Publication: Magyar Közlöny
Issue: MK-2007-40 (Year: 2007, Number: 40)
Era: 2004-2010
Section: 
Paragraph Index: 275

26. Using the techniques mentioned above, mercury removal efficiencies vary extensively from plant to plant, as seen in table 3. Research is ongoing to develop mercury removal techniques, but until such techniques are available on an industrial scale, no best available technique is identified for the specific purpose of removing mercury. Table 3: Control measures, reduction efficiencies and costs for fossil-fuel combustion emissions Emis si on so ur ce Cont rol me a su re(s) Re duc ti on ef fi ci en cy (%) Aba te ment costs (to tal costs US$) Com bus ti on of fuel oil Switch fuel oil to gas Cd, Pd: 100; Hg: 70–80 Highly ca se-spe ci fic Com bus ti on of coal Switch from coal to fu els with lo wer he a vy me tals emis si ons Dust 70–100 Highly ca se-spe ci fic ESP (cold-si de) Cd, Pb: >90; Hg: 10–40 Spe ci fic in vest ment US$ 5–10/m3 was te gas per hour (>200,000 m3/h) Wet fu el-gas de sulp hu ri za ti on (FGD)a/ Cd, Pb: >90; Hg: 10–90b/ 15–30/Mg was te Fab ric fil ters (FF) Cd: >95; Pb: >99; Hg: 10–60 Spe ci fic in vest ment US$ 8–15/m3 was te gas per hour (>200,000 m3/h) a/ Hg re mo val ef fi ci en ci es inc re a se with the pro port ion of io nic mer cu ry. High-dust se lec ti ve ca taly tic re duc ti on (SCR) ins tal la ti ons fa ci li ta te Hg(II) for mat ion. b/ This is pri ma rily for SO2 re duc ti on. Re duc ti on in he a vy me tal emissions is a side be ne fit. (Spe ci fic in vest ment US$ 60–250/kWel.) Primary iron and steel industry (annex II, category 2)

Source: https://magyarkozlony.hu/hivatalos-lapok/27e75a8cd1ad627908b248500ebbcc5bfa21e53f/dokumentumok/08a63e1b22fa9bd1e1deda098c61d7cbd099a770/letoltes