation from
Coal, Heavy Oil and Dirty Fuels", Proc of the Int Conf on Fluid-Bed
Combust. 4th, McLean, VA, Dec 9-11 1975 Publ by MITRE Corp (M76-36),
McLean, VA, 1976 p 69-91.
299
Luis5 , j.F. and S.E. Tg,
1977. "Modeling of Fluidized Bed Combustion of
,a, T Energy Laboratory, DOE, May.
Coal,
- ----
Lowell, P.S. and T.B. Parsons, 1975. "Identification of
Regenerable Metal Oxide SO Sorbents for Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustion", EPA/650/2-75/i65, Washington, D.C.
R. C. Mallatt and others, Tertiary Treatment and Fluidized Bed Incineration
at American Oil Company, Procl. Div. Refining, Amer. Petrol. Inst., 50,
pp. 651-669, 1970.
R. S. Mann, Gas-Solid Heat Transfer in Fluidized Beds, I&EC Process Design
& Development, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1968.
I. G. Martyushin, Fluidized Bed Apparatus Divided into Sections by Grid
Trays, 1974, (N75-14779).
K. B. Mathur, Developments in Spouted Bed Technology, The Canadian Journal
of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 52, April 1971.
C. W. Matthews, A Design Basis for Utility Gas from Coal, Proceedings of
Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1973.
C. W. Maude, Practical Approaches
The Chemical Engineer, May 1975.
to Power Generation from Low Grade Fuels,
C. R. McCann, N
Emissions from Two-Stage Combustion of Pulverized Coal,
65th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, June 18-22, 1972.
E. A. McCracken, Mathematical Solutions to Fluid Bed Models, 60th Annual
AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
W. A. McCurdy, Pressurized Bluidized Bed Combustion, National Research
Development Corp., London, England, ctober 1974, (PB 236 498).
L. McLain, Can Shallow Fluidized Beds Offer Savings in Waste Heat Recovery
and Drying?
Process Engineering, Heat Transfer Survey, pp. 30-32, 1973.
J. McLaren, Combustion Efficiency, Sulphur Retention, and Heat Transfer in
Pilot Plant Fluidized-Bed Combustors, Combustion, Vol. 41, No. 11, May 1970.
J. McLaren and D. F. Williams, Combustion Efficiency, Sulphur Retention
and Heat Transfer in Pilot-Plant Fluidized-Bed Combustors, J. Inst. Fuel,
Vol. 42, No. 343, pp. 303-308, August 1969.
J. McLaren, Fluidized Bed Combustion,
1968.
Energy Int.,
5 (3), pp. 12-13, March
J. McLaren and D. F. Williams, Process and Apparatus or the Combustion of
Carbonaceous Material, U.S. Patent 3,540,387, November 17, 1970.
J. cLaren and W. Harris, Solid Fuel Combustion Apparatus,
3,636,896, May 12, 1970.
300
U.S. Patent
J. F. McMahon, Fluidized Bed Hydrogenation
Engineering Progress, December 1972.
Process for SNG, Chemical
J. Medlin, Fluid Mechanical Description of Fluidized Beds, Convective
Instabilities in Bounded Beds, Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 13, No. 3,
1974.
I
D. Merrick, Particle Size Reduction and Elutriation in a Fluidized-Bed
Process, AIChE Symposium, Control of Particulate Emissions from Gaseous
Fluidized Beds, November 1972.
D. Merrick, Particle Size Reduction and Elutriation in a Fluidized-Bed
Process, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, Vol. 70, 1974, AIChE
Symposium Series.
J. E. Mesko, Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Steam Generators for Electric Power
Generation, 36th Meeting American Power Conference, 1974.
J. E. Mesko, Multicell Fluidized-Bed Boiler Design, Construction,
Program, OCR 90 INTI, August 1974, (PB 236 254).
and Test
Mesko, J.E., "Fluidized Combustion Energy Conversion Techniques for High
Sulfur-Low Grade Fuels",
National
Meeting,
Mesko, J.E.,
Presented at the American Chemical Society 172nd
San Francisco,August 29-September
3, 1976.
"Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Steam Generators for
Electric Power Generation", American Power Conference, 1974.
Metals Handbook, Vol. 1, Properties and Selection of Metals, 8th Ed., Am.
Soc.Metals, Metals Park, Ohio.
H. S. Mickley, Heat Transfer Characteristics
No. 6, June 1949.
of Fluidized
Beds, IEC, Vol. 41,
H. S. Mickley, Mechanism of Heat Transfer to Fluidized Beds, AIChE Journal,
Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1953.
T. Mii and others, Temperature Effects on the Characteristics of Fluidized
Beds, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 6 (1), pp. 100-102,
February 1973.
C. . Miller, Fluidization Studies of Solid Particles,
May 1951.
IEC, Vol. 43, No. 5,
Minutes of Second Information Exchange Meeting, NCB/NAPCA,
London, April 20, 1970.
Hobart House,
S. N. Mironov,
of Pulverized
Experimental Investigation of the Cmbustion
Anthracite, Teploenergetika, January 1965.
MIT Energy Laboratory,
1977, "Fluidized
Bed Combustor Model and Computer
System Development," Docunentary Notebook, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
MITRE Corp., 1977, "Background Information on the RD &D Programs for the
Development of Fluidized Bed Combustion Systems," M77-31, Prepared by
MITRE, METREK Division.
MITRE Corp., 1976, "Proceedings of the Workshop on Utility Industrial
Implementation of Fluidized Bed Combustion Systems," Sponsored by DOE,
Coordinated by MITRE/MEIREK Division, Conf. 760490, M76-62, October.
The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion, sponsored by the U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, the MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia, May 1976.
MITRE Corp., 1975, "The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Fluidized Bed Combustion," DOE/MITRE, December 9-11.
Mitre
Corporation,
Program, Vol
National Fluidized Bed Combustion
State-of-the-Art Report, prepared
III,
for OCR-ERDA, March 1975.
Mitre Corporation, National Fluidized Bed Combustion Program, Vol. V,
Bibliography, prepared for OCR-ERDA, March 1975.
S. Mori, Heat Transfer Coefficient Between Solid Particles and Gas in
Fluidized Bed, Heat Transfer - Jap. Res., July-September 1973.
S. Mori, Heat Transfer During Bubble Formation in Gaseous Fluidized
Beds, Heat TransferJap. Res., Vol. 2, October-December 1973.
S. Mori, High Pressure Fluidization and the Momentum Relations, PhD, Chemical
Engineering, University of Utah, 1973.
J. B. Morris, Combustion
May 1966.
Behavior of Small Particles,
Ind. & Eng. Chem.,
G. Moss, The Design, Construction, and Operation of the Abingdon FluidizedBed Gasifier, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
G. Moss, The Fluidized-Bed Desulfurizing
Vol.
68, No.
Gasifier, AIChE Symposium Series,
126.
G. Moss, The Fluidized-Bed Desulfurizing Gasifier, Proceedings of Second
International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
G. Moss, Sulphur Removal During Fluidized Bed Combustion, Chemical Engineering,
23
(1), pp.
24-29,
Spring
1972.
D. R. Muirhead and others, Incinerators, U.S. Patent 3,577,938, May 11, 1971.
D. R. Muirhead,
Incinerators, U.S. Patent 3,577,939, May 11, 1971.
J. D. Murray, Mathematical Aspects of Bubble Motion
55th National AIChE Meeting, February 7-11, 1965.
302
in Fluidized Beds,
J. D. Murray, On the Mathematics of Fluidization, Part 1, Fundamental
Equations and Wave Propogation, Journal of Fluid Mech., Vol. 21, 1965.
J. D. Murray, On the Mathematics of Fluidization, Part 2, Steady Motion
of Fully Developed Bubbles, Journal of Fluid Mech., Vol. 22, 1966.
·
K. S..Murthi, Reaction of Sulfur Dioxide with Calcined Limestones and
Dolomites, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 9, pp. 776-781,
September 1971.
Murthy, K.S. and H. Nack, 1977. "Progress in EPA's Fluidized Bed
Combustion Environmental Assessment and Control Technology Development
Program," in (DOE, 1977).
H. Nack, Fluidized Bed Combustion Review, International Conference on
Fluidization, Asilomar, California, June 1975.
Nack, H., A.E. Weller, K.T. Liu, 1977. "Battelles' Multisolid Fluidized
Bed Combustion (MS-FBC) Process," in (DOE, 1977).
Nack, H. et al., 1975, "Fluidized Bed Combustion Review," Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, June.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Comparative Evaluation of Phase I fram the Energy Conversion Alternatives
Study (ECAS) Funding Org.- DOE and NSF, February, 1976, Report No. - NASA
TM X-71855.
National Coal Board, 1971.
Vols. 1,II,11I to EPA-OAP.
"Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution",
National Research Development Corporation, Pressurized Fluidized Bed
Combustion, R&D Report No. 85, Interim No. 1, OCR - Contract No. 14-32-0001-1511.
National Research Development Corp., 1973. "Final Report to
OCR", US D.I, Contract 14-32-0001-1511, November.
Preferential Concentration
D. F. S. Natusch, Toxic Trace Elements:
Respirable Particles, Science,.Vol. 183, p. 202, January 1974.
in
A. Nazemi, Dilute Phase Hold-up in a Large Gas Fluidized Bed, Fluidization
and Fluid-Particle Systems, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 70, 1974.
J. Nelson, Mineral Constituents in Coal, C.E.G.B. Conf. Mechanism
Corrosion by Fuel Impurities, Butterworth, 1963.
.P. A. Nelson, Particle to Fluid Heat and Man Transfer
Fine Particles, Chem. Engr. Sci., Vol. 30, 1975.
in Dense Systems of
/
W. Nelson, J. Engr. for Power, 82, p. 194, 1960.
New Boilers May Keep Coal Competitive, C&EN, January
303
of
11, 1971.
R. A. Newby and others, Assessment of Fluidized Bed Oil Gasification for
Power Generation, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. 23 (1),
pp. 23-29, January 1973.
R. A. Newby, Fluidized-Bed Oil Gasification for Clean Power Generation Atmospheric and Pressurized Operation, Proceedings of Third International
Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, December 1973.
W. J. Nicholson, Solids Blending in a Fluidized Bed, 55th Annual AIChE
Meeting, February 7-11, 1965.
Nielson, K.L., R.J. Robertus, C.T. Crowe, D.T. Pratt, "An Attempt ot Reduce
NOx Eissions from Pulverized Coal Furnances", Environ Sci Technol V9 N.9
859-62 (Sept 1975).
P. Novotny, Fluid-Bed Combustion of High-Ash Coals, Tech.
1968.
Dig. (Prague),
P. Novotny, Fluid-Bed Combustion of High-Ash Fuels, Sntl. Tech. Digest,
2 (12),
pp. 12-15,
1968.
M. S. Nutkis, Design of Fluidized-Bed Miniplant, Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1973.
Nutkis, Melvyn S., 1977, "Pressurized Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion",
Fluid. Technol., Proc. Int. Fluid. Conf. 2, 329-37.
Nutkis, Melvyn S., "Operation and Performance of the Pressurized FBC
Proc of the Int Conf on Fluid-Bed Combust. 4th, McLean, Va. Dec
Miniplant"!',
9-11 1975 Publ by MITRECorp (M76-36), McLean, Va. 1976 p 221-238.
E. P. O'Neill, Kinetic Studies Related to the Use of Limestone and Dolomite
as Sulfur Removal Agents in Fuel Processing, Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1973.
A. A. Orning and C. R. McCann, A Study of Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal,
Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, February 1968.
Osborne, J.M., and L. Bulger, Overview Assessment of Pressurized
Fluidized-Bed Technology, PePort SL-3268, prepared by Sargent & Lundy for
Lab., June 1976.
Argonne National
D. F. Othmer, Fluidization,
Reinhold Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1956.
J. I. Paige, Sorption of S02 and Regeneration of Alkalized Alumina in
Eluidized-Bed Reactors, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 7414,
August 1970.
304
Parks, Donald J., Edward A. Fletcher, "Formation and Emission of Nitric
Oxide in Fluidized Bed Combustion." Environmental Sci. Technol. V 9 n 8,
Aug. 1975, p 749-756.
D. J. Parks, Formation of Nitric Oxide in Fluidized Bed Combustion,
Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1973.
PhD,
T. Parsons, Applicability of Metal Oxides to the Development of New
Processes for Removing S02 from Flue Gases, Vol. I, July 1969, (PB 185 562).
T. Parsons, Applicability
Processes for Removing S
of Metal Oxides to the Development of New
2 from Flue Gases, Vol. II, July 1969 (PB 185 563).
B. A. Partridge, Chemical Reaction in a Bubbling Gas-Fluidized
Trans. Instr. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 44, pp. T335-358, 1966.
G. K. Patterson, Drag Reduction Correlations,
Bed,
AIChE Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3,
May 1970.
R. . A. Paul, Stability of Coupled Fluid Beds, Brit. Chem. Engr., Vol. 13,
No. 5, May 1968.
N. . Peet, The Rapid Carbonization
1969.
of High Organic Sulphur, Fuel, Vol. 48
M. Pell, Desulfurization of Fuels with Calcined Dolomite - II, Reaction
of CaO with H2 S, Sulfur and SO2 Developments, a CEP Technical
anual,
pp. 151-157.
M. Pell, Reaction of Hydrogen Sulfide with Fully Calcined Dolomite, PhD
thesis, City University of New York, 1971.
Pereira, F.J. and J.M. Beer, 1975. "NO Formation fromn Coal Combustion in a
Small Experimental Fuidized Bed," 2nd European Symposium on Combustion,
Orleans, France, August.
Pereira, F.J., J.M. Beer, B. Gibbs, and A.B. Hedley, 1974. "NO Emissions
From Fluidized Bed Coal Combustors," 15th International Symposium on
Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 1149-1156.
·
,~~~X
J. C. Petrie, Heat Transfer from Horizontal Tube Bundles to Air-Fluidized
Beds, 60th Annual AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
J. C. Petrie, In-Bed Heat Exchangers, Chemical Engineering Progress, July
1968.
L. J. Petrovic, Effectiveness Factors for Heat Transfer in Fluidized Beds,
The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Volume 46, April 1968,
J. R. Pfafflin, Heat and Mass Transfer in Fluidized Beds, Fluidization
Fluid-Particle Systems, Vol. 70, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974.
J. R. Pfafflin and others, Unsteady State Thermal Responses
Beds, Journal of the Institute of Fuel, September 1973.
305
and
of Fluidized
J. P. Piney, Fluidized Bed Fly Ash Filter, Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Vol. 18, No. 10, pp. 684-685, October 1968.
A. L. Plumley, Removal of S 2 and Dust from Stack Gases, presented at the
American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 25, 1967.
E. M. Poole, Fluid Bed Boilers, Literature Search 72-47.
E. M. Poole, Sand Wear Rates, Literature Search 75-12, March 24, 1975.
Pope, M., "Pilot and Research Plants: A Progress Report", Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Cmbustion, The MITRE
Corp., McLean, Virginia, 1976, pp. 123-132.
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed
Boilers,
Monthly Progress Reports Nos. 1 (April 1965) through 15 (June 1966),
October 1974, (PB 236 544).
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed Boilers,
Monthly Progress Reports Nos. 16 (July 1966) through 31 (September 1967),
October 1974 (PB 236 542).
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed Boilers,
Monthly Progress Reports Nos. 32 (October 1967) through 44 (October 1968),
October 1974, (PB 235 898).
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed Boilers,
Monthly Progress Reports Nos. 45 (November 1968) through 54 (August 1969),
October 1974, (PB 235 899).
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Development of Coal Fired Fluidized-Bed Boilers,
Monthly Progress Reports Nos. 55 (May 1971) through 64 (February 1972),
October 1974, (PB 236 541).
Pope, Evans, and Rob'bi-s, "Multicell Fluidized Bed Boiler Design,
Construction and Test Program", OCR R and D Report No. 10,
Interim Report No.
for Oct. 1972 - June 1974, PB 236-245.
Pope, Evans, Robbins, 1975. "Muticell Fluidized Bed Boiler,
Design, Construction and Test Program, PER Report.
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Interim Report No.
on Multicell FluidizedBed Boiler Design, Construction, and Testing Program, OCR Contract No.
14-32-0001-1237, August 1974.
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Multicell Fluidized-Bed Boiler, Monthly Progress
Reports Nos. 1 (October 1972) through 9 (June 1973), (PB 235 844).
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Multicell Fluidized-Bed Boiler, Monthly Progress
Reports Nos. 10 (July 1973) through 14 (November 1973), (PB 235 845).
Pope; Evans, and Robbins, Multicell Fluidized-Bed Boiler, Monthly Progress
Reports Nos. 15 (December 1973) through 18 (March 1974), (PB 235 846).
306
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Multicell Fluidized-Bed Boiler, Monthly Progress
Reports Nos. 19 (April 1974) through 21 (June 1974), October 1974,
(PB 235 847).
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Optimization of Limestone Utilization
and Sulfur
Capture in a Single Combustion Zone Fluidized-Bed Boiler, OCRR&DReport
No. 88, Final,
March 20, 1974.
Pope, Evans, and Robbins, Package of Information Providing Synopsis per
Fluidized-Bed Boiler Development,
M. Pope,
Progress
in Fluidized-Bed
June
1971.
Boilers,
Power Engineering, May 1970.
A. E. Potter, Sulfur Oxide Capacity of Limestones, Ceramic Rulletin,
Vol.
48,
No. 9, p. 855, 1969.
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion,
prepared for OCR.
NRDC R&D Report No. 85 (Interim No. 1),
Preston, E., et al., 1977, "Environmental Assessment of a 30-MWe
Multi-Cell
Fluidized Bed (MFB)Boiler," at the MonongahelaPower Plant in Rivesville,
West
Virginia, the MITRE Corp/MErREK Division,
(E(49-18)-1779).
R. J. Priestley, Where Fluidized Solids Stand Today, Chemical
July 9, 1962.
Engineering,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
T. A. Pumpyanskaya, Tempering of Carburized Steel in a Fluidized Bed,
Transl1ated from Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov,
UDC 66.096.5:669-155.2, January 1973.
E. Raask, Tube Erosion by Ash Impaction, Wear, Vol. 13, No, 4/5, April/May
1969.
M. I. Rabinovich, Heat Transfer from a Horizontal Tube to a Spouting Bed
in a Tapered Cylindrical Vessel, Heat Transfer - Soviet Research, Vol. 5,
No. 5. September-October 1973.
J. Raghuraman, A Stochastic Model for Residence Time and Contact, Time
Distributions of the Gas in Multistage Fluidized Beds, Chemical Engineering
Science, Vol. 29, pp. 697-703, 1974.
J. Raghuraman, An Experimental Investigation of the Residence Time
Distribution of Solids in Multistage Fluidization, Chemical Engineering
Science, Vol. 30, pp. 145-150, 1975.
J. Raghuraman, Residence Time Distribution of Solids in Multistage
Fluidized Beds, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, January
1973.
K. A. Rahn, Diurnal Variations-of Aerosol Trace Element Concentrations as
Determined by Non-Destructive Neutron Activation Analysis, Atmos. Environ.,
Vol.
5, p. 413,
1971.
307
D. W. Rahoi, Controlling Fuel-Ash Corrosion with Nickel Alloys, Metals
Engineering Quarterly, February 1974.
K. S. Raju and others, Heat Transfer in Externally Heated and Internally
Cooled Fluidized Beds, Indian J. Technology, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 237-240,
August 1967.
K. S. Rao, Fluidized Bed Low-Temperature Carbonization
Chem. Prod. Res. Develop., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1972.
of Coal, Ind. Eng.
Rao, C.S.R., 1975. "Safety Aspects of Fluidized Bed Combustion
Systems", Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on .
Fluidized Bed Combustion, MITRE Corp.
V. R. Rao and V. F. Stepanchuk, Combustion of Gaseous Fuels in Fluidized
Beds, Indian J. Technology, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 245-248, August 1967.
R. Rasch, Lecture at the 4th International Congress of the IAM in Barel,
abstracted from "Solid Waste Management of Plastics," DeBell and Richardson.
Reaction Kinetics and Transfer Processes, AIChe Symposium Series, Vol. 48,
1952.
Recent Soviet Research on Fluidization - Part 1, British Chemical Engineering,
Vol.
9, No. 7,
pp. 461-463,
July
1964.
Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution, National Coal Board Report, Vol. I Main Report, September 1971.
Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution, National Coal Board Report, Appendices:
Vol.
2 of 3, September
1971.
Reduction of Atmospheric
Vol.
3 of 3, September
Reed, R.R., 1977.
Pollution, National Coal Board Report, Appendices:
1971.
"Mutiple Feed Pint CBC Test Program," in (DOE, 1977).
Reh. L., "Possibilities of
nEmploying
Fluidized Bed Combustion in Power
Plant peration." VGB Kraftwerkstech v 56 n 8 AUg 1976 p 509-518.
L. Reh, Combustion of Oil or Gas in Fluidized Beds, Proceedings of Second
International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
L. Reh, Fluidized Bed Processing, Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 67,
No. 21,
February
1971.
W. T. Reid, Basic Factors in the Capture of Sulfur Dioxide by Limestone
and Dolomite, Journal of Engineering for Power, January 1970.
Removal of Fly Ash by Fluidized Bed Techniques, Final Report, North Star
Research Institute, Contract 14-69-0070-375, March 8, 1968.
H. Reuter, On the Nature of Bubbles in Gas and Liquid Fluidized Beds, 55th
National AIChE Meeting, February 7-11, 1965.
308
R. L. Rice, Combustion of Coals in Fluidized Beds of Limestone, Proceedings
of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
R. L. Rice, Fluid Bed Combustion:
Power Engineering, December 1971.
Suitability
t
of Coals and Bed Materials,
Rice, R.L. and N.H. Coates, "Fluid Bed Combustion: Suitability of
Coals and Bed Materials", Power Engineering, Vol. 75, No.12,
December 1971, pp. 36-38
J. F. Richardson, Heat Transfer Between Particles and a Gas in a Fluidized
Bed, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 37, 1959.
J. F. Richardson, Sedimentation and Fluidization, Part II - Heat Transfer
from a Tube Wall to a Liquid-Fluidized System, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs.,
Vol. 36, 1958.
H. Ritzmann, The Influence of the Scale Up on the Local Rheological
Properties of Gas Fluidized Beds, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 29,
February 1974.
A. G. Roberts, Fluidized Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Coal Processing Tech.,
CEP Tech. Manual, Vol. 2, 1975.
A. G. Roberts, The Combustion of Coal in Fluidized Beds Under Pressure,
BCUEA Gaz., No. 65, pp. 17-19, 1968.
Roberts, A.G., et al., "Fluidized Cnbustion Power Cycles with
Environmentally Acceptable Stack Gases", presented in a panel discussion on
Clean Energy from Coal, Part IV Clean Burning of Coal, AIChE 67th Annual
Meeting, Washington, D.C., December 1-5, 1974.
Robison, E.B., et al.,
1970, "Characterization and Control of Gaseous
Eissions from Coal-fired Fluidized Bed Boilers," Pope, Evans and Robbins,
October (PB 198 413).
Robinson,
E.B.,
et al., "Charactecization
and Control
of Gaseous
Emissions from Coal-Fired Fluidized Bed Boilers", Pope, Evans and
Robbins, Alexandria, Va., Oct. 1970.
E. B. Robison, Characterization and Control of Gaseous Emissions from CoalFired Fluidized-Bed Boilers, October 1970, (PB 198 413).
E. B. Robison, Study of Characterization and Control of Air Pollutants
from a Fluidized-Bed Combustion Unit, The Carbon-Burnup Cell, February
1972, (PB 210 828).
F. L. Robson, Fuel Gasification and Advanced Power Cycles - A Route to
Clean Power, Proceedings of Third International Conference on FluidizedBed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
Roger, L.L., "Reaction Products of Coal-Ash and Limestone from Fluidized
Bed Combustors" J Inst Fuel v 50 n 402 Mar 1977 p 14-18.
309
T. K. Ross, Distribution of Sulfur in Corrosion Products Formed by Sulfur
Dioxide on Mild Steel, Corrosion Science, Vol. 5, 1965.
J. Rossoff, Disposal of By-Products from Non-Regenerable Flue Gas
Desulfurization Systems:
Initial Report, May 1974, (PB 237 114).
G. F. Round, Thermal Separation of Coal-Oil Suspensions in a Fluidized Bed,
The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, February 1966.
P. N. Rowe, The Mechanisms of Solids Mixing in Fluidized Beds, Trans. Instn.
Chem. Engrs., Vol. 43, 1965.
P. N. Rowe, Variation in Shape with Size of Bubbles in Fluidized Beds,
Chemical Engineering Science, March 1973.
Ruch, R.R., J.J. Gluskoter, and N.F. Shimp, 1974, "Distribution of Trace
Elements in Coal," EPA-650/2-74-118, pp 49-54, May.
L. A. Ruth, Desulfurization of Fuels with Half-Calcined Dolomite:
First
Kinetic Data, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 1009,
November 1972.
L. A. Ruth, Reaction of Hydrogen Sulfide with Half-Calcined Dolomite, PhD
thesis, City University of New York, 1972.
Ruth, L.A., "Regeneration of CaSO
Conf.
on Fluidized
in FBC, Fourth International
Bed Combustion, McLean, Va., Dec. 1975, pp.
425-438.
Ryabchikov, S. Ya., B.K. nerik, "Investigation of Dust Collection Systems
in Fluid Bed Vessels."
Chem. Technol.
Fuels
Oils v 11 n 1-2, Jan-Feb 1975,
pp 118-121.
R. K. Saksena and C. R. Mitra, Minimum Fluidizing Velocity for Homogeneous
Systems and Mixtures, Indian Chemical Engineering, 14 (3), pp. 35-37,
July-September 1972.
M. R. Schmid and others, The Fluidized-Bed Pyrolysis of Western Bituminous
Coals, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Ser., Vol. 64, No. 85, pp. 26-30, 1968.
H. W. Schmidt, Combustion in a Circulating Fluid Bed, Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1973.
K. A. Schowalter and E. F. Petras, Clean-Char Process, Am. Chem. Soc. Div.
Fuel Chem. Prepr., Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 1-17, April 1974.
F. G Schultz, Hot Sulfur Removal from Producer Gas, Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1973.
K. Schwitzgebei, Thermodynamic Basis for Existing Experimental Data in
Mg-S02-02 and Ca-S0 2 -02 Systems, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 7,
No. 13, p. 1147, December 1973.
310
R. V. Seibel, Design of Atmospheric Fluidized-Bed Combustion Steam enerator,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
G. D. Sergeant, Relative Roles of Chemical and Mass Transfer Rate Control
in Fluidized-Bed Combustion of Coal Chars, Fuel, Vol. 52, 1973.
R. G. Seth, Water Heater Having Fluidized Bed Combustion and Heat Exchange
Region, U.S. Patent 3,645,237, June 10, 1970.
N. A. Shakhova, The Problem of Interphase Heat Transfer in a Fluidized Bed,
International Chemical Engineering, July 1974.
Shang, J.Y. and R.A. Chronowski, 1975. "Comparison of AFBC and
PFBC", Proc. of 4th International Conference on Fluidized Bed
Combustion, Mitre Corp., McLean, VA., December.
Shaw,
H., 1977 see
(Shaw, Cain,
1977).
Shaw, H. and W.C. Cain, 1977. "Environmental Considerations in
Advanced Energy Conversion Technology Assessments", Proceedings
12th IECEC, Washington, D.C., August.
I. D. Shaw, T. W. Hoffman, and P. M. Reilly, Experimental Evaluation of
Two-Phase Models Describing Catalytic Fluidized-Bed Reactors, Fluidization
and Fluid-Particle Systems, Vol. 70, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974.
Shaw, J.T., 1977, "Reduction of Air Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Under Pressure with Special Reference to Emissions
of Nitric Oxides (NOx)", Control Gaseous Sulphur Nitrogen Compd. Eniss.,
Pap. Int. Conf., 2nd 2. V. 30 p. 76.
Shaw, J.T. and A.C. Thomas, "Oxides of Nitrogen in Relation to
the Combustion of Coal", The Seventh International Conference on
Coal Science, Prague, June 1968.
R. Shinnar, Complex Mixing Models for Chemical Reaction Systems, City
College Research Foundation, N.Y., December 1971, (AD 734 762).
L. L. Shrier, Corrosion, Vol. 1, Section 9, Wiley & Sons, N.Y., N.Y., 1963.
F. G. Shultz, Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide from Simulated Producer Gas at
Elevated Temperatures and Pressures, Proceedings of Second International
Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
W. L. Silence, Sliding Wear in Coal Gasification, Workshop on Material
Problems: Research Opportunities in Coal Conversion, Ohio State University,
April 16-18, 1974.
L. 0. Sillen, Solid Gas Equilibria of Importance in Burning Concentrated
Calcium or Magnesium Sulfite Waste Liquor, Svenskpapperstidning Engr., 55,
September 4, 1952.
311
R. B. Sims, Fluidization Technology for Improved Handling, Transport and
Treatment of Coal, World Power Conference, Tokyo Sectional Meeting, October
16-20, 1966.
W. Sisson, Calculate Heat Energy Absorbed by Boiler Fluid, Power Engineering,
p. 33, February
1971.
M. Sittig, Fluidized Solids, Chemical Engineering,
pp. 219-231, May 1953.
E. Skinner, Materials of Construction, Chemical Engineering, p. 137, December
15, 1958.
A. Skopp, Fluid Bed Studies of the Limestone Based Flue Gas Desulfurization
Process, August 27, 1969, (PB 189 495).
A. Skopp, Studies of the Fluidized Lime-Bed Coal Combustion Desulfurization.
System, Esso R&E Final Report, Prepared under Contract CPA 70-19 for EPA-CSD,
January 1 - December 31, 1971, (PB 210 246).
Skopp, A., J.T. Sears and R.R. Bertrand, "Fluid Bed Studies of
the Limestone Based Flue Gas Desulfurization Process", Esso
Research
and Engineering
Co., PB 189 495, 1969.
Skopp, A., et al., "Studies of the Fluidized Lime Bed Coal
Combustion Desulfurization System . Part 1 Design of the High
Pressure Fluidized Bed Combustion Lime Regeneration Pilot Unit The FBCR Miniplant. Part 2 Factors Affecting NOx Formation and
Control in Fluidized Bed Combustion", Esso Research and
Engineering Co., Linden, N.J. December 1971.
C. E. Smeltzer, Mechanisms of Metal Removal by Impacting Dust Particles,
J. Basic Engineering, Trans.,ASME, September 1970.
J. R. Smith and others, Pressure Fluid Bed Boiler Power Plant Operation
and Control, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, September 15-19,
1974.
R. S. Smith and others, Fluid Bed Reactor Material Combustion Apparatus,
U.S. patent 3,596,614, August 3, 1971.
T. W. Smoot, Monolithic Refractories
Engineering, August 16, 1965.
for Process Equipment, Chemical
Snyder, R.B. et al., W.I. Wilson, G.J. Vogel, A.A. Jonke, "Synthetic
Additives for SO//2 Removal from Combustion Gas in a Fluidized Bed Coal
Combustor."
Energy and Environ. 3rd Natl Conf. Proc. Hueston Woods State
Park Ohio, Sep 29-Oct 1 1975 p 262-266. Publ by AIChE. Dayton and Ohio
Valley Sect. New York, NY, 1975.
M. L. Spector, Combustion of High-Sulfur Coal in a Fluidized Bed Reactor,
U.S. patent 3,625,164, December 7, 1971.
M.,.L. Spector, Combustion of High-Sulfur Coal with Minimal Ecological
Trauma, U.S. patent 3,599,610, August 17, 1971.
312
T. S. Sprague, Heat Transfer Apparatus,
U.S. patent 2,973,251,
February 28,
1961.
A. M. Squires, City College Studies of the Coalplex, May 1973, (PB 229 101).
A. M. Squires, Clean Power from Coal, Science, Vol. 169, No. 1948, August 28,
1970.
A. M. Squires, Clean Power Systems Using Fluidized-Bed Combustion, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
A. M. Squires, Coal:
1974.
A Past and Future King, Ambio, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-14,
A. M. Squires, Desulfurization of Fuels with Calcined Dolomite - I, Introduction
and First Kinetic Results, CEP Symposium Series, Vol. 67, No. 115, pp. 23-34,
1971.
A. M. Squires, Panel Bed Filters for Simultaneous Removal of Fly Ash and
Sulfur Dioxide - III, Reaction of Sulfur Dioxide with Half-Calcined
Dolomite, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 21, No. 5,
*p. 272, May 1971.
A. M. Squires, Process for Gasifying Granulated
patent 3,840,353, October 8, 1974.
A. M. Squires, Pulverized-Fuel
Fuel
Chem.,
Vol.
Combustion
14, No. 2, pp. 1-12,
May
Carbonaceous
Fuel, U.S.
in Trouble, Am. Chem. Soc. Div.
1970.
A. M. Squires, Role of Solid Mixing in Fluidized-Bed
AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 65, No. 128.
Reaction Kinetics,
Stairmand, C.J., 1956. "Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning
Equipment," Journal of the Institute of Fuel, February.
F. M. Stephens, Improvements in and Relating to Combustion of Carbonaceous
Solids and Liquids in Particulate Form in Fluidized Beds, British patent
1,066,340, April 26, 1967.
J. T. Stewart, Fluidized-Bed Coal Gasification - Process and Equipment
Development, Proceedings of Third Internation Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
D. C. Strimbeck, Process Environment Effects on Heat Pipes for Fluid-Bed
Gasification of Coal, 1974, (LA-UR-74-984).
Strom, S.S., et al., 1976. "Preliminary Evaluation of Atmospheric Pressure
Fluidized Bed Combustion Applied to Electric Utility Large Steam
Generators," EPRI pp 412-1, February.
313
Strom, S.S., et al., 1976, "Summary Evaluation of Atmospheric Pressure
Fluidized Bed Ccmbustion Applied to Electric Utility Large Steam
Generators," Babcock & Wilcox Company, EPRI FP-308, Project 412-1, Vols. I
and II, October 1976.
R. T. Struck, Small Continuous Unit for Fluidized Coal Carbonization,
Ind. and Eng. Chem., Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1967.
R. D. Sudduth, Process and Apparatus for the Fluidized Calcining of Coke,
U.S. patent 3,607,062, September 21, 1971.
P. D. Sunavala, Some Recent Trends in Combustion Research,
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. IX-XVI, July 1971.
Indian Chemical
E. F. Sverdrup, Gas Turbines for Fluid-Bed Boiler Combined Cycle Power
Plant, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
J. J. Svoboda, Ignifluid Contribution to Air Pollution Control, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
W. M. Swift, Decomposition
of Calcium Sulfate in a Two-Zone Reactor.
W. M. Swift, Potential of Fluidized-Bed Combustion for Reducing Trace-Element
Emissions, Paper 75-46.3 at the 68th Annual Meeting of the APCA, Boston,
June 15-20, 1975.
Swift, W.M., G.J. Vogel, A.F. Panek, A.A. Jonke, "Trace-Element Mass
Balances around a Bench-Scale Combustor", Proc of the IntConfon FluidBed
Cornbust. 4th McLean, Va. Dec 9-11 1975 Publ by MITRECorp (M76-36), McLean,
Va. 1976 p 525-543.
N. I. Syromyatnikov, The Theory of External Heat Transfer in a Fluidized
Bed, International Chemical Engineering, July 1974.
A. Talwalker, Preparation of a Coal Conversion System Technical Data Book,
IGT, ERDA Contract E(49-18)-1730, April 1975.
A. B. Tayler, A Simple Model for Fluidized Combustion of Coal, ASME, 1973.
Teknekron,
Inc.,
1976.
"An Integrated Technology Assessment
(ITA) of Electric tility Energy Systems", Berkeley, CA.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack
Gas: Conceptual Design and Cost Study, Sorption by Limestone or Lime:
Dry Process, 1968, (PB 178 972).
G. G. Thurlow, Coal as a Fuel for Boiler Furnaces, Journal for the Institute
of Fuel, August-September, 1972.
G. P. Tilly, Sand Erosion of Metals and Plastics:
Vol.
14, No. 4,
1969.
314
A Brief Review, Wear,
Thurlow, G.G. Fluidized Cbustion-
the present positionCondit. Journ. 44 (520) 16-19 (March 1975).
1. Heat-Air
R. . Toomey, Heat Transfer Between Beds of Fluidized Solids and the Walls
of the Container, Heat Transfer - Symposium Series, No. 5.
Y. S. Touloukian, Thermophysical Properties of Matter, Specific Heat
Nonmetallic Solids, Vol. 5, N.Y., 1970.
W. E. Trauffer, Florida's New 200 TPD Lime Plant, Pit and Quarry, May 1962.
K. L. Tseitlin, Wear of Metals in Fluidized Beds, Zashchita Metallov, Vol. 4,
No. 5, September-October 1968.
U.K. National Research Development Corp., 1973. "Final Report to
O.C.R.", US Department of Interior, Contract No. 14-32-0001-1511,
Nov. 1973.
United Engineers and Construction Inc., 1976, "Advanced Steam Cycles Using
Fluidized Bed Steam Generation and Heating Task 1," Electric Power
search
Institute, United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. and Westinghouse
Electric
Corporation,
EPRI FP-317, Project
U.S. Envirormental
Protection
582-1, December.
PAgency, 1970, "Proceedings
of Second
International Conference on FLuidized Bed Combustion," Office of Air
Programs (PB214 750/2).
U.S. Office of Coal Research, 1974. "Coal Technology:
Clean Energy", USDOI Annual Report, Washington, D.C.
Key to
Utilization of the Fluid-Bed Combustion Technique for Power Generation and
Industrial Steam Raising, The Steam and Heating Engineer, 45, pp. 12-13,
June 1969.
J. Valchar, Theoretical Analysis of Agitation in a Multi-Stage Fluid Bed
Reactor, British Chemical Enineering,
Vol. 10, No. 8, August 1965.
R. H. Vander Molen, Energy from Municipal Refuse Through Fluidized
Combustion - The CPU 400 Pilot Plant, AIChE 66th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia,
November 11, 1973.
N. N. Varygin, Use of a Fluidized Bed for the Thermal and Chemicothermal
Treatment of Metals, Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov,
UDC 621.785:66.096.5, June 1971.
Vaughan, D.A., et al., 1977, "FBC-Ind. Appl. Demo Proj., Special Technical
Report on Battelle's Multi-Solids Fluidized Bed Combustion Process,"
Battelle, February 7, (FE2472-8).
V. N. Vedamurthy, An Analysis of the Conductive and Radiative Heat Transfer
to the Walls of Fluidized Bed Combustors, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer,
Vol.
17, 1974.
315
J. Verloop, On the Origin of Bubbles in Gas-Fluidized
Engineering
Science,
Vol.
29, pp.
1101-1107,
J. Verloop, Periodic Pressure Fluctuations
Engineering Science, Vol.29, 1974.
Beds, Chemical
1974.
in Fluidized Beds, Chemical
V. A. Vinokurov, Heat Treatment in a Fluidized Bed Furnace, Metallovedenie
Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, UDC 621.785:66.096.5, June 1971.
i
C. G. Vogel, Personal Communication, August 1975.
G. J. Vogel, A Development Program on Pressurized Fluidized-Bed
OCR 93 Int.
1, (ANL/ES
CEN
Combustion,
1007).
G. J. Vogel, Bench-Scale Development of Combustion and Additive Regeneration
in Fluidized Beds, Proceedings of Third International Conference on FluidizedBed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1973.
G. J. Vogel, Development Program on Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Combustion,
Quarterly Report, January 1 - April 1, 1975, (ANL/ES CEN 1010).
G. J. Vogel, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
R&D, ERC-RTP, Control Systems Lab, June 1974, (PB 237 366).
Vogel, G., W. Swift, A. Jonke, 1977, "Control of Atmospheric Pollution by
Fluidized-Bed Combustion", Proc., Natl. Conf. Health. Environ. Eff..
Control Technol. Energy Use 212-19.
Vogel, G.J., W.M. Swift, J.C., Montagna, J.F. Lenc., A.A. Jonke,
"Application of Pressurized, Fluidized Bed Cmbustion to Reduction of
Atmospheric Pollution." Fluid. Combust. Conf. Proc. Imp. Coll. of Sci. and
Technol. London, Engl. Sept. 16-17 1975, Pap D3. 11 p. Publ. by Inst. of
Fuel (Symp. Serv.n 1. v 1). London Engl. 1974.
Vogel, G.J., and others. Application of Pressurized Fluidized-Bed
Combustion to Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution. Pap. D3 to Fluidized
Combustion Conf. Imperial College, London. Institute of Fuel, Symp. Ser.
No. 1, proc. Vol. 1 (1975).
1973, "Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the
Vogel, G.J., et al.,
Application of Fluidized Bed Combustion and Regeneration of SulfurContaining Additives," Argonne National Laboratory, June, (PB 227 058),
.
(EPA-R2-73-253)
G. J. Vogel, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion and Regeneration of Sulfur-Containing Additives,
National Environmental Research Center, Office of Coal Research, September
1974.
G. J. Vogel, Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution by the Application of
Fluidized-Bed Combustion and Regeneration of Sulfur-Containing Additives,
Annual Report, July 1971 - June 1972, ANL/ES CEN 1005, June 1973.
316
H. A. Vreedenberg, Heat Transfer Between a Fluidized Bed and a Horizontal
Tube, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 9, 1958.
H. A. Vreedenberg, Heat Transfer Between a Fluidized Bed and a Vertical
Tube, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. II, 1960.
H. A. Vreedenberg, Heat Transfer Between Fluidized Beds and Vertically
Inserted Tubes, J. Appl. Chem., 2, Supplementary Issue No. 1, 1952.
G. L. Wade, Fluidized-Bed Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste in the
CPU-400 Pilot Plant, Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December
1973.
J. S. Walton, Gas-Solid Film Coefficients of Heat Transfer in Fluidized
Coal Beds, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, June 1952.
J. Warshawsky and L. H. Pipe, Method and Apparatus for Incinerating
Combustible Wastes, U.S. patent 3,605,655, September 20, 1971.
G. B. Watson, Critical Heat Flux in Reclined and Vertical Smooth and
Ribbed Tubes, 5th International Heat Transfer Conference, Tokyo,
September 3, 1974.
B. Weber and K. Rose, Mathematische Modellierung von Wirbelschichten,
Chem. Tech., Vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 594-596, October 1970.
F. J. Weinberg, Combustion Temperatures:
September 24, 1971.
The Future?
Nature, Vol. 233,
Weller, A.E. and H. Nack, 1976. "Fluidized Bed Combustion - Industrial
Applications Demonstration Projects," Quarterly Progress Report, Battelle
Columbus, February 8.
Weller, A., et al., 1976, "Fluidized Bed Cmbustion
Industrial Application
Demonstration Projects," Quarterly Technical Progress Report October 1December 31 Battelle (FE 2472-7) and June 30-September 30, (FE 2472-10).
C. Y. Wen, Calculate Fluidized Heat Transfer
Engineering, July 1957.
by Nomegraph, Chemical
C. Y. Wen, Fluidized Bed Heat Transfer:
A Generalized
Correlation, AIChE Journal, December 1956.
Dense Phase
C. Y. Wen, Gasification of Solid Particles Containing Carbon, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
C. Y. Wen and T. M. Change, Investigation of Heat Transfer Problems in
Fluidized Coal Gasification, Coal Research Bureau Report No. 22, June 1966.
C. Y. Wen, Reaction Rate of Sulfur Dioxide with Particles Containing
Calcium Oxide, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 8,
p. 703, August 1973.
317
L. Wender, Heat Transfer Between Fluidized-Solids Beds and Boundary
Surfaces - Correlation of Data, AIChE Journal, March 1958.
K. G. Werner,
Fluidized Bed Combustion, A Bibliography with Abstracts,
NTIS/PS-75/256.
J. Werther, Influence of Bed Diameter on the Hydrodynamics of Gas Fluidized
Beds, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, Vol. 70, AIChE Symposium
Series, 1974.
Westinghouse, Advanced Coal Gasification System for Electric Power
Generation, OCR/R&D 81/Int. 1, May 1974, (PB 236 971).
T. D. Wheelock, Sulfuric Acid from Calcium Sulfate Sulfur and SO
Developments, CEP Technical Manual, 1971.
R. K. Wilhelm, Chemical Engineering Progress, 44, p. 201, 1948.
D. F. Williams, Pilot Plant Experiments at the Coal Research Establishment
(CRE), Proceedings of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed
Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
Wolfe, R. W. et al., 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS),
Westinghouse Phase I Final eport, Volune XI, Advanced Steam Systems," NASA
CR-134941, Westinghouse Electric Corp. Research Labs, Pittsburgh, February.
R. H. Wolk and others, Coal Hydrogenation, U.S. patent 3,617,465, November 2,
1971.
E. T. Woodburn, Thermal Decomposition and Hydrogenation of Coal Dust in a
Shock Tube, Fuel, Vol. 52, January 1974.
S. J. Wright, Fluidized-Bed Combustion and the Design of Boilers, Proceedings
of Second International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 4-7, 1970.
S. J. Wright, Heat Transfer in Fluidized Beds of Wide Size Spectrum at
Elevated Temperatures, British Chemical Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 12,
December 1970.
.S. J. Wright, The Combustion of Coal in Fluidized Beds, 36th International
Conference, Chem. Ind., 1967.
S. J. Wright, The Combustion of Coal in Fluidized Beds for Firing Shell
Boilers, Journal of the Institute of Fuel, pp. 235-240, June 1969.
S. J. Wright, The Design of Fluidized Combustion Systems Burning Solid Fuel,
International Chemical Engineering Symposium Series, No. 27, Instn. Chem.
Engrs., London, 1968.
318
S. J. Wright, The Reduction of Emissions of Sulphur Oxides and Nitrogen
Oxides by Additions of Limestone or Dolomite During the Combustion of Coal
in Fluidized Beds, Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Fluidized-Bed Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December
1973.
W. C. Yang and D. L. Keairns, Recirculating Fluidized-Bed Reactor Data
Utilizing a Two-Dimensional Cold Model, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle
Systems, Vol. 70, AIChE Symposium Series, 1974.
K. Yoshida, Mechanism of Bed Wall Heat Transfer in a Fluidized Bed at
High Temperatures, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 29, 1974.
Y. H. Yu, Power-Law Fluids Flow Through Multiparticle
AIChE Meeting, November 26-30, 1967.
System, 60th Annual
S. S. Zabrodsky, Compound Heat Exchange Between a High Temperature GasFluidized Bed and a Solid Surface, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 16,
February 1973.
S. S. Zabrodsky, Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer in Fluidized Beds.
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
E. Zahavi, Heat Transfer in Liquid-Fluidized
Transfer, Vol. 14, 1971.
Beds, Int. J. Heat Mass
International Chemical Engineering
F. Zenz, Bubble Formation and Grid Design,
Symposium Series, No. 30, 1968.
F. A. Zenz, Fluid Catalyst Design Data, Petroleum Refiner, April-November,
1957.
F. Zenz, Incipient Fluidization, unpublished
paper.
E. N. Ziegler, Effects of Solid Thermal Properties on Heat Transfer to
Gas Fluidized Beds, I&EC Fundamentals, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 325-328,
November 1964.
E. N. Ziegler, Mechanism
Fundamentals,
Vol.
of Heat Transfer
3, No. 2, pp. 94-98,
in a Fluidized Bed, I&EC
May
1964.
E. N. Ziegler, The Interstitial Fluid-Bed Reactor, Chem. Tech., November
1972.
C. W. Zielke, Sulfur Removal During Combustion of Solid Fuels in a Fluidized
Bed of Dolomite, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 20,
No. 3, pp. 164-169, March 1970.
Zielke, C.W., et al., 1970. "Sulfur Removal During Combustion of
Solid Fuels in a Fluidized Bed of Dolomite", J. m Poll. Control
Assoc., 20,3.
319