Tampa Electric Company’s Emission Reduction Program

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Welcome. SAFETY FIRST Safety tip for the day BIG BEND STATION1900 MW 4 Coal fired steam units TAMPA ELECTRIC GENERATION BAYSIDE POWER STATION 1800 MW.
Advertisements

Joe Chaisson April 21, Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plants and Geologic Carbon Sequestration Joe Chaisson.
Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
A Software Tool for Estimating Mercury Emissions and Reductions from Coal-Fired Electric Utilities (EU) Presented at the NC Clean Smokestacks Act Sections.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality - Mercury Regulations, Emissions, and Deposition Modeling in North Carolina Presented for 6th Annual Unifour Air.
 In 1975, the catalytic converter was installed on all new cars.  The job of the catalytic converter is convert harmful pollutants into less harmful.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) IGCC is basically the combination of the gasification unit and the combined cycle. It has high efficiency.
CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.
Particulate Matter Seminar John Kush Texas Genco Rice University Shell Center for Sustainability November 9, 2004.
Air Pollution and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Control of sulfur oxide. 低硫燃料 (low sulfur fuel) 燃料脫硫 (fuel desulfurization, removal of sulfur from fuel) 排煙脫硫 (flue gas desulfurization, FGD)
Energy (TKK-2129) Instructor: Rama Oktavian
Informational Meeting Status of Glades Power Park Air Construction Permit Application April 24, 2007 Moore Haven, Florida State of Florida Department of.
E&CS Overview & Major Construction Update Eddie Clayton.
THE ROLE OF RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY IN REDUCING VEHICLE EMISSIONS MAY 2014 Dr RICHARD O’SULLIVAN COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
Performance and Benefits of Flue Gas Treatment Using Thiosorbic Lime
EPA Regulations On Electric Utility Generating Units (EGU)
Title 4 Compliance Options ©2002 Dr. B. C. Paul. Band aide Approach  Buy Credits –Have been abundant because of aggressive compliance – could be running.
Chapter 14: Air Pollution and Environment Big Question: Why Is Air Pollution In Cities Still Such A Big Problem? Smog in Seattle, date unknown, but prior.
Air Emission Control Technology UWM Air Pollution Meteorology Class November 20, 2007 Frances A. Hardrick We Energies.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants April 13, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
AEP’s Emission Reduction Strategy AEP’s Emission Reduction Strategy Presented by: John McManus, Vice President Environmental Services APP Site Visit October.
Mirant Mid-Atlantic MWAQC Technical Advisory Committee Briefing January 21, 2005.
SynGas Gasifier ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Technology Presentation.
Air Quality Revision.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality Report on Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units In response to 15 NCAC 02D.2509(b)
IPM Overview Elliot Lieberman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
Freeport Generating Project Project Description Modernization projects at Power Plant #2 Developers – Freeport Electric and Selected Development Company.
Air Emissions Treatment. Because air pollutants vary in size many orders of magnitude, many different types of treatment devices are required for emissions.
Assessment of Mercury Rules for Electric Generators in North Carolina September 9, 2015 Presented to the Environmental Management Commission – Air Quality.
Massachusetts’ 4-Pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference - August.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
Workshop of St Petersburg - 27 th October 2009 Expert sub-group on Emerging Technologies/Techniques EGTEI - Emerging technologies/ techniques for LCPs.
Team 4 – Ext 10 Coal mining Project Ian, Michael, Bruce, Megan, Bryce.
Air Pollution Challenges Kentucky Coal Association April 29, 2013 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
Can Coal be used for Power Generation by an Environmentally Responsible Society? An Overview of “Clean Coal” Technologies Ben Bayer November 20, 2006 ChE.
Figure 1. Emission Levels, Reference Case Projections for 2010 and 2020, and Target Caps for Electricity Generators Target 0 2,000 4,000 6,000.
Emission Levels, Reference Case Projections for 2010 and 2020, and Target Caps for Electricity Generators Target 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000.
Sorbent Polymer Composite Mercury and SO2 Control Installation and Full Scale Performance Update John Knotts - W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
1 Clean Air Act Regulation, Technologies, and Costs NARUC/BPC/NESCAUM Power Sector Environmental Regulations Workshop David C. Foerter Executive Director.
CFBC BOILER UPDATE Coal Based Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion (CFBC) Boiler Technology By :Asad Mehmood.
Building High-Quality Electric Power Infrastructure for the Future
First in Service First in Value
Coal Larenz Devaren.
A History of Power Plant Controls in Maryland What Did We Learn
Pulverized Coal Combustion
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Ryan Anderson April 22, 2008 Climate Change: Science and Society
Pollution control methods of thermal power plants
Overview of Coal-Fueled Power Plants
Innovations in projecting emissions for air quality modeling
Mrs. Brostrom Integrated Science C
16.4 Control of Air Pollution
What Causes Air Pollution?
Control of Sulfur Oxides Dr. Wesam Al Madhoun
A Science Sisters Presentation.
Maryland's Air Quality: Nitrogen Reductions and the Healthy Air Act
How do you reduce the amount of pollutants entering the atmosphere?
تکنولوژيهای کاهش انتشار آلاينده های هوا
Department of Environmental Quality
تکنولوژيهای کاهش انتشار آلاينده های هوا
Chapter 12. Air Pollution Control
Air Quality and Pollution
Burning fuels: three sources of pollution
Do Now Please have out any information pertaining to heat islands as we will be discussing them today to prepare for your engineering design challenge.
Air pollution control engineering
by Maria pompa, Gerardo,Karl Gudino, Ottoniel Ticas
Module 48 Pollution Control Measures
Presentation transcript:

Tampa Electric Company’s Emission Reduction Program 2005 Update

Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Facility IGCC Facility Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Facility

TEC Consent Decree (CD) and Consent Final Judgement (CFJ) TEC is required to repower F.J. Gannon Station, a coal fired electric generation facility, to Bayside Power Station, a natural gas fired electric generation facility TEC is required to optimize the Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) at Big Bend Station TEC is required to upgrade the removal efficiency and availability of the scrubbers (FGDs) at Big Bend Station TEC is required to make substantial early and long term reductions in NOX emissions from the units at Big Bend Station by 2010 Upon completion of the above projects, emissions levels from all TEC units will be comparable to emissions levels from new units utilizing the same fuels

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) By 2010, TEC will have reduced NOX system wide by approximately 85% Gannon NOX reductions: repower to natural gas Big Bend NOX reductions: addition of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system NOX emissions from Polk Unit 1 IGCC were already low, and were reduced again prior to July 2003

Tampa Electric Projected Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Emissions 80,000 80,000 68,703 70,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 85% Reduction 40,000 60,000 30,000 20,000 50,000 9,051 10,000 Early NOx reductions [tons] from Big Bend Units - 1, 2 & 3 1998 2010 40,000 x NO F.J. Gannon Station is 30,000 repowered to Bayside Power Station 20,000 10,000 Additional NOx reductions from Big Bend Units 1-4 - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) By 2010, TEC will have reduced SO2 system wide by approximately 89% Gannon SO2 reductions: repowering to natural gas Big Bend SO2 reductions: all units fully scrubbed at all times SO2 emissions from Polk Unit 1 IGCC are already low

Tampa Electric Projected Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emissions 200,000 200,000 180,000 175,497 160,000 180,000 140,000 120,000 89% Reduction 160,000 100,000 Big Bend Units 1 & 2 FGD 80,000 begins commercial operation 60,000 140,000 40,000 18,996 20,000 - 120,000 1998 2010 [tons] 100,000 Optimization of Big Bend 2 SO FGD systems 80,000 F.J. Gannon Station is 60,000 repowered to Bayside Power Station 40,000 20,000 - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Particulate Matter (PM) By 2010, TEC will have reduced PM system wide by approximately 70% Gannon PM reductions: repowering to natural gas Big Bend PM reductions: improvements to ESPs and all units fully scrubbed at all times PM emissions from Polk Unit 1 IGCC are already low

Tampa Electric Projected Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions 5,500 6,000 5,194 5,000 5,000 F.J. Gannon Station is 70% Reduction 4,000 repowered to Bayside 4,500 Power Station 3,000 2,000 1,568 4,000 1,000 - 1998 2010 3,500 PM [tons] 3,000 BACT and BOP studies are implemented on the 2,500 ESPs at Big Bend Station 2,000 1,500 1,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Mercury (Hg) By 2010, TEC will have reduced Mercury system wide by approximately 73% Gannon Hg reductions: repowering to natural gas Big Bend Hg reductions: currently achieving co-benefits from existing pollution control technologies - electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and flue gas desulfurization (FGDs or scrubbers) systems, additional co-benefits expected from addition of SCRs Hg emissions from Polk Unit 1 IGCC are already low

Tampa Electric Projected Mercury (Hg) Emissions 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.40 Big Bend Units 1 & 2 FGD 0.35 73% Reduction Begins commercial 0.40 0.30 operation 0.25 0.20 0.35 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.30 0.05 0.00 Hg [tons] 0.25 1998 2010 0.20 F.J. Gannon Station is repowered to Bayside Power Station 0.15 0.10 Additional NOx reductions from 0.05 Big Bend 0.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) By 2005, TEC will have reduced CO2 system wide to at or below 1990 levels (approx. 23% reduction) CO2 emissions reductions accomplished through repowering of Gannon Station and unit efficiency improvements

Tampa Electric Projected Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions 22,000,000 25,000,000 20,433,055 23% Reduction 20,000,000 21,000,000 15,801,748 15,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 19,000,000 5,000,000 [tons] 18,000,000 1998 2010 2 CO F.J. Gannon Station is 17,000,000 repowered to Bayside Power 16,000,000 TEC 1990 CO Emissions 2 15,000,000 14,000,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Process * * * *(SO2, PM, NOx are drastically reduced, but not totally eliminated.)

Big Bend Power Station With SCR – Elevation View

Big Bend Power Station Unit 4 SCR New Ductwork SCR Box

SO2 and NOx Emissions Compared to Electricity Consumption