DOCSLIB.ORG

Prospects for Upgrading Coal-Fired Power Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prospects for Upgrading Coal-Fired Power Plants Prospects for upgrading coal-fired power plants Herminé Nalbandian, Anne M Carpenter CCC/41 December 2000 Copyright © IEA Coal Research 2000 ISBN 92-9029-353-5 Abstract Upgrading ageing power plants can be a cost-effective option for extending their residual life, increasing capacity, efficiency and performance, reducing operating and maintenance costs, enhancing reliability and availability, and/or securing compliance with stricter environmental legislation. This report discusses the prospects and market opportunities for upgrading conventional pulverised coal-fired plants. It covers the retrofitting and upgrading of pulverisers and their fuel distribution system, particulate control, flue gas desulphurisation, and NOx abatement and control measures. Process optimisation to minimise pollutant formation and improve boiler efficiency is also described. The two repowering options covered are circulating fluidised bed boilers and the integration of a natural gas turbine to form a combined cycle. A case study of a refurbished or repowered plant for each of these options is included. However, the requirements and technical condition of each power plant are likely to be different. Each candidate plant therefore requires detailed technical, economic, financial, legal and environmental analyses before any major performance improvement plan is proposed. Acronyms and abbreviations A/C air to cloth ratio SIP State Implementation Plans (USA) BACT Best Available Control Technology SKB South Kalimantan Basin (Indonesia) CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments (USA) SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction CEC Commission of the European Communities SOAPP State-of-the-Art Power Plant CEM continuous emissions monitoring T/R Transformer/Rectifier CFB circulating fluidised bed UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for CFBC circulating fluidised bed combustion Europe CFD computational fluid dynamics VOC volatile organic compound(s) CIA carbon-in-ash CIS Commonwealth of Independent States (Russia, Ukraine, etc) COHPAC Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector DBA dibasic acid DCS digital/distributed control system EC European Commission EDF Electricité de France (France) EPA Environment Protection Agency (USA) EPRI Electric Power Research Institute (USA) ESP electrostatic precipitator(s) FBC fluidised bed combustion FBHE fluidised bed heat exchanger FF fabric filter(s) FGD flue gas desulphurisation GNOCIS Generic NOx Control Intelligent System HGI Hardgrove Grindability Index HP high pressure HRSG heat recovery steam generator(s) IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control LCPD Large Combustion Plants Directive L/G liquid to gas ratio LIFAC Limestone Injection into the Furnace and reActivation of Calcium LHV lower heating value LNB low NOx burners LOI loss on ignition LP low pressure LRTAP Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution MIMO Multi Input/Multi Output MP medium pressure MWe megawatt electric MWth megawatt thermal NEC national emission ceilings NOx nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) NSR normalised stoichiometric ratio NSR New Source Reviews (USA) NSPS New Source Performance Standards OFA overfire air pc pulverised coal PC personal computer PJBH pulse jet baghouse PLC programmable logic controller PRB Powder River Basin (USA) PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration (USA) RH reheater SCR selective catalytic reduction 2 IEA Coal Research Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Why upgrade? 6 2.1 The need to upgrade 6 2.2 Factors to be considered 7 2.3 Emission legislation 10 2.3.1 International and bilateral agreements 10 2.3.2 National standards 12 3 Opportunities for upgrading 15 3.1 Country survey 16 3.2 Questionnaire results 19 4 Milling and fuel distribution system 23 4.1 Pulverisers 23 4.1.1 Mill upgrade at Talcher power plant 23 4.1.2 Rotary classifier upgrade 24 4.1.3 Fuel switch in fan mills 26 4.1.4 Mill inerting 26 4.2 Coal and air distribution system 27 5 Primary pollution control 30 5.1 Process optimisation 30 5.2 Low NOx burners and overfire air 35 5.2.1 Retrofitting 36 5.2.2 Prospects 38 5.3 Reburning 39 5.3.1 Retrofitting 39 5.3.2 Prospects 41 6 Secondary pollution control 42 6.1 Particulate control 42 6.1.1 Electrostatic precipitators 42 6.1.2 Other particulate control technologies 46 6.2 Flue gas desulphurisation 47 6.2.1 Wet scrubbers 48 6.2.2 Spray dry scrubbers 51 6.2.3 Sorbent injection systems 52 6.3 Flue gas treatment for NOx control 54 6.3.1 Selective non-catalytic reduction 54 6.3.2 Selective catalytic reduction 56 7 Repowering 60 7.1 Circulating fluidised bed boilers 60 7.1.1 Why repower with CFB boilers? 60 7.1.2 Turów power plant 63 7.1.3 Prospects 64 7.2 Adding gas turbines 65 7.2.1 Why add gas turbines? 65 7.2.2 Modes of repowering coal-fired boilers 65 7.2.3 Prospects 70 8 Conclusions 73 9 References 76 Appendix 1 84 Appendix 2 89 Prospects for upgrading coal-fired power plants 3 4 IEA Coal Research 1 Introduction There are over 1600 pulverised coal (pc)-fired power plants for various countries on the size, age and pollution control in the world (>4000 units) with a total capacity of more than capability of their major coal-fired units is given in 1000 GWe currently in operation (to end 1999) accounting Chapter 3. The results of a questionnaire sent to selected for almost 40% of total electricity production. As plants age electric utilities and equipment manufacturers to determine they tend to become less reliable. Their performance and where they see the prospects for upgrading are also included. efficiency decline, and operating and maintenance costs increase. Derating of the plant due to equipment ageing and Coal pulverisers are critical elements of successful efforts to changes in operating regimes may also have occurred. The reduce operating costs of power plants, meet emission control power plants may be burning coals for which they were not requirements and provide boiler system flexibility. The size originally designed, further affecting their performance. distribution of the pulverised coal affects the combustion Current environmental legislation is usually stricter than in efficiency and hence the amount of unburnt carbon in fly ash, the past; consequently older power plants may not be meeting and the stability of the combustion process. The upgrading of the new environmental requirements. Options to continue pulverisers and the transport of the pulverised coal to the cost-effective power generation from these ageing units burners are described in Chapter 4. include: ● retirement and replacement with new capacity; Primary pollution control measures, that is at the combustion ● upgrading to extend their life; stage, are covered in Chapter 5. This chapter also discusses ● repowering, for example, by adding modern gas turbines process optimisation which can improve plant efficiency, as to produce more electricity than the original design. well as helping to lower emissions. Process optimisation is probably the most cost-effective approach for making This report will look at the last two options. Trends in the improvements in the short term. Retrofitting pollution control planning and construction of new power plants have been equipment for treating the flue gas downstream of the boiler discussed in other reports produced by The Clean Coal is discussed in Chapter 6. One of the driving forces for Centre (Couch, 1997, 1999). retrofitting pollution control is to meet stricter emission regulations. For example, the USA is currently undergoing a In this report, the terms upgrading, retrofitting and major retrofit programme, especially for NOx, in order to repowering will be used to describe modifications that may achieve compliance with the 1990 Clean Air Act be made at existing power plants. Upgrading (also called Amendments. Technologies for controlling CO2 emissions rehabilitation or refurbishment) is used to describe the non- are not yet in widespread commercial use and are therefore routine replacement of components, such as pulverisers, not covered in this report. More information on reducing CO2 burners, superheater tubing, turbine blading or other items, emissions can be found in The Clean Coal Centre reports by with the specific intention of improving the efficiency, Smith (1999) and Vernon (1999). increasing potential output or extending the useful life of an existing system. Retrofitting is limited to the installation of Repowering existing power plants with circulating fluidised modern pollution control or abatement devices in order to bed (CFB) boilers or by integrating a gas turbine to form a meet emission limits provided it does not involve making combined cycle is covered in Chapter 7. There are cases major changes in plant design. Repowering involves much where it may be more cost-effective to install CFB boilers, more substantial changes to the plant. These changes might such as when emission limits need to be met and there is no involve complete replacement of major systems such as room to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment. This option boilers or turbines, and often includes significant changes to is most feasible when low cost coal, especially low grade cycle design. Conversion to combined cycle operation, and coal, is available to justify the heavy investment in a new the introduction of fluidised bed combustion (FBC) boiler. As well as reducing CO2 emissions, adding natural technology comes into this category. Repowering projects are gas-fired turbines can increase plant capacity. typically more extensive than upgrading, are more expensive and require a longer period of plant inactivity when no A case study for each of the options discussed in the report is revenue is being generated. included in each chapter, where appropriate. However, the upgrading requirements of each power plant are likely to be This report will discuss the prospects for upgrading different and so solutions will be site specific. conventional pc-fired plants у50 MWe. It begins by briefly looking at some of the factors that need to be considered when evaluating a refurbishment project. One of the driving forces for upgrading power plants is to meet stricter pollution regulations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exco55 P1 a Global Operational Status of Co-Firing Biomass And
    Global operational status on cofiring biomass and waste with coal Experience with different cofiring concepts and fuels Jaap Koppejan1, Larry Baxter2, 1 Project manager Bioenergy systems, TNO-MEP, PO Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn, Netherlands, phone +31 55 5493167, fax +31 55 5493287, email [email protected] 2 Professor Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84601, USA, phone: +1 (801) 422-8616, fax: +1 (801) 422-0151, email [email protected] 1. Primary motivations for biomass-coal cofiring One means of reducing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel combustion is to increase the fraction of renewable and sustainable energy in the national energy supply. Renewable energy technologies have, however, struggled to compete in open electricity supply markets with fossil energy, due to their low efficiencies, high costs, and the high technical and financial risks. The result is that they usually require the introduction of subsidies or other financial instruments to support their implementation. The co-firing of biomass with the coal in traditional coal-fired boilers makes use of the large investment and extensive infrastructure associated with the existing fossil-fuel-based power systems, while requiring only a relatively modest capital investment, typically up to $50-$300 per kW of biomass capacity. [i]. These costs compare very favorably with any other available renewable energy option1. Worldwide, each percent of coal that is substituted with biomass in all coal fired power plants results in a biomass capacity of 8 GWe, and a reduction of approx. 60 Mton of CO2. At a typical cofiring ratio of 5% on energy basis, this would correspond with a global potential of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers
    DOE/EE-0288 Leading by example, saving energy and Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers taxpayer dollars Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers in federal facilities helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our energy security Executive Summary To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their facilities. The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste wood and wastepaper. The boiler plant at the Department of Energy’s One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring Savannah River Site co- fires coal and biomass. with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience of Indirect Cofiring of Biomass and Coal
    Experience of indirect cofiring of biomass and coal Rohan Fernando CCC/64 October 2002 Copyright © IEA Clean Coal Centre ISBN 92-9029-370-9 Abstract There has been increasing interest in the use of biomass for power generation in recent years. The principal reason for this is that the use of biomass can significantly reduce net CO2 emissions. Other advantages of utilising biomass are that it diversifies the power plant’s fuel portfolio, it can lead to reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions and that such use can help to dispose of a solid waste. There are some disadvantages of firing biomass which relate to its supply, transportation and composition and these can be reduced if the biomass is cofired with coal. Cofiring can be direct, where the biomass and coal are fired in the same boiler, or indirect, where the combustion or gasification of biomass occurs in a separate unit. This report concentrates on indirect cofiring which is taken to mean technologies in which the ash from the coal and biomass are kept separate. Direct cofiring is relatively straightforward but can lead to several technical concerns. Indirect cofiring incurs greater costs and is particularly suitable for biomass containing troublesome components or when the quality of the ash is of importance. Indirect cofiring is less common than direct cofiring. The report discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect cofiring. It then describes the following plants which indirectly cofire biomass: Aabenraa in Denmark, Amergas in the Netherlands, Avedøre 2 in Denmark, Kymijärvi in Finland, Zeltweg in Austria and Västerås in Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis And
    Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction Practical Design and Theory, 2nd Edition Table of Contents Dedication Preface Acknowledgments About the Author Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Biomass and its Products 1.2 Biomass Conversion 1.3 Motivation for Biomass Conversion 1.4 Historical Background 1.5 Commercial Attraction of Gasification 1.6 Brief Description of Some Biomass Conversion Processes Symbols and Nomenclature Chapter 2. Economic Issues of Biomass Energy Conversion 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Biomass Availability and Products 2.3 Biomass Conversion Process Plant Equipment and Cost 2.4 Financial Analysis Symbols and Nomenclature Chapter 3. Biomass Characteristics 3.1 Introduction 3.2 What is Biomass? 3.3 Structure of Biomass 3.4 General Classification of Fuels 3.5 Properties of Biomass 3.6 Composition of Biomass Symbols and Nomenclature Chapter 4. Torrefaction 4.1 Introduction 4.2 What is Torrefaction? 4.3 Carbonization 4.4 Torrefaction Process 4.5 Degree of Torrefaction 4.6 Physical Properties of Torrefied Biomass 4.7 Torrefaction Technologies 4.8 Design Methods Appendix Mass and Energy Balance of Torrefier Mass Balance Energy Balance Chapter 5. Pyrolysis 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Pyrolysis 5.3 Pyrolysis Product Yield 5.4 Pyrolysis Kinetics 5.5 Heat Transfer in a Pyrolyzer 5.6 Pyrolyzer Types 5.7 Pyrolyzer Design Considerations 5.8 Biochar Symbols and Nomenclature Chapter 6. Tar Production and Destruction 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Tar 6.3 Tar Reduction Chapter 7. Gasification Theory 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Gasification Reactions and Steps 7.3 The Gasification Process 7.4 Kinetics of Gasification 7.5 Gasification Models 7.6 Kinetic Model Applications Symbols and Nomenclature Chapter 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Cofiring Biomass and Coal for Fossil Fuel Reduction and Other Benefits–Status of North American Facilities in 2010
    United States Department of Agriculture Cofiring Biomass and Coal Forest Service for Fossil Fuel Reduction and Pacific Northwest Other Benefits—Status of North Research Station American Facilities in 2010 General Technical Report PNW-GTR-867 David Nicholls and John Zerbe August 2012 D E E P R A U R T LT MENT OF AGRICU The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Combustion Products from the Cofiring of Coal with Biomass Fuels
    ANALYSIS OF COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FROM THE COFIRING OF COAL WITH BIOMASS FUELS Deirdre A. Belle-Oudry and David C. Dayton National Renewable Energy Laboratory 16 I7 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401-3393 INTRODUCTION The threat of increased global warming has subjected fossil fuels to increasing scrutiny in terms of greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions. As a result, using renewable and sustainable energy resources, such as biomass, for electricity production has become increasingly attractive. The use of dedicated biomass feedstocks for electricity generation could help reduce the accumulation of greenhouse gases because carbon dioxide is consumed during plant growth. The agricultural and wood products industries generate large quantities of biomass residues that could also provide fuel for electricity production. Increasing the use of these waste biomass fuels could alleviate the burdens of waste disposal in the agricultural and wood products industries. Coal-fired power plants produce the most electricity in the United States. If biomass were cofired at low percentages in a small number of coal-fired power plants, the use of biomass for power production could dramatically increase. Cofiring biomass and coal increases the use of sustainable fuels without large capital investments, and takes advantage of the high efficiencies obtainable in coal-fired power plants. Fuel diversity is another advantage of biomass/coal cofiring. Cofuing reduces the need for a constant supply of biomass required as in a biomass power plant, and is a viable way to decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants from power-generating facilities. Biomass and coal have fundamentally different fuel properties. Biomass is more volatile than coal and has a higher oxygen content.
    [Show full text]
  • Gasification Based Biomass Cofiring Project Integration of Poultry Litter Gasification with Conventional PC Fired Power Plant
    National Energy Technology Laboratory Co-op Agreement No. DE-PS26-00NT 40898 Gasification Based Biomass Cofiring Project Integration of poultry litter gasification with conventional PC fired power plant B. Patel – Nexant, Inc.; Kevin McQuigg – Primenergy LLC; R. Tourney – WKE Inc. NETL Project Manager Dr. Phil Goldberg Participants US DOE NETL – program coordinator Nexant – overall engineering and cost estimate Primenergy – biomass gasification technology Western Kentucky Energy Corp – feasibility study site - Reid plant Project Concept Cofire an existing pulverized coal fired boiler with low-Btu gas produced from poultry litter gasification Within 100 km of plant ~120,000 t/y of poultry liter available Energy production alternative to land application Project Concept (contd.) Biomass Fuel Boiler Fuel Management (coal/oil/ Receive, Screen N.Gas) Storage, Reclaim Steam to turbine Fuel Conveyor Biomass Flue gas Gasifier Existing Utility Boiler Stack Producer Gas Gasifier Ash - Potential P/K Fertilizer Boiler Ash - Disposal Project Issues Optimize gasifier size that can be integrated with existing boiler Verify performance and operating parameters of gasifier on poultry litter Minimize impact on existing boiler operation No additional emissions from gasification Cost benefits for the host utility Project Phases Feasibility study Confirm fuel availability and characterization Evaluate integration of gasifier and boiler Determine optimum gasifier size Prepare preliminary design and plant layout Cost estimate and plant economics Design
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Biomass Thermochemical Conversion
    An Introduction to Biomass Thermochemical Conversion Richard L. Bain Group Manager, Thermochemical Conversion National Bioenergy Center DOE/NASLUGC Biomass and Solar Energy Workshops August 3-4, 2004 Presentation Outline • Objective & Definitions • Biomass Properties • Combustion • Gasification • Pyrolysis •Other • Research Areas Fuels, Chemicals, Materials, Heat and Power from Biomass USES Fuels: Ethanol Renewable Diesel Electricity Heat Chemicals – Plastics – Solvents – Pharmaceuticals Biomass – Chemical Intermediates Conversion – Phenolics Feedstock Processes – Adhesives – Furfural – Trees – Fatty acids – Forest Residues - Gasification – Acetic Acid – Grasses - Combustion and Cofiring – Carbon black – Agricultural Crops - Pyrolysis – Paints – Agricultural Residues - Enzymatic Fermentation – Dyes, Pigments, and Ink – Animal Wastes – Detergents - Gas/liquid Fermentation – Etc. – Municipal Solid Waste - Acid Hydrolysis/Fermentation - Other Food and Feed BasicBasic DefinitionsDefinitions Biomass is plant matter such as trees, grasses, agricultural crops or other biological material. It can be used as a solid fuel, or converted into liquid or gaseous forms for the production of electric power, heat, chemicals, or fuels. Black Liquor is the lignin-rich by-product of fiber extraction from wood in Kraft (or sulfate) pulping. The industry burns black liquor in Tomlinson boilers that 1) feed back-pressure steam turbines supplying process steam and electricity to mills, 2) recover pulping chemicals (sodium and sulfur compounds) for reuse. BasicBasic
    [Show full text]
  • Emissions Tradeoffs Associated with Cofiring
    Applied Energy 113 (2014) 67–77 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Applied Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy Emissions tradeoffs associated with cofiring forest biomass with coal: A case study in Colorado, USA ⇑ Dan Loeffler a, , Nathaniel Anderson b a College of Forestry and Conservation, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA b Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT 59807, USA highlights Case study using audited fuel consumption and emissions data from a coal mine and power plant. Model emissions tradeoffs of cofiring forest biomass with coal up to 20% by heat input value. Substituting forest biomass with coal displaces fossil energy with an otherwise waste material. Substantially less system emissions overall are generated when cofiring forest biomass. Cofiring forest biomass has positive global and local greenhouse gas and human health implications. article info abstract Article history: Cofiring forest biomass residues with coal to generate electricity is often cited for its potential to offset Received 5 March 2013 fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the extent to which cofiring achieves these objec- Received in revised form 26 June 2013 tives is highly dependent on case specific variables. This paper uses facility and forest specific data to Accepted 3 July 2013 examine emissions from cofiring forest biomass with coal ranging up to 20% substitution by heat value in southwest Colorado, USA. Calculations for net system emissions include five emissions sources: coal mining, power plant processes, forest biomass processes, boiler emissions, and forest biomass disposal. Keywords: At the maximum displacement of 20% of heat demand using 120,717 t of forest biomass per year, total Forest biomass system emissions are projected to decrease by 15% for CO , 95% for CH , 18% for NO , 82% for PM , Greenhouse gas emissions 2 4 X 10 Air pollution and 27% for SOX.PM10 and CH4 emissions benefits are closely tied to reducing open burning for residue Bioenergy disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Posted 12/15
    FINAL REPORT Thermal Catalytic Syngas Cleanup for High-Efficiency Waste-to- Energy Converters SERDP Project WP-2210 DECEMBER 2015 Christopher Martin David Dunham Nikhil Patel University of North Dakota Distribution Statement A This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical and Experimental Analysis on Co-Gasification of Sewage
    energies Article Theoretical and Experimental Analysis on Co-Gasification of Sewage Sludge with Energetic Crops Stanislaw Szwaja 1,* , Anna Poskart 1, Monika Zajemska 2 and Magdalena Szwaja 1 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-201 Czestochowa, Poland; [email protected] (A.P.); [email protected] (M.S.) 2 Faculty of Production Engineering and Materials Technology, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-201 Czestochowa, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-885-840-483 Received: 15 April 2019; Accepted: 6 May 2019; Published: 9 May 2019 Abstract: As known, dried sewage sludge, is a by-product produced from waste water treatment, contains significant amounts of organic content, and makes up to 60% with overall calorific value from 9 to 12 MJ/kg. Hence, it can be considered as material for thermal processing focusing on heat and power production. Among thermal conversion technologies, gasification is seen as the effective one because it can be easily combined with heat and power cogeneration units. On the other hand, due to high mineral content (40–50%) in the sludge, it is difficult to be gasified and obtain syngas with calorific value satisfactory enough for fueling the internal combustion engine. The dried sludge can be subjected to be gasified at temperature above 850 ◦C. However, large amounts of mineral content do not provide favorable conditions to obtain this required temperature. Thus, it is proposed to enrich the sewage sludge with biomass characterized with significantly higher calorific value. In the article, co-gasification of sewage sludge and Virginia Mallow—energetic crops was investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from UK Coal Phase out Experience
    REPORT NOVEMBER 2018 INSIGHTS FROM THE UK COAL PHASE OUT EXPERIENCE: REPORT TO CHILE DECARBONISATION ROUNDTABLE CHRIS LITTLECOTT, LOUISE BURROWS & SIMON SKILLINGS Cover image: Autumn sunrise over Kingsnorth Power Station by ifor.griffiths Acknowledgement: This report was supported by the British Embassy Santiago in collaboration with the GIZ study “Technological Alternatives for the Closure and / or Reconversion of Coal Plants in Chile”. About E3G Copyright E3G is an independent climate change This work is licensed under the Creative think tank operating to accelerate the Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- global transition to a low carbon ShareAlike 2.0 License. economy. E3G builds cross-sectoral coalitions to achieve carefully defined You are free to: outcomes, chosen for their capacity to > Copy, distribute, display, and leverage change. E3G works closely with perform like-minded partners in government, the work. politics, business, civil society, science, the media, public interest foundations > Make derivative works. and elsewhere. In February 2018, E3G was ranked the fifth top global Under the following conditions: environmental policy think tank for the > You must attribute the work in second year running. www.e3g.org the manner specified by the author or licensor. Berlin office Neue Promenade 6 > You may not use this work for Berlin, 10178 commercial purposes. Germany > If you alter, transform, or build Tel: +49 (0) 30 2887 3405 upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work Brussels office only under a license identical to Rue de Commerce 124 this one. 1000 Brussels, Belgium > For any reuse or distribution, Tel: +32 (0)2 5800 737 you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
    [Show full text]