# FMC **Per NOx**  **ide SM**  

# Process: **Example Case and Economics**  EP A – Region 9 Jan 19, 2012

# NOx Removal **Projections Step 1**  **- Oxidation**  – Over 80% demonstrated at full - scale – Various oxidized species formed • NO 2 

# (~ 2/3) • HNO 3 

# (~ 1/3) 

# Step 2 **- Capture**  – NO 2 

# Capture in Scrubber • Controlled by chemistry / mass - transfer area (contacting) • Projections based on URS lab/bench test program 

# – HNO 3 

# Capture in Scrubber • Controlled by mass - transfer area (contacting) • Similar to max SO 2 

# removal (or HCl ) 2

# NO Oxidation Results

3

# NO **2** 

# Capture **Projections**

4



## Note: Projections based on laboratory data; pilot-scale scrubber testing needed to validate results.

# Case **Study –**  **400 MW Plant**  • Unit Conditions – 400 MW – 10,000 Btu/kW- hr – 75% Capacity Factor – 0.20 lb NO x

# / mmBtu – 800 lb/ hr NO x 

# • Cost Basis – $0.50/ lb H 2 

# O 2 

# – $300/ton Na 2 

# CO 3 

# – $30/MW- hr Power 

# • H 2 

# O 2 

# Process – 70% NO oxidation – 1.50 NSR (H 2 

# O 2 

# :NO x 

# ) – 2250 lb/ hr H 2 

# O 2 

# – 72% FGD Capture • 60% NO 2 

## Capture • 95% HNO 3 

## Capture 

# – 50% Overall NO x 

# Rem 

# • Results – 0.10 lb NOx/ MMBtu 5

# Case **Study -**  **Economics** • Operating Costs – Peroxide - $2.9 M/yr – Soda Ash - $0.5 M/yr – Power - $0.1 M/yr – Maint - $0.1 M/yr – Total = $3.5 M/yr 

# • Capital Costs – Estimate ~ $4 - 8 Million – Conceptual Engineering Study Needed 

# • Economic Analysis – $2700 / ton NOx rem – $1.65 / MW- hr – $0.16 / MMBtu 6

# Comparison **to SCR**

7 

### Ba**sis Units**  **Pe rNOx**  **ide SC**  **R** Capac ity Treat ed MW 400 400 Inl etN Ox lb/M MBtu 0. 20 0. 20 NOx Remov

al % 50 75 NOx Emissio ns lb/M MBtu 0. 10 0. 05 NOx Remov

ed TP Y 1, 316 1, 971 Capac ity Fa cto r % 75 75 Reagent Pe rox id e Am mo ni a ReagentM ol ar Rat io mol: mol NO x 1. 50 0. 75 ReagentCos t $/ to n $1, 000 $600 Soda AshCos t $/ to n $300 Cat al yst Cos t $/ c.f. $150 SC R Cata ly st L if

e Yr

s 3 Power Cos t $/ MW -hr $30 $30 An nual M ai nt . C os t % of Capi ta l 1. 0 1. 0 Capi ta l C os t $/ kW $20 $250 Capi ta l Rec ov

ery Pe ri od Yr

s 20 20 Capi ta l D is co untRat e % 8 8 Capi ta l Rec ov

ery Fa cto r % 10 10

# Annualized Costs

8

# Cost Effectiveness **Analysis**

9

# Take **Aways ...**  • PerNOxide is cost- effective alternative to SCR for modest NOx reductions • PerNOxide economics more favorable for ... – Lower inlet NOx levels – Smaller unit size – Lower capacity factor – Sodium and lime scrubbers – Space limited site (difficult retrofit) 

# • PerNOxide can be final “layer” of controls before SCR required... – LNB, OFA, SNCR- Urea,.... 10

# Comparison **to SNCR/SCR**

11



### Ba**sis Uni**  **ts SNCR**  **Pe rNOx**  **ide SNCR+Pe**  **rNOx ide**  **SCR** Capac it y Treat ed MW 400 400 400 400 In let N Ox lb/M MBtu 0. 20 0. 20 0. 20 0. 20 NOx Remov

al % 25 50 63 75 NOx Em is si ons lb/M MBtu 0. 15 0. 10 0. 07 0. 05 NOx Remov

ed TP Y 657 1, 316 1, 644 1, 971 Capac it y F ac to r % 75 75 75 75 Reagent Urea Pe rox id e Ammo ni a ReagentM ol ar Rat io mo l:mo l N Ox 0. 20 1. 50 0. 75 ReagentCos t $/ to n $500 $1, 000 $600 So da Ash Cos t $/ to n $0 $300 Cat al yst Cos t $/ c.f. $150 SC R Cat al yst L if

e Yr

s 3 Power Cos t $/ MW -hr $30 $30 $30 An nual Ma in t. Cos t % of Capi ta l 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 Capi ta l Cos t $/ kW $20 $20 $40 $250 Capi ta l Rec ov

eryPe ri od Yr

s 20 20 20 20 Capi ta l Di sco untRat e % 8 8 8 8 Capi ta l Rec ov

eryFa cto r % 15 10 10 10

# Annualized Costs

12

# Cost Effectiveness **Analysis**

13

### 14 

# END