sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mercury (element), Mercury poisoning

DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF AN GENERATOR

FOR THE OXIDATION OF IN FLUE GASSES

By

Justin Douglas Isaacs

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Science

Department of Biology

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

August, 2013

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

Justin Isaacs

candidate for the Master of Science degree *.

(signed) Dr. Christopher Cullis (chair of the committee)

Mike Neundorfer

Dr. Peter McCall

(date) 4/17/2013

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.

ii!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dedicated to my loving and supportive family.

iii!!!!!!!!!!! ! Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Need ...... 3 Forms of Mercury ...... 3 Sources ...... 4 Exposure ...... 4 Ecological Effects ...... 6 Human Health Effects ...... 7 Reducing Releases - Mercury Air Toxics Standards ...... 7 Current Control ...... 9 Electrostatic Precipitators ...... 9 Bag Houses ...... 9 Flue- Desulfurization ...... 10 Selective Catalytic Reduction ...... 11

Approach ...... 12 Neundorfer ...... 12 Ozone ...... 13 Mercury Speciation ...... 15 Neundorfer Ozone Generator ...... 16 Power Supply ...... 18 Throat Assembly ...... 19 Variable Frequency Drive fan ...... 20 Programmable Logic Controller / Human/Machine Interface ...... 21 Ozone Contactor ...... 22 Operation ...... 23 Application of Technology ...... 24 Ozone Demand ...... 26 Intellectual Property ...... 27 Cost ...... 28

Competition ...... 30 Mercury Remediation Competition ...... 30 Injection ...... 30 Calcium Bromide ...... 31 Ozone Generator Competition ...... 31 Spartan Environmental ...... 33 Ozonia ...... 34 Guardian Manufacturing ...... 35

Benefits/Costs ...... 36 Ozone Production Benefits ...... 36 Mercury Remediation Benefits ...... 37

iv!!!!!!!!!!! ! Analysis ...... 38 VRIO ...... 38 Resources vs. Capabilities ...... 38 Valuable ...... 39 Rare ...... 39 Inimitable ...... 40 Organization ...... 40 SWOT ...... 41 Strengths ...... 41 Weaknesses ...... 42 Opportunities ...... 42 Threats ...... 43 Business Model Canvas ...... 43 Dashboard ...... 43

Future Suggestions ...... 44 Bench Top Experiment ...... 44 Simulated Flue Gasses ...... 44 Mercury Vapor ...... 45 Ozone ...... 45 Simulated Bag House or ...... 45 Instrumentation ...... 46 Other Suggestions ...... 47

Appendix ...... 49

Works Cited ...... 56

v!!!!!!!!!!!! List of Tables

Table 1. Examples of mercury’s effects on various ecological components...... 6

Table 2. Cost of goods for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology...... 29

vi!!!!!!!!!!! ! List of Figures

Figure 1. Elemental mercury at standard and ...... 4

Figure 2. Illustration of the ...... 5

Figure 3. Portions of U.S. air emitted by power plants...... 8

Figure 4. Formation of ozone (O3) from elemental (O2) by corona discharge. .. 13

Figure 5. Schematic of Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology ...... 17

Figure 6. NWL PowerPlus series 6 (front and back)...... 18

Figure 7. Throat assembly as seen from the side and looking head on with the discharge ...... 19

Figure 8. PLR fan made by The New York Blower Company ...... 20

Figure 9. Variable frequency drive (closed and open)...... 20

Figure 10. Programmable logic controller (open)...... 21

Figure 11. Human/Machine interface...... 21

Figure 12. Industrial size venturis typical of the technology that may be used to introduce ozone produced by Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology...... 22

Figure 13. Possible ozone injection points for oxidation; A) right before spray towers B)

In FGD slurry...... 25

Figure 14. Horizontal tube type ozone generator ...... 31

Figure 15. Spartan Environmental MCP-13 ozone generator...... 32

Figure 16. Ozonia CFS-14 ozone generator...... 33

Figure 17. Guardian Manufacturing Ensure 600 ozone generator...... 34

vii!!!!!!!!!!! ! Development and Commercialization of an Ozone Generator for the Oxidation of Mercury in Flue Gasses

Abstract

by

JUSTIN DOUGLAS ISAACS

Mercury pollution from and oil fired power plants is the largest aggregate source of anthropogenic mercury in the world. As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency has passed the Mercury Air Toxics Standards, which strictly prohibit the quantities of mercury and other toxic air pollutants that these utilities can emit. Neundorfer has developed a unique ozone generator technology that addresses this problem by oxidizing mercury and facilitating its capture in existing control systems. This novel solution to mercury remediation is applicable to utilities that have FGD scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and/or bag houses in use at their facilities.

viii!!!!!!!!!!! ! Introduction

Although the coal energy industry maintained position as the largest aggregate source of energy in the United States during the of 1984-2011, it is currently facing an uncertain future.1 Not only have recent advancements in hydraulic fracturing caused prices of to drop to all time lows, but increasing pressure from global warming phenomena and public health concerns have put coal energy in the hot seat.

These concerns have stemmed from coal combustion’s harmful byproducts, including

2 CO2, SOx, NOx, particulate matter, heavy , and other organic pollutants.

As the coal energy industry is increasingly regulated and disincentivized, clean coal technologies that improve its environmental performance will be crucial for long-term viability. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the definition of “clean coal technology” is any technology applied at the precombustion, combustion or post combustion stage of any coal-burning facility which will achieve significant reductions in harsh air emissions. Examples of these technologies include advanced combustion and gasification methods, particulate and emissions control, carbon capture and sequestration techniques, coal washing, and more. As clean coal technologies advance and get adopted as standard industry practice due to regulation, the dream of clean coal will become more of a reality.

1!!!!!!!!!!!! Neundorfer Inc. (the "Company") is a small company located in Willoughby, Ohio that is dedicated to improving air pollution control and helping customers meet their environmental needs. The Company’s core competencies lie in electrostatic precipitation, bag houses, flow modeling, and consulting on these systems. Expertise in particulate collection devices allows Neundorfer to offer extensive knowledge, practical real-world experience, and a deep understanding of customers' needs. My role at the

Company was to develop and vet a novel technology for the oxidation and capture of mercury in coal-fired power plants using ozone.

2!!!!!!!!!!!! Need

Mercury is well known to be a toxic substance with no known useful biological purposes, and has become a public health concern because of its global rise in abundance since the industrial revolution.3 Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency passed new regulations that sharply limit emissions of mercury, and other toxic pollutants, from the nation's coal and oil-burning power plants, forcing utility plants to meet strict regulations or retire.4 Typical solutions for limiting these pollutants include activated-carbon injection (ACI), calcium bromide treatment, and other technologies that improve the multi- control capabilities of existing air pollution control (APC) systems.5

Neundorfer is developing a clean coal technology aimed at helping to improve multi- pollutant control capabilities, using ozone to oxidize mercury and facilitate its removal.

Forms of Mercury

Mercury (Hg) is a heavy, silvery, D- element that is naturally occurring and exists in many forms throughout air, water, and soil. The most common forms are elemental or metallic mercury (Hg0), inorganic divalent mercury (Hg2+) compounds, and organic mercury compounds (HgR2). This peculiar , which is a at , is naturally found in deposits throughout the world, mostly as (HgS or mercuric ), and poses little threat to human health as long as it is kept in a sequestered form. However this is often not the case, as an estimated 5,000-8,000 tons of mercury are emitted into the atmosphere every day, from both natural and anthropogenic sources.6

3!!!!!!!!!!!!

Figure 1. Elemental mercury at standard pressure and temperature.

Sources

The sources of mercury vary widely, from natural geological phenomena such as volcanoes and forest fires, to anthropogenic activities such as , manufacturing and combustion of fossil fuels. However, the world’s coal-fired power plants are by far the largest aggregate source of anthropogenic Hg pollution, and are estimated to contribute as much as 50% of the total Hg that is emitted in the United States.5

Exposure

Once mercury is released into the environment it enters the global mercury cycle (Fig. 2), where it is transported long distances and transformed into various species before ending up in a final sequestered form. When elemental Hg vapor is released into the atmosphere by either natural or anthropogenic sources, it can be carried around the world for at least

6-18 months before it is eventually oxidized to inorganic mercury compounds through photochemical oxidation reactions. These inorganic forms of mercury readily combine with atmospheric water vapor and particulate matter before falling to the earth and depositing in soil and water. In soil, Hg usually accumulates until a physical event causes its release, however in water it can have various outcomes. It can potentially be

4!!!!!!!!!!!! converted to that is insoluble and settles to sediment, or it can be converted to by various and fungi.

The of mercury is important because methylmercury is more toxic to living organisms than its inorganic counterpart, and also requires a longer time for organisms to eliminate. The primary method for the methylation of mercury in marine and freshwater sediments is sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB).7 As these bacteria get consumed by larger organisms, who are then consumed by others higher up the , organic methylmercury bioaccumulates and eventually ends up in humans through , fish- eating animals, and other . As an alternative to or settling as mercury sulfide, both elemental and organic forms of mercury can vaporize and re-enter the global cycle.

Figure 2. Illustration of the mercury cycle.

5!!!!!!!!!!!! Ecological Effects

The extended atmospheric of Hg truly makes it a ‘global pollutant’ that can be found in all environments. In fact, it is estimated that two-thirds of the atmospheric Hg deposited in the United States originates from external sources like Asia and Europe.8

The final fate of Hg after deposition is heavily dependent on the environment and the chemistry that is available in that environment, however Hg has the biggest impact when it bioaccumulates in the methylmercury form. The ecological effects of Hg are not well known and have only recently been studied, however, these studies have found that increased levels of mercury in the environment can negatively impact animals, fish, and microbes throughout various ecological components.9

Table 1. Examples of mercury’s effects on various ecological components.9

Component Examples of Effects

Change in respiration Change in behavior (e.g., migration, predator-prey interactions) Inhibition or induction of enzymes Individual Increased susceptibility to pathogens Decreased growth Decreased reproduction Death Decreased genotypic and phenotypic diversity Decreased biomass Increased mortality rate Decreased fecundity rate Population Decreased recruitment of juveniles Increased frequency of disease Decreased yield Change in age/size class structure Extinction Decreased species diversity Change in species composition Community Decreased diversity Decreased productivity Increased algal blooms Decreased diversity of communities Ecosystem Altered nutrient cycling Decreased resilience

6!!!!!!!!!!!! Human Health Effects

Although ingestion of fish and seafood is the most common vector for mercury in humans, it is also possible through inhalation or contact with skin.9 The current

Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limit for mercury vapor is 0.1 mg/m3 air as a ceiling limit.10 When unsafe levels of mercury exposure occur, harmful effects on the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, nervous, digestive, and immune systems result.11 The symptoms of mercury include , , loss, neuromuscular effects, headaches, and/or cognitive and motor dysfunction.

The harmful effects of mercury exposure can be observed in all age groups, but are more severe in unborn babies and young children because of mercury’s ability to impair neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb can result from a mother’s consumption of fish and , and that are exposed to methyl mercury may have their cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, fine motor and visual spatial skills adversely affected. This is why it is recommended that expecting mothers limit their seafood intake, especially predatory fish that commonly contain Hg levels greater than 0.5 ppm.12

Reducing Releases - Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

As a result of the ecological and human health concerns that uncontrolled releases of mercury have provided, on December 16, 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) finalized the first issuance of the national Clean Air Act Standards. These standards are not only aimed at reducing mercury from coal and oil-fired power plants,

7!!!!!!!!!!!! but chromium, arsenic, , and other acidic as well.4 The final ruling, which is officially referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), was established in order to improve global air quality, as well as protect public health from the harmful effects that mercury and other toxic air pollutants are known to contribute.4

As the MATS ruling gradually takes full effect over the next four years, it will eventually prohibit oil and coal-burning power plants from emitting 90% of the mercury contained within the fossil fuels they burn, while simultaneously reducing the other toxic gas emissions by 88% (Fig. 3).4 When these new rules are completely in place, the value of improvements to public health alone are estimated to total $37.0 billion to $90.0 billion a year, while the estimated costs to implement this rule are only $9.6 billion, providing a return of $3-$9 to public health for every $1 spent by utilities.4

Figure 3. Portions of U.S. air pollutants emitted by power plants.

8!!!!!!!!!!!! Current Pollution Control Solutions

The most widely used solutions for dealing with toxic air pollutants from industrial processes and power-generating plants include electrostatic precipitators (ESP), bag houses (BH), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers.13 These technologies have proven to be effective for the removal of particulate matter (PM), dioxide (SO2), and nitric (NOx) from flue gasses, as well as the capture of some mercury species, but these technologies alone will not be enough to meet all of the strict MATS requirements.13

Electrostatic Precipitators are particulate collection devices that remove particles from a flowing gas using the force of an induced electrostatic charge. These devices provide minimal impedance to flow (often less than 0.5” wc) and can easily collect fine particulate matter with up to 99.9% efficiency. Electrostatic precipitators can also be useful for reducing Hg emissions because of their ability to remove Hgp that gets adsorbed on to particulate matter.

Bag Houses are particulate collection devices that remove particles from a flowing gas stream using fabric filters. These devices can be over 99.9% efficient for removal of particulate matter, generally independent of particle size, and are also capable of reducing

Hg emissions through the capture of Hgp.

9!!!!!!!!!!!! Flue-Gas Desulfurization Scrubbers are devices that remove (SO2) from flue gasses using a chemical reaction that takes place when warm exhaust gases come into contact with lime (CaO).!!As a lime containing scrubber slurry comes into contact with sulfur dioxide, it is converted to calcium sulfite and eventually oxidizes to calcium

13 sulfate (CaSO4), or gypsum. Not only are FGD scrubbers capable of achieving greater

2+ than 90% removal of SO2, they can also reduce Hg emissions because Hg compounds are soluble in the scrubber slurry as well. 13

! SO2!dissociation:! !

! Lime!(CaO)!dissolution:! !

! ! Now!that!sulfur!dioxide!and!lime!are!broken!into!their!respective!ions,!the!following! reaction!occurs:! !

! ! In!addition,!the!following!reactions!can!also!occur!when!there!is!excess!oxygen:! !

! `

10!!!!!!!!!!! !

Selective Catalytic Reduction is a means of converting oxides (NOx) to diatomic nitrogen (N2) and water using catalysts, and has been shown to be 70-90%

14 effective. The process is typically carried out using (NH3) as the reducing gas, and passing the over a vanadium/titanium catalyst.15 Studies have shown that FGD scrubbers following an SCR system are much more efficient at reducing Hg because of SCR's ability to oxidize Hg0 to Hg2+.16

11!!!!!!!!!!! ! Approach

In order to meet MATS regulations and remain operational, coal and oil burning utilities will depend on inexpensive mercury remediation solutions that are both reliable and effective. Even though -generating units (EGU) that do not make the cut will be forced to retire, the EPA projects that only 4.7 GW out of the more than 1,000 GW of

EGUs making up the nations generating capacity will fail to economically meet regulations.5 This is because most units can be cost-effectively retrofitted with modern clean coal technologies that will allow these new toxic emissions requirements to be met.5

Neundorfer Solution

Neundorfer is developing a unique approach to mercury remediation that utilizes the powerful oxidant ozone to oxidize mercury and improve its removal within existing APC systems. This approach relies on Neundorfer’s highly efficient, economical, and robust ozone generator technology that allows ozone to be produced cost effectively for mercury remediation purposes. The most effective and economical approach for utilities facing

MATS regulations is to increase the multi-pollutant control capabilities of APC systems that are already in place. This is so they can operate their existing equipment under

MATS without having to invest heavily in capital equipment. Especially, given the uncertain future of natural gas pricing and increasing coal regulations. Neundorfer’s solution to this job-to-be-done will be accomplished with minimal costs and negligible side effects to the overall system.

12!!!!!!!!!!! ! Ozone

Ozone (O3) is the triatomic allotrope of oxygen and one of the strongest oxidants known to man, second only to fluorine, the hydroxyl radical, and some other fluorine containing

17 compounds. This naturally occurring oxidant is formed when diatomic oxygen (O2) comes in contact with UV radiation or corona discharge (CD), resulting in the

- of O2 into two highly reactive atomic oxygen ions (O ). These atomic oxygen ions

18 further react with un-separated O2 to form O3, as shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. Formation of ozone (O3) from elemental oxygen (O2) by corona discharge.

The incredible oxidizing potential of ozone makes it a very useful oxidant for both industrial and consumer applications. However, this strength is also responsible for the health risk that ozone poses to both plants and animals, mainly damaging mucous and respiratory membranes.19 Even at low concentrations ozone can have negative effects on human health, but can be an ideal oxidizing reagent if used under proper conditions. The biggest advantage to using ozone over other oxidants is that it does not leave a toxic residual behind after oxidation, instead it reverts back to diatomic oxygen that is safe to

13!!!!!!!!!!! ! breathe20. The most commonly used oxidant and for drinking water treatment in the United States is , however this oxidant leaves behind toxic chloride residues in the form of Trihalomethanes (THM) that are recently creating a growing concern.21

Another distinguishing characteristic of ozone is it’s relatively short half-life that is heavily dependent on temperature and humidity. At standard pressure and temperature ozone has a half-life of approximately 30 minutes, and this time is dramatically decreased as increase. As a result, ozone cannot be stored for later use and must be produced on demand just before it is directed to a contacting chamber for utilization.19

This is also why ozone generators are needed on site for every application where the oxidant is utilized.

As a result of these characteristics, the global market for ozone technology was reported to be $606.0 million in 2011, with a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.7%.22

This sizeable market is essentially made up of two segments, the water/wastewater treatment segment (76%) and the air and gas treatment segment (24%).22 The focus of this paper is on the latter, especially regarding the use of Neundorfer’s ozone technology for mercury remediation from coal-fired power plants. This niche market for mercury remediation from coal-fired power plants alone is estimated to be around 900 units, with industrial boilers and plants further adding to the number. Also, a large portion of this market will be addressable due to the regulatory requirements of the customer and the benefits that the technology offers.

14!!!!!!!!!!! ! Mercury Speciation

The foundation for Neundorfer’s mercury remediation solution is the fact that mercury exists in three oxidation states under normal atmospheric conditions; elemental mercury

(Hg0), ionic mercury compounds (Hg2+), and mercury compounds in solid- (Hgp).23

During combustion of coal, nearly 100% of the Hg within is volatilized and converted to

Hg0 vapor before being carried away with the other flue gases.23 After leaving the high temperature regions of the boiler, these gasses begin to cool and complex reactions convert portions of the Hg0 vapor to Hg2+ and Hgp. These reactions are commonly referred to as mercury speciation.23

Each species of Hg exhibits distinct characteristics that dramatically impact the ability of pollution control systems to capture them. For example, fully oxidized gaseous Hg2+ compounds are generally water-soluble, while the gaseous Hg0 form is not.23 The of Hg2+ means that aqueous scrubber slurries are capable of effectively reducing Hg emissions, but only if the Hg0 can be reliably oxidized to Hg2+. In another possible reaction pathway, Hg0 vapor can be oxidized and subsequently adsorbed onto particulate matter within the flu gasses, such as unburned carbon that results from loss on ignition, or supplemental activated carbon. This resulting Hgp form of mercury can be readily captured with common particulate control systems, such as electrostatic precipitators or bag houses. As a result of these characteristics, only un-oxidized Hg0 vapors ends up being released into the atmosphere as pollution.

15!!!!!!!!!!! ! Consequentially, it is important to have a fundamental understanding of Hg speciation, as well as the mechanisms involved in Hg-flue gas-ash interactions, in order to predict and control Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants. These complex interactions result in

2+ the formation of various inorganic mercuric compounds (Hg X[s,g], where X is Cl2[g],

p 23 SO4[s], O[s,g], etc.) as well as Hg sorption on ash particles (Hg ). Mercury control systems take advantage of these interactions by minimizing the quantity of Hg0 vapor left in the system and converting it in to the more easily captured species (Hg2+, Hgp).5 This understanding of mercury speciation and capture has contributed to an increase in the efficiency of multi-pollutant APC systems, however, efficiency is also heavily dependent on the type of coal being burned and the current technologies that the utility has in place.

In any case, one thing is certain, oxidized Hg removal is much more effective than trying to control the reduced form.5

Neundorfer Ozone Generator

Neundorfer’s unique ozone generator technology is aimed at minimizing cost and increasing the efficiency of production, allowing ozone to be a cost effective option for mercury oxidation and remediation purposes. The Company’s technology uses the corona discharge method of ozone production, in combination with other unique aspects of ozone generator design, that enable the technology to offer commercially adequate quantities of ozone from any oxygen containing feed gas without needing to cool the ozone generating electrodes.

16!!!!!!!!!!! ! The technology is comprised of five main components (Fig. 5); 1) a high-voltage power supply, 2) an ozone generating throat assembly, 3) a variable speed fan, 4) a programmable logic controller and human/machine interface, and 5) a method for ozone introduction and contact.

!Throat' Ozone& ! VFD$Fan ! ! ! ! Assembly Contactor

! Power& ! PLC$/$HMI Supply

Figure 5. Schematic of Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

17!!!!!!!!!!! ! Power Supply - The power supply currently used is a NWL DSP PowerPlus Series 6 high-frequency transformer/ (HF-TR). It is capable of producing 70 kV and 245 mA, with a maximum power consumption of 17 kW. The HF-TR is a DC transformer that supplies power to electrodes within the throat assembly, generating the corona discharge that is responsible for converting oxygen to ozone as feed air is passed through the throats.

Figure 6. NWL PowerPlus series 6 (front and back).

18!!!!!!!!!!! ! Throat Assembly – The ozone generating throat assembly is made up on an array of grounded cylindrical throats, each containing multiple charged electrodes. These electrodes are negatively charged by the HF-TR, creating a corona discharge as the current passes from the high voltage to the grounded cylindrical throat. In the current embodiment, the throats are made of carbon and have the dimensions of 8”

ID X 9.75” long. Experiments are currently being carried out to determine the best electrode designs that can produce the most ozone as efficiently as possible.

`

Figure 7. Throat assembly as seen from the side and looking head on with the discharge

electrodes.

19!!!!!!!!!!! ! Variable Frequency Drive Fan - The fan used for the current embodiment is an industrial size PLR Fan made by The New York Blower Company, which is capable of moving up to 12,000 cfm of air at 1,770 rpm. This fan is powered by a 75 H.P. Siemens

Quality Induction Motor (type-RGZ) that operates on a continuous duty cycle. In order to vary the speed, the induction motor is controlled by a TECO-Westinghouse Motor

Company Fluxmaster Adjustable Speed Drive, also known as a variable frequency drive

(VFD).

Figure 8. PLR fan made by The New York Blower Company

Figure 9. Variable frequency drive (closed and open).

20!!!!!!!!!!! ! Programmable Logic Controller / Human/Machine Interface - The entire ozone generator system is controlled with a programmable logic controller (PLC) that is connected to a human/machine interface (HMI). The PLC was assembled in house and allows remote control of the HF-TR, the VFD fan, safety checks, and also equipment such as the ozone analyzer that is used to measure the concentration of ozone produced by the generator. Monitoring and control of the PLC is accomplished through the HMI.

Figure 10. Programmable logic controller (open).

Figure 11. Human/Machine interface.

21!!!!!!!!!!! ! Ozone Contactor - In order to effectively utilize ozone produced by the ozone generator, one of several ozone introduction methods must be adopted depending on the medium in which the oxidation takes place. In the situation where ozone is used to treat gaseous mediums, the ozone must simply be injected into the flue gas stream and well mixed.

When introducing ozone into , the process requires more effort because the ozone must be dissolved into the liquid prior to oxidation. The most common ozone introduction methods for liquids include porous diffusers, mechanical turbines, packed beds or columns, spray towers, and venturis.24 The goal for each of these liquid introduction methods is to dissolve ozonized gas into water so that the ozone can come into close contact with the compounds being treated. This goal is accomplished by creating bubbles of the ozonized gas, which greatly increases the surface area so that maximum diffusion can take place.24 Choosing a proper ozone contactor system is highly dependent on the application, as well as the concentration of ozone that is necessary to achieve the desired oxidation results.

Figure 12. Industrial size venturis typical of the technology that may be used to introduce

ozone produced by Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

22!!!!!!!!!!! ! Operation

There are several operating variables of Neundorfer’s ozone generator that can be controlled in order to increase or decrease the amount of ozone that the system is able to produce, the HF-TR power output and VFD blower speed. When power output of the

HF-TR is increased, the resulting corona discharge will have a higher charge . A higher charge density will increase the amount of oxygen ionized, and therefore, the amount of ozone that is created in the process. Changing the speed of the VFD fan has two effects on ozone production because of the resulting changes in air velocity and volume. Increasing the velocity at which a feed gas passes through the corona discharge also reduces the amount of ozone that can be produced due to a decrease in oxygen- corona discharge resonance time. However, the simultaneous increase in feed gas volume that results from an increase in velocity also means that there is more oxygen that could potentially be ionized and converted to ozone.

The competing effects that result from varying the feed gas velocity must be taken into consideration when optimizing the ozone generator for maximum ozone production.

Testing to date has shown that the effect of decreased oxygen-corona discharge contact time is generally more prominent than increased feed gas volume, although not by much.

Therefore, smaller feed gas flow rates not only produce higher ozone concentrations, but higher overall production rates as well.

23!!!!!!!!!!! ! Application of Technology

Neundorfer's reputation and expertise in APC positions the Company well for marketing their ozone generator technology to existing customers that face upcoming MATS regulations. Laboratory experiments have shown that ozone can successfully carry out the oxidation of Hg in the gas phase as well as the aqueous phase, if the two reactants are brought into close proximity with one another for a sufficient period of time.25,26 The mercury product of this reaction is mercuric (HgO), which can either dissolve into solution or be adsorbed by particulate matter. This oxidation of Hg0 to Hg2+ is a highly effective way to reduce Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants, but only if proper systems are in place to capture the oxidized Hg. Examples of these systems include an

FGD scrubber to dissolve Hg2+, or a particulate capturing device that is downstream from a source of carbon sufficient to adsorb Hg2+.

Considering the general operation of FGD scrubbers, there are two possible methods for introducing ozone that could potentially provide effective oxidation conditions (Fig. 13):

A. as a supplement to the oxidation air in forced-oxidation FGD scrubbers; or B. as an addition to the scrubber slurry that is pumped through the spray towers. The addition of ozone to FGD scrubbers will not only oxidize mercury and other toxic pollutants, increasing their solubility in the slurry, it will also oxidize the gypsum byproduct that is

27 produced as a result of SO2 reacting with limestone. Fully oxidized gypsum provides an advantage for utilities because it is more easily de-watered than the reduced form, and can be dried without the aid of mechanical processes. Therefore, introducing ozone into

24!!!!!!!!!!! ! an FGD scrubber will not only increase its ability to capture mercury, it will also reduce the material handling cost that utilities face and increase the likelihood that their gypsum can be sold to wallboard or fertilizer manufacturers for profit.28 Even though the Hg captured in this process will now be in the gypsum, studies have shown that this mercury is stabilized by forming -mercury complexes and is therefore not a threat to wallboard safety.29

Possible Ozone Injection Points

Injection Point A

Injection Point B

Figure 13. Possible ozone injection points for oxidation; A) right before spray towers B)

In FGD slurry.

A second option for capturing mercury oxidized by Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology is for utilities to use activated carbon injection in conjunction with some particulate capturing device downstream, such as a bag house or electrostatic precipitator.

The purpose for the ozone generator in this situation is to increase the efficiency of activated carbon injected into a flue gas stream, by increasing the proportion of Hg that is

25!!!!!!!!!!! ! adsorbed by particulate and facilitating its capture. Currently, activated carbon injection is the most common method used for mercury reduction in EGUs, but the high operating cost of constantly supplying activated carbon is a major disadvantage to this technology.

Neundorfer’s mercury remediation solution is capable of increasing the efficiency of activated carbon and could help alleviate this disadvantage. Not only is the ability to use less activated carbon, and still meet regulatory requirements, advantageous to the operation of the particulate capture equipment in use, the lower carbon contents will increase the salability of the as well.

Ozone Demand

In order for flue gas injected ozone to be an effective oxidant without causing concerns of additional ozone pollution, it is important that the actual demand for ozone be determined for individual applications, and that only the required amount of ozone is applied. Using a prescribed ozone dose will not only minimize production cost, it will also assure that minimal quantities of ozone are emitted into the environment. Unfortunately, there are many factors other than Hg concentration that must be taken into consideration when determining actual ozone demand in flue gas applications. These factors include temperature, humidity, flue gas composition, FGD slurry composition, ozone introduction method, and physical parameters of the scrubber or particulate control device.23 In order to accurately determine the ozone demand for a particular application, specific tests such as chemical oxygen demand will have to be performed for each site.

The results of these tests can then be used to size the necessary ozone generator and contactor equipment.

26!!!!!!!!!!! ! Further complicating the task of estimating ozone demand for mercury remediation is the fact that the oxidation of Hg with ozone has never been measured under actual flue gas conditions. However, using ozone in water treatment applications is very common and has been extensively studied to determine the ozone demand for oxidation and disinfection at wastewater treatment facilities. These experiments have determined that the typical concentrations of ozone needed for water treatment range from 0.1 – 1 mg

O3/L water. Based on the upper limit of these empirical values, a generalized ozone demand of 1 mg O3/L for mercury oxidation in FGD scrubbers can be predicted. In order to relate this predicted ozone demand value to the amount of ozone needed for typical

EGUs, we will use the assumption that 1 MW of power generation requires the circulation of 2,000 L of FGD scrubber slurry.15 Under these conditions, the estimated

30 value for ozone demand is 2 g O3/MW generating capacity.

In other ozone oxidation studies, the ozone demands for oxidizing iron and were experimentally measured, and it was found that 0.43 mg/mg and 0.88 mg/mg were respectively sufficient.31 If an estimated ozone demand for oxidizing mercury in FGD scrubbers is based on the manganese and iron oxidation values, and the assumption that

1MW of power generation produces 0.08 mg of Hg, the predicted ozone demand will be

32 in the range of 0.03-0.07 mg O3/MW.

Each of these ozone demand estimates suggest that small amounts of ozone will be sufficient for oxidizing mercury in flue gasses. Therefore, the larger value of 2 g O3/MW generating capacity will throughout this document to estimate the cost of equipment.

27!!!!!!!!!!! ! Intellectual Property

Intellectual property protection for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology will be in the form of a utility patent. A provisional patent application has been filed in August

2012 to cover the ozone generator technology itself, and will provide one year to vet the technology before incurring the high costs of the patent application process. The patentable features covered in the provisional patent application are the use of a DC voltage, the ability to use any oxygen containing feed gas, the lack of a cooling system for the electrodes, reductions in capital costs, reductions in operating costs, reductions in maintenance costs, and the use of a pre-charger electrode design for the production of ozone. Although individually these properties may not be novel, they have not been put together for the purposes of an ozone generator in the past. The combination of these approaches should be found to be novel, useful, and non-obvious by the United States

Patent Office.

Cost

The cost of goods (COGS) for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology as installed in a

FGD application using the current configuration is about $65,000 (Table 2.). A selling price of only $130,000 will allow the company to have a 100% gross margin.

28!!!!!!!!!!! ! Table 2. Cost of goods for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

High Frequency Transformer $25,000

Variable Frequency Drive Blower $10,000

Ozone Generator Throat Assembly $3,000

Ductwork $10,000

Programmable Logic Controller/Human $2,000

Machine Interface

Ozone Contactor (Venturi) $15,000

TOTAL $65,000

29!!!!!!!!!!! ! Competition

The competitive landscape for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology is divided into two categories, non-ozone based mercury remediation techniques that are currently available and ozone generator technologies offered by competing manufacturers. The following analysis provides a general introduction to the various competing technologies.

Mercury Remediation Competition

In order to deal with toxic Hg emissions and meet the strict requirements of MATS regulations, only a few technologies are currently available. A review of these technologies follows.

Activated Carbon Injection - A recent and direct approach for reducing Hg emissions from contaminated flue gas is activated carbon injection (ACI), in which powdered activated carbon is pneumatically injected into flue gas ductwork so that Hg can be adsorbed on the activated carbon and then removed in downstream ESPs and BHs.5 The properties of activated carbon that are important for optimal Hg removal are surface area, pore size distribution, and particle size distribution. As surface area and pore volume increase of activated carbon are increased, the capacity for Hg capture improves.5

Depending on the type of coal being burned, bituminous vs. sub-bituminous, the cost of

ACI ranges from $18,000–$131,000 per pound of mercury removed. These estimates are highly dependent on the level of mercury capture required in each application as well as the other pollution control systems that are already in place.

30!!!!!!!!!!! ! Calcium Bromide – Calcium bromide is a that when added to flue gasses is able to oxidize mercury. As previously mentioned, the oxidized forms of mercury are much easier to capture in common pollution control devices. Calcium bromide can be used to oxidize mercury in many ways, as an additive to the coal prior to combustion, by injecting directly into the flue gases, or as an additive to ACI. Depending on the type of coal being burned and the pollution control systems that are in place, the cost of mercury remediation with calcium bromide range from $2,000–22,000 per pound of mercury removed. Although the cost per pound of Hg removal is less for calcium bromide than it is for activated carbon. This technology still requires a method for capturing the oxidized carbon, and therefore is usually used to supplement activated carbon injection.

Ozone Generator Competition

The current market for commercial ozone generators is highly competitive with many manufacturers each owning a small portion of the total market share.5 A few of the largest ozone generator manufacturers are Ozonia, Spartan Environmental, and Guardian

Manufacturing. Each of these companies uses the dielectric barrier discharge method of ozone production with only incremental improvements from Werner Von Siemens’ first ozone generator that was invented in 1856. This commonly used technology is referred to as the horizontal tube type corona discharge ozone generator (Siemens Model), Fig.

14.33 As illustrated in the drawing, the gas feed flows between the glass/ceramic dielectric and the stainless steel ground electrode, creating the corona discharge. When oxygen comes into contact with this dielectric barrier discharge, ozone is produced33.

31!!!!!!!!!!! ! A costly disadvantage for this type of ozone generation system is that as much as 90% of the energy input is turned into heat. This excess heat is detrimental to the production of ozone and must be dealt with in order to optimize production and energy efficiency.

Methods of dissipating heat generated by the high voltage electrodes include circulating water or air on the opposite side of the ground electrode to cool the system.33 Although air-cooled systems are ok for small ozone generators, systems that generate more than

100 ppd ozone typically require liquid cooling.

Figure 14. Horizontal tube type ozone generator.

These ozone-generating systems also have the option of being fed air that is only 21% oxygen, or a pure or concentrated oxygen feed that increases the amount of reactant and to higher ozone yields.33 However, all large-scale ozone generators (>500 ppd ozone) usually require pure oxygen feed gas systems in order to meet demand and to decrease downtime caused by dirty feed gasses. At the end of the day, these cooling systems and oxygen feed gas systems add significant cost to this type of ozone generator because of the additional equipment needed, as well as the additional energy these processes require, especially if the cooling water needs to be chilled.33

32!!!!!!!!!!! ! Spartan Environmental is a company that engineers and manufactures its own line of integrated ozone treatment and advanced oxidation systems in the US. Their goal is to provide complete solution, not just individual pieces of equipment, by taking advantage of their process engineering capabilities. One of the ozone generators that they manufacture is the MCP-13 (Fig. 15), which has the ability to produce 650 g/h to 1300 g/h of ozone depending on the source of the oxygen containing feed gas, air vs. oxygen respectively, with feed rates of 16.8 scfm to 9.6 scfm. 34 With these production rates, this generator is capable of producing 35-70 ppd ozone. However, this generator also requires 15 kWh/kg O3 of power and costs $43,000, not including the auxiliary equipment needed for cooling and oxygen which add another $25,000 to the installed cost.34

Figure 15. Spartan Environmental MCP-13 ozone generator.

33!!!!!!!!!!! ! Ozonia is a company owned by Degremont that develops, designs, manufactures and installs water treatment systems. This company has over 30 years of experience in the industry and claims to have developed the most efficient ozone and technologies available today. A medium sized ozone generator from Ozonia is the CFS-

14, which is capable of generating a maximum of 470 g/h or 690 g/h of ozone depending on if the feed gas is air or oxygen respectively.35 This system requires an oxygen flow

3 rate of 4.79 Nm /h, has an efficiency rate of 12.5 kWh/kg O3, and costs $50,000 before purchasing any auxiliary equipment.35 Ozonia also has a much larger ozone generator called the XF vessel that is claimed to produce up to 97 kg/h, or 5,000 ppd ozone (Fig.

16), however detailed information is not readily available for this unit.35

Figure 16. Ozonia CFS-14 ozone generator.

34!!!!!!!!!!! ! Guardian Manufacturing is a diversified manufacturing and control system integrators/integration company that provides products and solutions for automotive, food and beverage, agriculture, laundry, zoological, aquaculture, and other industries.

Guardian Manufacturing’s ozone generator products feature Plasma Block ozone generator technology. One of these generators is an oxygen-feed-only generator called the Ensure 600, which is capable of producing 600 g/hr, or 32 ppd ozone, Fig. 17.36 This particular generator requires 150 l/min of oxygen and costs $50,000 to buy, not including the necessary auxiliary equipment for cooling and oxygen.36

Figure 17. Guardian Manufacturing Ensure 600 ozone generator.

35!!!!!!!!!!! ! Benefits/Costs

In order to compare Neundorfer’s approach of ozone generation and mercury remediation with other products and methods available, it is necessary to compare and contrast the benefits of the approach with the costs required. Detailed comparisons of the benefits/costs follow.

Ozone Production Benefits

The patentable features of Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology provide several competitive advantages over the competition, mainly the fact that this design is robust and does not require expensive auxiliary equipment (cooling system, liquid oxygen, oxygen concentrator) to support high ozone production rates. Neundorfer’s use of the pre-charger type electrode design that uses DC voltage to create corona discharge does not produce the resistive heating that is seen as a result of the common dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) methods, and therefore a larger portion of the energy is used for ozone production instead of producing heat. Another advantage of Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology is the ability for it to produce large quantities of ozone using any source of oxygen containing feed gas, including ambient air. Furthermore, these advantages are all coupled into a robust design that minimizes the high maintenance costs usually associated with ozone generators, while increasing their reliability.

36!!!!!!!!!!! ! Mercury Remediation Benefits

Neundorfer’s approach to mercury remediation, using ozone to oxidize mercury in situ of coal-fired EGU flue gas, has many benefits over other Hg remediation methods. The first benefit is the ability to oxidize Hg with a renewable oxidant that does not leave behind a toxic residue that requires further treatment. Another benefit to using ozone for mercury remediation is that it can reduce the costs that result from mercury remediation technologies. When using activated carbon and calcium bromide, a 100 MW EGU that emits 20 pounds of Hg per year can expect to spend $400,000 - $3.1 million per year for mercury remediation. This cost estimate does not include installation of the systems that can easily reach $500,000 or more, depending on the size of the EGU. With

Neundorfer’s solution, this same job can be accomplished with a one time capital cost of

$300,000 (including equipment and installation) and a yearly operating cost of only

$120,000 (for electricity). Another benefit of this technology is that it does not adversely affect the performance of APC systems, nor does it adversely affect the quality of fly ash that is sometimes sold as a byproduct for Portland cement. The combination of these benefits provides a competitive advantage for Neundorfer’s mercury remediation method, and provides plenty of incentive for utilities to adopt this technology in order to meet

MATS regulations.

37!!!!!!!!!!! ! Analysis

In order to analyze the Company's business model for the ozone generator technology, several methods have been used including VRIO, SWOT, a business model canvas, and a dashboard. With the aid of these tools it is possible to identify the business model’s strengths and weaknesses, and make an informed assessment of the plan’s direction in the future.

VRIO

The VRIO framework is a strategy tool developed by J.B. Barney to examine the internal environment of a firm’s resources and capabilities.37 VRIO is an acronym that stands for the four questions one must ask about a resource or capability in order to determine its competitive potential.37 In order to make a resource-based view of the firm, the VRIO framework has been applied to Neundorfer's ozone generator technology as shown in appendix B.

Resources vs. Capabilities - When using the resource-based view of the firm, it is important to distinguish between what is a resource and what is a capability. A resource is defined as stocks of firm-specific assets that cannot be easily duplicated nor easily acquired in well-functioning markets.37 Examples include, patents and trademarks, brand-name reputation, and workers with specific expertise or knowledge and can be organized into four categories, financial capital, physical capital, human capital, and organizational capital.37 On the other hand, capabilities are defined as cluster activities that a firm does especially well in comparison with other firms.37 These are information-

38!!!!!!!!!!! ! based, firm-specific processes created over time through complex interactions between resources.37 In the case of Neundorfer's ozone generator technology, resources include an experienced team that is highly capable of engineering solutions, the company's existing customer , and the ozone generating technology itself. Major capabilities include expertise in pollution control systems, and the ability to meet customers' needs with a one-stop system optimization solution.

Valuable - In order for a resource or capability to be considered valuable, it must contribute to customers’ needs, at a price the consumer is willing to pay.37 This value is a function of external environment and is, therefore, subject to changes in consumer tastes, industry structure, technology, etc.37 The same resource or capability within different firms can be valuable in different ways, but in either case it must lower cost, increase revenues, or both.37 In this example, Neundorfer has valuable technology that can produce large quantities of ozone with less energy and capital costs than the competition. Not only reducing operating costs for the consumer, but also the equipment needed to produce this technology, producing higher profit margins for the Company.

Rare - In order for a resource or capability to be considered rare it must be in short supply, or difficult or impossible for competitors to obtain, and this short supply must persist over time.37 In the case of Neundorfer's ozone generator technology, the product being produced (O3) has a short half-life and must be produced on demand. This fact coupled with the enormous operating costs of currently available ozone generators makes the ability to produce ozone inexpensively a rare capability.

39!!!!!!!!!!! !

Inimitable - Having a resource that is costly to imitate is a requirement for a sustained competitive advantage.37 Factors that increase inimitability are cost impediments of imitation, early-mover advantage, legal restrictions, superior capabilities, market size, and social complexity.37 At this point in time, the inimitability of the Company's technology is one of the biggest hurdles that must be addressed before a true competitive advantage is gained. This is due to the simple design of the technology that would be easily imitated by any competitor that is generally skilled in the art. In order to increase the inimitability of the technology, the Company needs to acquire patent protection.

However, this may be difficult to obtain considering that a patent search for ozone generators has a match of over 30,000 hits. The most likely design that can be patented is the actual electrode design itself, which will be a unique design that optimizes ozone production and efficiency.

Organization - Within the VRIO framework, the final requirement for a competitive advantage is organizing the firm to exploit the competitive potential of resources and capabilities.37 The structure, management and control systems, compensation policies, businesses processes, as well as complimentary resources and capabilities must all be organized in a manner that takes advantage of the firm’s opportunities.37 In Neundorfer’s case, the team is well organized to take advantage of its resources and capabilities. The engineering and management team are experts in pollution control systems and have the skills and resources to commercialize this technology.

SWOT

40!!!!!!!!!!! ! SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method that has been credited to Albert

Humphrey, a business and management consultant who specialized in organizational management and cultural change.38 The SWOT tool allows an organization to set achievable goals and objectives for itself by asking meaningful questions about its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The process takes into consideration internal and external factors that can either be helpful or harmful to the organizations success, allowing a comprehensive strategy to be devised.39 A SWOT diagram for

Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology can be seen in appendix C.

Strengths - Strengths are characteristics of the business, or project team, that gives it an advantage over others.40 The strengths of Neundorfer include a skilled engineering and management team, close customer relationships with customers that must meet regulatory requirements, and a low cost and efficient method for ozone production. The skilled engineering and management team have proven themselves with numerous projects that have to cost effective solutions for customers' needs in the past. This same engineering and management team has also created a trusting customer relationship with power utilities and other industries that depend on pollution control systems such as

Neundorfer’s mercury remediation technology. This trusting relationship, coupled with the need to meet regulatory requirements, brings customers to the Company that are looking for solutions to unique problems. A low cost and efficient process for producing ozone is also a strength that can be leveraged to meet customer’s needs in ways that have historically been too expensive.

Weaknesses - Weaknesses are characteristics that place the team at a disadvantage

41!!!!!!!!!!! ! relative to others.40 The biggest weakness for the Company right now is the lack of intellectual property protection for the ozone generator technology. This weakness leaves the technology open to imitation and a loss of competitive advantage. Another weakness for the company is the lack of experience with ozone oxidation and water treatment.

Skills in these areas will be necessary in order to fully take advantage of the ozone oxidation opportunities presented by Neundorfer’s unique ozone generator technology, because water treatment is the single largest market for ozone today.

Opportunities - Opportunities are external chances to improve performance in a company's environment.40 Opportunities for Neundorfer arise as a result of the new EPA regulations (MATS) that place limits on the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can be emitted from power generating utilities. Current mercury remediation technologies require high operating costs and often strain other APC systems. Therefore, mercury remediation is a clean coal technology that has room for improvement, and

Neundorfer has an innovative solution with the resources and capabilities to take advantage of the opportunity presented. Also, because of ozone’s advantages over other oxidizing agents, the opportunities outside of APC for inexpensive ozone are plentiful, and offer diversification to Neundorfer’s portfolio.

42!!!!!!!!!!! ! Threats - Threats are external elements in the environment that could cause trouble for a business.40 The threats to Neundorfer's ozone generating business plan are the number of players that are currently occupying the market. The busy competitive landscape will make it crucial for the Company to obtain an IP portfolio to protect the technology from imitation. Other threats are the leaps of faith that the company is making when it is assumes that power utilities will not be afraid of using ozone for pollution control. These assumptions are critical for the success of this technology and should be addressed sooner than later.

Business Model Canvas

The business model canvas is a strategic management template for developing business models that was developed by Alexander Osterwalder.41 The business model canvas has nine categories that must be considered in order assist firms in aligning their activities by illustrating potential trade-offs. The business model canvas for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology can be seen in Appendix D.

Dashboard

A dashboard is an analytical tool for business models that was described in the book,

"Getting to Plan B" by John Mullins and Randy Komisar.42 This tool allows a company to assemble all of their leaps of faith together in an organized manner and test them in order of importance. A dashboard to Neundorfer’s leaps of faith can be seen in appendix

E.

43!!!!!!!!!!! ! Future Suggestions

After analyzing Neundorfer's business model using the well-known tools, a few suggestions for the Company’s future paths become more apparent. These suggestions include performing a bench top proof of concept experiment, securing IP protection, increasing the efficiency and reducing the COGS of the ozone generator technology, and leveraging the Company’s strengths to take advantage of the opportunity presented.

Bench Top Experiment

The first suggestion for Neundorfer is to carry out a bench top scale proof of concept experiment that will confirm ozone can in fact oxidize mercury under typical flue gas conditions. In order to carry out this experiment a testing apparatus will have to be built that can provide simulated flue gas conditions, a quantifiable source of mercury vapor, ozone production and introduction, a method for capturing the oxidized mercury, and instrumentation for measuring vapor mercury reduction (Appendices F&G). This bench top experiment will not only provide proof of concept, it will allow multiple parameters to be controlled and varied in order to determine the optimal configuration for

Neundorfer’s mercury remediation technology.

Simulated Flue Gasses will be needed in order to closely replicate the conditions that ozone and mercury will experience in an actual coal-fired power plant application. While it would be very difficult and expensive to simulate all of the constituents that make up actual flue gasses, a mixture of the major components (N2, CO2, CO, O2, H2O, SO2, NOx) will suffice. Although the ratio of these constituents vary from plant to plant, a typical

44!!!!!!!!!!! ! range exists and provides the basis for our simulated flue gas makeup of N2, CO2, CO,

O2, H2O, SO2, and NOx. This gas mixture can be purchased premixed from Matheson

Tri-Gas, Inc with the gas ratios desired. A mass flow controller will used to regulate the delivery of this simulated flue gas mixture to the experimental apparatus. The gas mixture will also be heated prior to delivery using a Vulcan Strip Heater that is controlled!by!PLC.!!The!heater!will!use!feedback!from!a!thermocouple!placed!in!the! simulated!bag!house!or!scrubber!chambers in order to!heat!the!treatment!air!to!a! temperature!that!is!comparable!to!typical!bag!house!or!scrubber!operating! temperatures.

Mercury Vapor for the experiment will be generated using a Mercury Permeation Tube

(MPT) that is supplied by VICI Metronics Inc. These permeation devices are small, inert capsules that contain pure mercury in a two-phase equilibrium between its gas and liquid phase. At a constant temperature, the device emits elemental mercury vapor through its permeable portion at a constant rate. A MPT that emits mercury in concentrations of 5-

10 µg/m3 will be used in order to simulate the typical concentrations seen in the flue gasses of coal-fired power plants.43

Ozone for the experiment will be produced using a small-scale model of Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology. This small-scale model will produce up to 45 ppm ozone in the simulated bag house or scrubber chambers, and the ozone produced will be injected directly into the warm simulated flue gas stream.

45!!!!!!!!!!! ! Simulated Bag House or Scrubber chambers will be built in order to simulate the two methods of oxidized mercury capture that will be encountered in the field. The!bag! house!chamber!will!be!constructed!out!of!polycarbonate!plastic!at!Neundorfer’s! facilities!and!will!consist!of!upper!and!lower!sections!that!are!separated!by!a!swatch! of!bag!material!stretched!over!a!loom.!!The!upper!section!of!the!bag!house!chamber! will!simulate!the!inlet!side!of!a!bag!house,!where!flue!gas!and!ozone!will!be! introduced.!!The!lower!portion!of!the!bag!house!chamber!simulates!the!outlet!side!of! the!bag!house,!where!filtered!air!is!transported!to!the!stack.!!During!testing,!the!bag! material!swatch!separating!the!upper!and!lower!sections!of!the!bag!house!chamber! will!be!covered!with!a!layer!of!activated!carbon!and!dust,!simulating!the!dust!cake! that!would!be!present!in!an!actual!coalSfired!power!plants!bag!house.!!A!simulated! scrubber!can!also!be!built!in!house!using!polycarbonate!plastic,!but!will!require!the! circulation!of!simulated!scrubber!slurry!instead!of!the!simulated!dust!layer!found!in! the!bag!house!experiments.!!!

Instrumentation will be used to quantify several parameters within the experimental apparatus. These instruments include a mass flow controller, an air flow meter, a thermocouple, an ozone analyzer, and a mercury vapor analyzer. The mass flow controller will be used to control the amount of simulated flue gas that is delivered to the experimental apparatus, while the air flow meter will verify the volume of this gas mixture after it has been heated. In order to determine the concentration of ozone that is injected into the system, an ozone analyzer capable of measuring 0-500 ppm ozone will be utilized. The final instrumentation that will be used in this experiment are mercury

46!!!!!!!!!!! ! vapor analyzers, which will be used to determine the amount of mercury vapor that is oxidized and captured during the experimentation. One mercury analyzer will be placed prior to the ozone injection point in order to measure the starting elemental mercury vapor concentration, while a second analyzer will be placed after the simulated bag house or scrubber chamber in order to measure the final elemental mercury vapor concentration.

The difference between these two measurements will be proportional to the amount of elemental mercury that is oxidized by ozone within the experimental apparatus.

Other Suggestions

The second suggestion, which became apparent from the VRIO framework, is to secure intellectual property protection for the technology as soon as possible. Without this protection, the technology can be easily be imitated by many competitors and eliminates any chances for a competitive advantage. This suggestion also becomes more apparent with the SWOT diagram.

Another priority for Neundorfer is to increase the efficiency of the ozone generator technology while simultaneously reducing the COGS. The way the technology stands right now, the energy efficiency needs to be increased to be on par with other similarly sized ozone generators and the cost to produce this technology needs to be well below

$50,000 for the ozone generator alone. If future advancements in the technology reach these marks, Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology will not only be ideal for mercury remediation applications, but water and wastewater treatment applications as well. These opportunities provide new avenues for Neundorfer to expand their core competencies.

47!!!!!!!!!!! ! The SWOT diagram also suggests that the Company should heavily leverage their strengths and opportunities to overcome weaknesses and threats. With the new regulations that present an enormous opportunity for pollution control systems, it is important that resources and capabilities are leveraged to take advantage. The strong customer relationships that the Company has will be important for the success of the technology, because customers will choose a solution that they trust.

48!!!!!!!!!!! ! Appendix

Appendix A. Global distribution of anthropogenic mercury sources in 2005.

49!!!!!!!!!!! ! Appendix B. VRIO framework for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

VRIO Yes/No Reason Competitive Implications/Performance

Valuable Yes Ozone is one of the most powerful Ozone production is an oxidants/ and has no harmful residual advantage. effects. Therefore it is a valuable resource.

Rare Yes Ozone has a short half-life (~30 mins) and must be The on-demand need of ozone produced on demand. Ozone generation equipment gives ozone generators an is expensive and energy intensive, currently advantage.

limiting its use. ! 50

Inimitable No The design is simple and easy to reproduce. In The lack of patent protection is order to protect his idea, patent protection is currently a limiting factor that needed; more time is required to complete this task. reduces competitive advantage.

Organized Yes A skilled team is in place to engineer this Organized team provides an technology. A customer relationship is in place to advantage to capitalize on the take advantage of the opportunity. Dedicated opportunity. people are in place to see idea through.

!!!!!!!!!!! Appendix C. SWOT diagram of Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

Strengths - S Weaknesses – W Use strengths to take 1 Skilled engineering and 1 No IP protection for ozone SO advantage of manufacturing team generation technology Strategies opportunities 2 Close customer relationship WO Overcome weaknesses with power utility customers No past experience with Strategies by taking advantage of that must meet regulations 2 water treatment opportunities 3 Low cost and efficient method for ozone production ST Use strengths to reduce Strategies threats

WT Minimize weaknesses Strategies and reduce threats

Opportunities – O SO Strategies WO Strategies 1 New stricter regulations on Hg 1 Market inexpensive and 1 Take advantage of novel emissions efficient ozone generator to ozone uses to generate IP deal with new Hg protection for technology 2 Ozone is best oxidant for water regulations treatment but currently to Offer cheaper ozone to expensive 2 Use engineering and 2 develop customer manufacturing skills to relationship with water 3 Oxidized FGD slurry makes create less expensive ozone treatment facilities better gypsum that will be more for water treatment marketable for utilities 3 Use close customer relationships to promote benefits of ozone oxidation for FGD slurry

Threats - T ST Strategies WT Strategies 1 Lots of competition that 1 Use superior engineering 1 Get IP protection of specialize in ozone production and manufacturing skills to technology that will reduce overcome competition threat of competition High volume air flow will not 2 work in water treatment 2 Use close customer Build strong relationship applications relationships to support trust 2 with water treatment in using ozone to safely facilities to tackle Power utilities not open to using reduce emissions introduction issues 3 ozone for oxidation, because ozone is a pollutant 3 Use low cost of ozone to Build strong relationship offset any difficulties in 3 with water treatment introduction systems facilities so that they prefer us to the competition.

51!!!!!!!!!!! ! Appendix D. Business model canvas for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

• Engineering • Dedicated • NWL • Manufacturing • Inexpensively • Utilities and efficiently personal • Oxidation • Consulting assistance • Selling produce ozone • Water treatment for oxidation • Co-creation plants and • Coal fired disinfection utilities applications • Disinfection • Food processing plants • Hospitals • Schools ! 52 • Jim/Marlin • Existing • Trusting customers customer • Conferences relationship • Consultations • Novel

• Cost-Driven • Fixed Costs • Equipment sales • Variable Costs • Installation fees • Economies of Scale • Consulting fees • Economies of Scope • Asset sale/Usage fee?

!!!!!!!!!!! Appendix E. Dashboard for Neundorfer’s ozone generator technology.

Leap of Faith Question Hypothesis Metrics Finding Insight/ response

1. We can produce ozone Our technology can Ozonia more efficiently than the produce ozone with a 7.9 -16.8 kWh/kg O3 competition. fraction of the energy Spartan Environmental required by the 7.6 – 14.8 kWh/kg O3 competition.

2. We can produce same Our ozone generator Ozonia amount of ozone as equipment will be a 1,000 ppd = $600,000 competition with less fraction of the Spartan Environmental expensive equipment. competitions. 850 ppd = $430,000

3. Utilities will pay for Utilities will pay for an Talk to customers that ozone to oxidize toxic inexpensive ozone must meet new Hg emissions and FGD slurries. solution in order to meet emissions regulations, emissions regulations. how many out of 20 are interested?

4. Water treatment Water treatment facilities Talk to water treatment facilities will gladly convert will make an investment facilities that do not to ozone if it is less in ozone treatment if use ozone, how many expensive. costs are minimized. out of 20 will convert?

5. Increased airflow will Ozone introduction at Find a venturi that can not be an issue when high flow rates can be handle 12,000 cfm, introducing ozone into accomplished with a and be able to water. venturi. effectively introduce ozone below 2,000 ppm.

!

53!!!!!!!!!!! ! Appendix F. Drawing of proposed bag house bench top proof of concept experiment.

! 54

!!!!!!!!!!! Appendix G. Drawing of proposed scrubber bench top proof of concept experiment.

! 55

!!!!!!!!!!! Works Cited

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. “Annual Energy Review 2011.” Accessed April 1, 2013. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf

2!SBI.!2012.!“Clean!Coal!Technologies!Markets!and!Trends!Worldwide,!2nd!Edition.”!! Accessed!April!1,!2013.!!http://www.marketresearch.com/SBI-v775/Clean-Coal- Technologies-Trends-Worldwide-6447642/

3 United Nations Environment Program. 2013. “Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport.” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/GlobalMercuryAssessment2013.pdf

4 Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. “Benefits and Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution From Power Plants.” Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf

5 Air and Control Division. 2005. “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Boilers.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.

6 Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. “Mercury Emissions: The Global Context.” Accessed April 1, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/mercury/mercury_context.html

7 Westinghouse Savannah River Company. 2000. “Mercury Removal, Methylmercury Formation, and Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria Profiles in Mesocosms Containing Gypsum-Amended Sediments and Scripus californicus.” Accessed April 1, 2013. http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001063/tr2001063.html

8 United Nations Environment Program. 2008. “The Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment: Sources, Emissions and Transport.” Accessed April 12, 2013. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Atmospheric_Emissions/UNEP%20SUMMARY%20 REPORT%20- %20CORRECTED%20May09%20%20final%20for%20WEB%202008.pdf

9 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. “Mercury Study Report to Congress.” Accessed April 12, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume6.pdf

10 United States Department of labor. 1996. “Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Mercury Vapor.” Accessed April 9, 2013. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/mercuryvapor/recognition.html#recognition

56!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 World Health Organization. 2012. “Mercury and Health.” Accessed April 9, 2013. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs361/en/

12 United States Food and Drug Administration. 2013. “Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish (1990-2010).” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product- specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm11564 4.htm

13 Schifftner, Kenneth. 2002. “Air Pollution Control Equipment Selection Guide.” CRC Press. Accessed April 30, 12. http://books.google.com/books?id=C_nLU2AmtFQC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad =4#v=onepage&q&f=false

14 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. “ Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet.” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fscr.pdf

15 The U.S. Department of Energy and Southern Company Services. 1997. “Clean Coal Technology.” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/topicalreports/pdfs/topical9.pdf

16 Gretta, William., Morita, Isato., Moffett, John. 2006. “Mercury Oxidation Across SCR Catalyst at LG&E’s Trimble County Unit 1.” Hitachi Power Systems America. Accessed April 30, 12. http://www.hitachipowersystems.us/supportingdocs/forbus/hpsa/technical_papers/Mercur y_Oxidation_Across_SCR_Catalyst-LGE.pdf

17 Wikipedia. 2012. “Mercury (Element).” Accessed April 30, 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)

18 Ozone Solutions. 2012. “Ozone Formation Via Corona Discharge.” Accessed April 30, 12. http://www.ozonesolutions.com/Ozone_Formation.html

19 Wikipedia. 2012. “Ozone.” Accessed April 30, 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

20 Portjanskaja, Elina. 2012. “Ozone Reactions with Inorganic and Organic Compounds in Water.” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C07/E6-192- 06-00.pdf

21 Sorlini, Sabrina. 2005. “Trihalomethane Formation During Chemical Oxidation with Chlorine, and Ozone of Ten Italian Natural Waters.” Seminar in Environmental Science and Technology. 176:3

57!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22 Hanft, Susan. 2012. “Ozone Generation: Technologies, Markets and Players” Accessed June 1, 2012. http://www.bccresearch.com/report/ozone-generation-technologies- markets-chm044d.html

23 Hoffman, Jeff., Ratafia-Brown, Jay. 2003. “Preliminary Cost Estimate of Activated Carbon Injection for Controlling Mercury Emissions from an Un-Scrubbed 500 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant.” U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed April 30, 12. http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/ewr/mercury/pubs/ACI_Cost_Final.pdf

24 Katz, J. 1980. “Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide Technology for Disinfection of Drinking Water.” Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey.

25 Hall, B. 1995. “The Gas Phase Oxidation of Elemental Mercury by Ozone.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. Netherlands

26 Minthe, John. 1992. “The Aqueous Oxidation of Elemental Mercury by Ozone.” Atmospheric Environment. Part A. General Topics.

27 Fogh, F., Smitshuysen, E. F., Wolf, S., Koivisto, M. 2004. “Removal of Sulphur- nitrogen Compounds from FGD Wastewater by Ozone Treatment.” Elsam Engineering. Skaerbaek, Denmark.

28 Dusnter, Andrew. 2007. “Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) Gypsum in Plasterboard Manufacture.” MiroBRE. Accessed April 30, 12. http://www.smartwaste.co.uk/filelibrary/Plasterboard_FGD_gypsum.pdf

29 Kairies, C. L., Schroeder, K. T., Cardone, C. R. 2006. “ Mercury in Gypsum Produced from Flue Gas Desulfurization.” Fuel.

30 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. “ EPA Guidance Manual Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants.” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/upload/2001_01_12_mdbp_alter_cha pt_3.pdf

31 Ozone Solutions. 2012. “Iron and Manganese Removal with Ozone.” Accessed April 9, 2013. http://www.ozonesolutions.com/info/iron-and-manganese-removal-with-ozone

32!United States Energy Information Administration. 2013. “How Much Coal , Natural Gas, or Petroleum is Used to Generate a Kilowatt-hour of Electricity.” Accessed April 14, 2013. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=2

33 Smith, Wayne. 1995. “Principles of Ozone Generation.” Watertec Engineering. Accessed April 30, 12.

58!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://watertecengineering.com/TZ000002%20Principles%20of%20Ozone%20Generatio n.pdf

34 Spartan Environmental Technologies. 2012. “Ozone Generators.” Accessed April 30, 12. http://www.spartanwatertreatment.com/articles/TPF-OZONE-GENERATOR.pdf

35 Ozonia. 2012. “OZAT CFV Series.” Accessed April 30, 12. http://www.degremont- technologies.com/IMG/pdf/OZAT-CFVO2_EU_Ozonia.pdf

36 Pinnacle Ozone Solutions. 2012. “Patented PlasmaBlock Ozone Generator.” Accessed April 30, 12. http://www.pinnacleozone.com/quadblock-advantages.html

37 Barney, J. B., Hesterly, William. 2005. “Evaluating a Firm’s Internal Capabilities”. Prentice Hall.

38 Wikipedia. 2012. “Albert S Humphrey" Accessed April 30, 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_S_Humphrey

39 Mind Tools. “Using the TOWS Matrix” Accessed April 8, 2012. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_89.htm

40 Wikipedia. 2012. “SWOT Analysis”. Last modified April 4, 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis

41 Wikipedia. 2012. “Business Model Canvas.” Accessed April 30, 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Model_Canvas

42 Mullins, John., Komisar, Randy. 2009. “Getting to Plan B.” Harvard Business School of Publishing. Boston, MA.

43 Chen, Shiaoguo., Rostam-Abadi, Massoud. 2000. “Mercury Removal From Combustion Flu Gas by Activated Carbon Injection: Mass Transfer Effects.” Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, CA.

59!!!!!!!!!!! !