The Rapid Growth of Composites in Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) 

Processes 

Don Kelley 

Ashland Performance Materials 

5200 Blazer Parkway 

Dublin, OH 43017 

ABSTRACT 

The demand for corrosion resistant composites made from epoxy vinyl ester resins 

increased significantly starting in 2006 when nickel prices increased from $6/lb to $15/lb. This 

price increase continued in 2007 when nickel hit a high of $24/lb. With a 30-year reputation for 

low maintenance and relatively stable cost, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) provides process 

engineers with a reliable, cost effective construction material that can be employed in numerous 

applications that are corrosive to stainless steel at a price much lower than high alloy clad steel. 

Although some other materials may be cost competitive with FRP, their use typically results in 

higher life cycle costs due to maintenance. 

The purpose of this paper will be to compare FRP with high nickel alloy and austenitic 

stainless steel in “wet process” Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) environments. Relative cost and 

corrosion data will be presented to provide the information necessary for process engineers to 

facilitate future decisions concerning material of construction. 

Keywords: corrosion, desulfurization, epoxy vinyl ester resin,, fiberglass-reinforced, flue gas, 

high nickel alloy, plastic, reinforced thermoset plastic, sulfuric, vinyl ester resin 

INTRODUCTION 

The cost of high nickel alloys increased significantly in 2006 and 2007, making corrosion 

resistant process equipment made with high nickel alloy very expensive relative to other 

materials. This has created a great demand for alternative, less expensive materials that have 

similar corrosion resistance. Prior to 2006, high nickel alloy was the material of choice for many 

“wet process” FGD environments found in coal fired electric power plants. These environments 

often contain high chloride and fluoride levels that are highly corrosive to stainless steel. 

1 
Since FGD construction is expected to continue at current levels to 2015 and beyond, 

there will be a significant need for new corrosion resistant equipment in these plants. The cost of 

new equipment will depend greatly upon the materials of construction. Materials such as high 

nickel alloy is expensive, and has created a demand for less expensive materials with proven 

performance in wet FGD processes such as FRP. 

FRP has a long history of success in wet FGD processes that are highly corrosive to 

stainless steel. Typical applications include stack liner, lime slurry piping and low pH/ high 

chloride scrubber systems. FGD equipment made from FRP is relatively inexpensive and case 

histories supporting its use date back to 1973 and support its successful use in FGD applications. 

Alternative materials for wet FGD environments, in addition to high nickel alloy, include 

austenitic stainless steel, rubber-lined carbon steel, acid brick-lined carbon steel, and resin-coated 

carbon steel, which can be used in wet FGD environments. However, these materials do not all 

have the same service life expectancy, nor do they have the same cost. In this paper, FRP will be 

used as a reference material compared to other materials for service life and cost in FGD 

processes. 

FRP COST VERSUS OTHER MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION 

With the rising cost of nickel, FRP has become a very competitive material of 

construction. The total installed cost for FRP ranges from about $100 to $150 per square foot in 

North America (prices may vary in other countries). It is less expensive than 2205 stainless steel 

(Table 1) and much less expensive than C-276 alloy clad carbon steel and has a longer service 

life in high chloride and fluoride applications 

TABLE 1 

COST COMPARISON OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS*

Construction Material Installed Cost Cost Ratio 

Shop Fabricated FRP $100 / Sq. Ft. 1.00 

Field Fabricated FRP $150 / Sq. Ft 1.50 

2205 stainless steel 1⁄4 inch plate $188 / Sq. Ft. 1.88 

C-276 clad carbon steel $330 / Sq. Ft. 3.30 

*Cost obtained from a major FRP supplier in North America. 

2 
FRP CHEMICAL RESISTANCE VERSUS METALS 

Chemical resistance is a key predictor of service life in wet FGD processes. Compared to 

metals (Table 2), FRP made from epoxy vinyl ester resin has as good or better chemical 

resistance than Alloy C-276 and is superior to 2205 stainless steel. FRP has unusual resistance to 

chlorides and is superior to alloys in high chloride environments. Based on more than 30 years of 

experience and testing in wet FGD processes, FRP made from epoxy vinyl ester resin has the 

chemical resistance necessary for long-term service life. 

TABLE 2 

EPOXY VINYL ESTER RESIN CHEMICAL RESISTANCE COMPARED TO METAL 

Materials Sulfuric Acid Hydrochloric Acid Acid Chloride Salts 

FRP made with epoxy 

vinyl ester resin 

100°C 

to 30% 

80°C 

to 15% 

100°C 

All conc. 

2205 Stainless Steel 30°C 

to 30% 

60°C 

to 1% 

65°C 

to 2000 ppm @ low Ph 

Alloy C-276 100°C 

to 30% 

80°C 

to 15% 

65°C 

to 50M ppm @ low Ph 

FIBERGLASS-REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) 

FRP is a laminate of E-glass fiber and thermoset resin as shown in Figure 1. Corrosion 

resistant FRP is made from a premium thermoset resin. The corrosion barrier (CB), on the 

process side of the laminate, has high resin content for corrosion resistance. The structural layers 

have high glass content for strength and stiffness. 

 

Exterior “Top Coat” or 

FIGURE 1: Typical Corrosion Resistant FRP Laminate Construction 

2 Ply 1.5 oz./ft.2 Glass Mat

75% Resin 

0.25 mm Veil 

90% Resin 

Veil as Required 

One Mat Ply or More for

Corrosion Allowance 

as Required 

Corrosion Barrier Portion (CB) Structural Portion 

Mat Alternating with Process 

Side 

Woven Roving or 

Filament Winding as 

Required 

 2.7 mm (100 mils) minimum 6.4 mm (250 mils) minimum thickness

 E-glass or ECR glass 

3 
For most wet applications, the maximum operating temperature is 100oC (212oF) with 

excursions up to 120oC (248oF). Dry environments can operate at 177°C (350°F) with excursions 

up to 204°C (400°F). Because not all resins are suitable for processes that have thermal cycling 

or high temperature excursions, it is important to consult the resin manufacturer when choosing a 

resin for these types of applications. 

FRP GROWTH IN WET FGD APPLICATIONS 

The rapid growth of FRP in wet FGD processes is clearly shown in Table 3. In 2004 and 

2005, only eight stack liner projects were kicked off. Thirty eight were kicked off in 2006, forty 

nine in 2007, and so far thirty nine are scheduled for 2008. 

TABLE 3 – FRP STACK LINERS WITH KICKOFF DATES FROM 2004 TO 2008 

Utility Station/Location 

Kick

off 

Year 

Progress Energy Asheville #1,2/Arden, NC 2004 

AEP Mitchell #1,2, Moundsville, WV 2004 

WE Energies Pleasant Prairie, WI 2004 

Dominion Chesterfield #6, Chester, VA 2005 

Progress Energy Roxboro #3, Semora, NC 2005 

DP&L Stuart #3, Aberdeen, OH 2005 

PPL Montour #1,2, Washingtonville, PA 2005 

AEP Mountaineer, New Haven, WV 2005 

Southern Bowen #4,Cartersville, GA 2006 

TVA Bull Run #1, Clinton, TN 2006 

Duke Power Belews Creek #2, Walnut Cove, NC 2006 

AEP Amos #3, Winfield, WV 2006 

AEP Cardinal #1, Brilliant, OH 2006 

AEP Cardinal #2, Brilliant, OH 2006 

DP&L Stuart #2, Aberdeen, OH 2006 

Indianapolis P&L Harding Street #7, Indianapolis, IN 2006 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #3, KY 2006 

Progress Energy Roxboro #4, Semora, NC 2006 

Southern Gorgas #8,9,10, Parrish, AL 2006 

Duke Power Belews Creek #1, Walnut Cove, NC 2006 

Progress Energy Roxboro #1, Semora, NC 2006 

AEP Amos #1, Winfield, WV 2006 

PPL Brunner Island #3, York Haven, PA 2006 

Ohio Edison Sammis #6, Stratton, OH 2006 

Allegheny Energy Hatsfield Ferry #1,2, Masontown, PA 2006 

AEP Amos #2, Winfield, WV 2006 

AEP Muskingum River #5, Waterford, OH 2006 

Duke Power Allen #1-5, Belmont, NC 2006 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #2, KY 2006 

WE Energies Elm Road #5,6, WI 2006 

Alcoa Warrick #2,3, Newburgh, IN 2006 

Indianapolis Power & Light Petersburg #3, Indiana 2006 

Cinergy/PSI Energy, Inc. Gibson #1, 2, & 3, Owensville, IN 2006 

4 
Utility 

Kick

Station/Location off 

Year 

Dayton Power & Light J.M. Stuart Unit 1,2,3,& 4 Aberdeen, OH 2006 

DTE Energy Monroe Units 3 & 4, Monroe, MI 2006 

Duke Energy Belews Creek #1, & 2 2006 

PPL Corporation Montour Station Washingtonville, PA 2006 

Santee Cooper Winyah #1 & 2 2006 

Southern Company Alabama Power E.C. Gaston Unit 5 Wilsonville, AL 2006 

Southern Company Alabama Power Gorgas Units 8, 9, & 10 Parrish, AL 2006 

Southern Company Georgia Power Bowen #1 & 2, Cartersville, GA 2006 

TVA Bull Run, Tennessee 2006 

We Energies Elm Road #1 & 2, Oak Creek, WI 2006 

Allegheny Energy Greensberg, PA Hatfield's Ferry Units 1,2,3 Masontown, PA 2006 

AmerenUE, St Louis Sioux Power Plant, West Alton, Missouri 2006 

AEP Conesville #4, OH 2007 

DP&L Stuart #1, Aberdeen, OH 2007 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #1, KY 2007 

Lower CO River Auth. Fayette #1, LaGrange, TX 2007 

Lower CO River Auth. Fayette #2, LaGrange, TX 2007 

Ohio Edison Sammis #1-4, Stratton, OH 2007 

Progress Energy Roxboro #2, Semora, NC 2007 

Southern Wansley #1, 2, Roopville, GA 2007 

Alcoa Warrick #1,4, Newburgh, IN 2007 

Detroit Edison Monroe #3, 4, MI 2007 

Ohio Edison Sammis #7, Stratton, OH 2007 

Basin Electric Coop. / Sargent Lundy Leland Olds Units 1 & 2, Stanton, ND 2007 

Cinergy/PSI Energy, Inc. Div. Cayuga #1, & 2,Terre Haute, IN 2007 

Cinergy/PSI Energy, Inc. Div. Miami Fort Units 7 & 8, North Bend, OH 2007 

CPS Energy J.K. Spruce Plant Unit 2, San Antonio, TX 2007 

Duke Energy C.G. Allen #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Gaston County, NC 2007 

Dynegy Midwest / Sargent Lundy Havana Unit 6, Havana, IL 2007 

Dynegy Midwest / Sargent Lundy Baldwin #1, 2, & 3, Baldwin, IL 2007 

Gainsville Regional Utilities (GRU) Deerhaven Generating Station, Unit # 2, Gainsville, FL 2007 

GenPower, LLC Nedham, MA Longview Power Station Maidsville, WV 2007 

Indianapolis Power & Light Harding Street Station Indianapolis, IN 2007 

LG&E -KUC E.W. Brown Unit 3 2007 

LG&E -KUC Ghent Station Unit 1, 3 & 4, Ghent, KY 2007 

LG&E -KUC Cummins & Barnard Trimble County Unit #2, Bedford, KY 2007 

Minnesota Power, Duluth, MN Boswell, Unit 3, Cohasset, Minn. 2007 

PacifiCorp - Utah Power Huntington Canyon Plant Unit #2, Huntington, Utah 2007 

Plumb Point Power (LS Power) Plumb Point Energy Station Osceola, AR 2007 

PPL Corporation Brunner Island #3,York County, PA 2007 

Progress Energy Lee, Goldsboro, NC 2007 

Progress Energy / Worley Parsons Mayo #1 & 2, Roxboro, NC 2007 

Progress Energy / Worley Parsons Crystal River Units 4 & 5 Crystal River, FL 2007 

Reliant Energy Cheswick Power Station Springdale, PA 2007 

Reliant Energy Keystone Station Units #1 & 2 Shelocta, PA 2007 

Salt River Project Washington Group Springerville Station, Unit 4 Springerville, AZ 2007 

SCE&G a SCANA Corp. Wateree Units 1 & 2, Eastover, SC 2007 

Southern Company Georgia Power Hammond #1, 2, 3, & 4, Coosa, GA 2007 

TVA Kingston, Tennessee 2007 

TVA Colbert, Alabama 2007 

5 
Utility 

Kick

Station/Location off 

Year 

TXU Corp. Sandow Plant, Unit 5, Milam County, TX 2007 

TXU Corp. - Oak Grove Mgt. Co. Oak Grove, Units 1 & 2, Robertson County, TX 2007 

Western Farmers & Brazos Elec. Co-op Hugo Unit 2, Anadarko, OK 2007 

AEP Conesville Plant Unit #4, Conesville, OH 2007 

AEP Kyger Creek 1 – 5, Gallipolis, OH 2007 

AEP Cliffy Creek 1 – 5, Madison, IN 2007 

Allegheny Energy Greensberg, PA Fort Martin Units 1&2, Maidsville, WV 2007 

Ameren Coffeen Plant, Coffeen, IL 2007 

Ameren Duck Creek Plant, Canton, IL 2007 

Constellation Energy Brandon Shores Units 1&2, Baltimore, MD 2007 

Dominion Chesterfield Unit # 6, Chester, VA 2007 

Alabama Electric Coop Lowman Station, Leroy, AL 2008 

Allegheny Energy Pleasants, Pleasants WV 2008 

DP&L Stuart #4, Aberdeen, OH 2008 

Duke Power Marshall, Terrel, NC 2008 

City of Sringfield, IL Dallman, Springfield, IL 2008 

Alabama Power Gaston #1, Wilsonville, AL 2008 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #4, KY 2008 

Duke Energy Cliffside Plant Units 6 & 7, Cliffside, NC 2008 

LS Power East Brunswick, NJ Long Leaf Project, Early County, GA 2008 

NRG Energy Big Cajun II Unit 4, New Roads, LA 2008 

Ohio Valley Electric Corp. Kyger Creek, Cheshire, Ohio 2008 

Progress Energy Cape Fear Units 1 & 2, Siler City, NC 2008 

Progress Energy L.V. Sutton, Wilmington, NC 2008 

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Hudson Unit #2, Jersey City, NJ 2008 

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Mercer Plant Units 1 & 2, Trenton, NJ 2008 

SCE&G. Williams Station, Charleston, SC 2008 

Southern Company Alabama Power Plant Barry, Bucks, AL 2008 

Southern Company Alabama Power J.H. Miller Units 3, & 4, West Jefferson, AL 2008 

Southern Company Georgia Power McDonough/ Atkinson #1, 2, Smyrna, GA 2008 

Sunbury Generation LLC Sunbury Units 1 & 2, Shamokin Dam, PA 2008 

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. Weston Plant, Unit #3, Wausau, WI 2008 

XcelEnergy Comanche Unit #3, Pueblo, CO 2008 

Alliant Energy - IP&L Sutherland Plant - Unit 4, Marshalltown, IA 2008 

Alliant Energy - Wisconsin Power & Light Columbia Energy Center, Portage, WI 2008 

CWLP, Springfield, IL Dallman Station, Unit # 4, Springfield, IL 2008 

East Kentucky Power John Sherman Cooper Plant, Unit 2, Burnside, KY 2008 

LS Power East Brunswick, NJ Elk Run Power Plant, Waterloo, Iowa 2008 

Otter Tail Power Co. Big Stone II, Milbank, SD 2008 

Public Service of New Hampshire Merrimack Station, Units 1 & 2, Bow, NH 2008 

Salt River Project / Sargent & Lundy SRP Coronado Plant, Saint Johns, AZ 2008 

Sithe Global Power, LLC Houston, TX Desert Rock Energy Co., Farmington, NM 2008 

We Energies South Oak Creek Retrofit, Units 7 & 8, Oak Creek, WI 2008 

XcelEnergy Sherco Plant Units 1&2, Becker, Minn. 2008 

American Municipal Power American Municipal Power Station, Letart Falls, OH 2008 

NRG Energy Indian River Units 1,2,3 & 4, Millsboro, DE 2008 

Power4Georgians Coop Washington County Power Station, Sanderville, GA 2008 

Southern Company, Georgia Power Plant Branch #1, 2, 3, 4, Milledgeville, GA 2008 

Southern Company, Georgia Power Scherer Plant Units 1,2,3,4, Juliette, GA 2008 

CMS Energy Karn / Weadock Complex, Bay City, MI 2008 

6 
 The service life of stack liners made from FRP is expected to be the life of the plant as 

are C-276 clad steel stack liners. Organic coatings usually have to be replaced after 20 to 25 

years. Brick lined stacks have a history of more maintenance compared to FRP stack liners. 

FGD CASE HISTORIES 

Case histories of FRP for wet FGD processes include absorber towers or vessels, slurry 

piping, ductwork, and stacks liners. The use of FRP in FGD processes dates back to the early 

1970s. With an abrasion-resistant liner, FRP pipe based on epoxy vinyl ester resin has been 

successful in numerous plant sites for more than 35 years. The use of FRP and FRP awarded 

projects grew rapidly in 2006 and 2007, and the trend continues in 2008. The driving force for 

this growth is the rapid increase in the cost of metals, reduced metal availability, and the 

relatively stable cost of FRP. 

FRP case histories date back to the early 1970’s. The most prominent applications are lime 

slurry piping followed by stack liners. The most common material of construction for slurry 

piping (Fig. 2) in wet FGD systems is FRP based on epoxy vinyl ester resin. With an abrasionresistant liner, FRP pipe based on epoxy vinyl ester resin has been successful in more than 150 

plant sites dating back to 1977. 

 

FIGURE 2: Lime slurry piping for an FGD process in a power plant in the Eastern United States 

 

7 
The use of FRP in wet FGD stack liners dates back to 1977. A number of FRP stack 

liners were installed in the 1980s and are still in service today as shown in Table 4. Two were 

replaced with acid brick linings and five were relined. Fabrication errors were the root cause for 

these stack liner difficulties. The rest, that were fabricated properly, are in good to excellent 

condition and require minimum maintenance. Poor fabrication and lack of inspection led to the 

demise of company “A” shown in Table 4. With a reputation for excellence, company “B” has 

become the largest FRP fabricator in the world. 

TABLE 4 FRP STACK LINERS IN FGD SERVICE INSTALLED BETWEEN 1977 AND 2001 

Station/Unit Year in 

Service 

Fabricator Original Resin Status as of 2007 

Spurlock 1 1977 A Chlorendic Polyester relined in 1988 

Coronado 1 1979 B Chlorendic Polyester min. maintenance 

Winyah 3 1980 B Chlorendic Polyester min. maintenance 

Coronado 2 1980 B Chlorendic Polyester min. maintenance 

Spurlock 2 1981 A Chlorendic Polyester replaced with brick

Winyah 4 1981 B Chlorendic Polyester min. maintenance 

Merom 2 1981 A Chlorendic Polyester relined with 510N 

Merom 1 1982 A Chlorendic Polyester relined with 510N 

Laramie R. 3 1982 B Chlorendic Polyester little maintenance 

Holcomb 1 1983 B Chlorendic Polyester min. maintenance 

Cross 2 1983 B Chlorendic Polyester excellent condition

Antelope Valley 1 1984 A Chlorendic Polyester replaced with brick

North Valme 2 1985 B Chlorendic Polyester no maintenance 

Antelope Valley 2 1986 A Chlorendic Polyester relined with 510N 

Intermountain 1 1986 B Brominated Polyester min. maintenance 

Intermountain 2 1986 B Brominated Polyester min. maintenance 

Sarnia 1992 C Brominated Polyester relined with 510N 

Milliken 1994 D Bominated Epoxy Vinyl Ester min. maintenance 

Ingolstadt 1994 E Novolac Epoxy Vinyl Ester min. maintenance 

Simmering 2000 F Novolac Epoxy Vinyl Ester excellent condition

Eggborough 2001 G Bis A Epoxy Vinyl Ester excellent condition

The experience above has led the engineering community to be much more careful in 

choosing fabricators who are qualified to take on stack liner projects that require field 

fabrication. In addition, engineers have become more aware of the importance of inspection and 

workmanship and are willing to take the necessary steps to promote the use of best practices to 

avoid the mistakes of the past. Consequently, there have been very few problems with stack 

liners that were fabricated in the 1990’s, and the trend of success has continued through 2007. 

Some of the stack liners, dating from 1994, are shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5. They are 

located in New York, Germany, and Austria respectively. 

8 
FIGURE 3: Milliken power station stack liners operating in Western New York since 1994. 

FIGURE 4: Two FRP liners operating in Ingolstadt, Germany since 1994. 

9 
FIGURE 5: FRP stack liners operating in Vienna, Austria since 2000. 

The use of FRP in North American power plants increased dramatically in 2006. That year 63 

FRP stack liners were awarded for construction at 49 power plant sites. With more than three 

million square feet of laminate, this was the largest award of FRP stack liners in the history of 

the power industry. Figure 6 shows the installation of two stack liners in the eastern United 

States. 

FIGURE 6: Stack liner installation in a power plant on the East Coast 

10 
 In addition to the rapid growth of FRP in wet FGD stack liners, FRP ductwork for 

transporting scrubbed flue gas to the FRP stack liners has also grown dramatically. Historically, 

FRP ductwork in power plants has been very successful dating back to the 1970s. Figure 3 shows 

the FRP ductwork, made with brominated epoxy vinyl ester resin in a 550MW power plant. 

Brominated resins are used when stack and duct specifications call for fire retardancy. 

Figure 3: Ductwork in a 550 MW power plant in the Eastern United States 

The construction of FRP absorber vessels and internal components grew rapidly starting 

in 2006. The most common FRP absorber vessels are known as jet bubbling reactors (JBR). A 

JBR is part of a limestone slurry FGD process that has all the chemical reactions taking place in 

one vessel to produce high quality gypsum. One of the largest FRP scrubbers in North America 

started up in June 2007 at a power plant on the Ohio River. Figure 4 shows the massive JBR that 

is 88 feet in diameter and 77 feet tall. This JBR is currenlty removing 99% of the SO2 from high 

sulfur coal flue gas. 

FIGURE 4: A large FRP flue gas scrubber in a 600MW power plant. 

11 
Another rapidly growing use of FRP in power plants is for cooling towers. While wood 

has been the predominant material used for these towers, FRP is fast becoming the material of 

choice for these towers instead. The primary reason is that FRP structures are anticipated to last 

more than twice as long as wood structures (50 years plus versus 25 years for wood). FRP 

requires little or no maintenance over its lifespan while wood towers often require a considerable 

amount of maintenance. FRP is not subject to internal deterioration or biological attack, and it 

can withstand almost any chemical exposure by choosing a suitable resin. Because FRP 

structural members can be manufactured in lengths up to 60 feet long and beyond, labor costs are 

reduced compared to lumber that requires splicing in 20 foot lengths. Figure 6 shows two six cell 

FRP towers in a 700 MW power station in the Midwest. 

Figure 6: FRP cooling towers at 700 MW Midwest Power Plant. 

CONCLUSIONS 

FRP made with DERAKANE® and HETRON® epoxy vinyl ester resins is an ideal material 

of construction for lime slurry piping, stack liners, absorber vessels and ductwork with the 

following advantages:

 

• Proven performance for more than 30 years 

• Much lower cost than Alloy C-276 clad carbon steel 

• Less maintenance than other materials 

NOTICE 

 The information in this publication is presented in good faith, but no warranty is given, 

expressed or implied, nor is freedom from any patent to be inferred. Also, it is intended for use 

12 
13 

by persons skilled in the fiber reinforced plastics industry, acting on their own risk, and assuming 

the entire responsibility for the selection of materials, the design, the cure and fabrication, and 

the installation of the equipment. Having no control over these operations, ASHLAND does not 

guarantee the quality of the end product. NO WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN: ALL IMPLIED 

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE ARE 

EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED. 

®Registered trademark andTM trademark of Ashland Inc.