Fuel 195 (2017) 290298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Mercury removal by mild thermal treatment of coal

Tomasz Chmielniak, Krzysztof Sowik, Marcin Sajdak
Institute for Chemical Processing of Coal, 1 Zamkowa St., 41803 Zabrze, Poland

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

The new concept for a mercury

removal system from coal was
proposed.

The new concept for a mercury
removal is based on mild thermal
treatment process.

The large laboratory scale show that
93% of the mercury is removed from
tested coals.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new technology for removing mercury from coal by mild thermal coal treatment using a rotary kiln is
Received 19 October 2015 presented. Experiments performed at the large laboratory scale show that 93% of the mercury is
Received in revised form 19 January 2017 removed; moreover, the thermal properties of the fuel obtained from the process are also improved. In
Accepted 23 January 2017
this article, we describe the physicochemical characteristics of the fuel under the test conditions and
Available online 31 January 2017
the properties of the products obtained during the removal process. The experiments were performed
in an appropriately modified test system, and the net mass and energy losses do not exceed 5%. An eco-
Keywords:
nomic analysis indicates that the proposed technology is cost-competitive with existing methods for
Mercury removal
Mild thermal coal treatment
removing mercury from flue gases after combustion.
Brown coal 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Power generation
Gasification

Abbreviations: LD50, lethal dose; SCR, selective catalytic reduction; IChPW, Institute for Chemical Processing of Coal; KWB, brown coal mine; MWth, thermal megawatts;
Wtr, moisture concentration in raw material (as received); a, concentration based on analytical condition; r, moisture concentration based in raw material (as received); Wa,
moisture concentration; Aa, ash concentration; Ar, ash concentration (as received); Va, volatile meter; Vdaf, volatile meter based on dry ash free condition; Qsa, higher
heatingvalue; Qia, lower heating value; Qir, lower heating value (as received); tS (oxi.), sintering temperature in oxidation conditions; tA(oxi.), softening temperature in oxidation
conditions; tB (oxi.), melting temperature in oxidation conditions; tC (oxi.), flow temperature in oxidation conditions; (semi reduct.), analysis in semi reductive conditions; Sta, total
sulphur; Str, total sulphur; SAa, incombustible sulphur; SCa, combustible sulphur; Cta, total carbon concentration; Hta, total hydrogen concentration; Na, nitrogen
concentration; Cla, chlorine concentration; Hgd, mercury concentration calculate on dry conditions.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: msajdak@ichpw.pl (M. Sajdak).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.01.073
0016-2361/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298
1. Introduction
Mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and thus pose a
significant risk to human health and the environment. Assimilation
of these compounds by water microorganisms results in the forma-
tion of dimethylmercury, which is fat-soluble and bioaccumulates,
thereby increasing its toxicity. The lethal dose (LD50) of
dimethylmercury is not precisely known, but a dose of 0.05 ml
absorbed by the skin is lethal to humans. In Poland, solid fuel com-
bustion for energy production accounts for the largest mercury
emissions to the environment, and therefore, it is important to
study the mercury content in coals used in energy production.
The average mercury contents of the hard coal and lignite used
in Polish power plants were found to range from 50 to 150 ppb
and from 120 to 370 ppb, respectively [1]. These results are consis-
tent with those obtained at the Institute for Chemical Processing of
Coal; the mercury contents of hard coal and lignite were measured
to be 19168 and 56412 ppb, respectively, at the Institute.
Therefore, it is important to modify existing technologies for
removing mercury directly after coal combustion and to develop
new technologies aimed at removing mercury before fuel combus-
tion. The mercury in the flue gas emitted during coal combustion is
mostly elemental (Hg0), oxidized (Hg2+) or associated with dust
(Hgdust). Hgdust and Hg2+ can be removed by fabric filters, electro-
static precipitators, and scrubbers. Removing elemental mercury
(Hg0) is the main challenge due to its low boiling point, high vapor
pressure and low solubility in aqueous solutions. Thus, it is neces-
sary to develop methods for removing Hg0 from flue gases.
Existing power systems that treat the exhaust gas to reduce
dust, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions also reduce mer-
cury emissions (depending on the form of mercury in the flue gas).
These systems include the following:

dedusting systems - electrofilters and electrostatic high-
temperature precipitators remove an average of 27.4% and
58%, respectively, of the mercury [2].

wet flue gas desulfurization the oxidized mercury removal
efficiency of the scrubber is 90%.

semi-dry flue gas desulfurization the mercury is removed
before the dust separation systems in the exhaust system.
When the chlorine content in the carbon is approximately
200 ppm, a considerable amount of Hg0 is also removed. How-
ever, a small percentage of Hgdust leaving the system still con-
tains elemental mercury.

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx - research conducted
in Europe [3] at the laboratory scale showed that Hg0 can be
completely oxidized to HgCl2 on an SCR catalyst surface in the
presence of HCl.

injection technologies based on activated carbon sorbents used
in waste incineration plants reduce the mercury content by 90%.
The use of these technologies in plants is much more difficult
because of lower mercury concentrations and large variations
in the gas composition, including the chlorine content2.
To increase the sorption capacity and reduce the costs, intensive
research on new sorbents is being conducted worldwide. In partic-
ular, activated carbons from lignite and coal, activated carbons
impregnated with sulphur or iodine and with bromine and calcium
chloride [4,5] and zeolites [2] have been investigated as potential
sorbents.
Gasification processes are becoming increasingly popular,
mainly due to their ability to reduce harmful emissions to the
atmosphere [6]. During coal gasification, various forms of mercury
are emitted, but the emission of Hg0 is the most problematic due to
its physicochemical properties. To remove Hg0 from the resulting
291
gas and reduce its emissions to the atmosphere, adsorption meth-
ods using activated carbon sorbents are commonly employed.
Mercury can be removed by standard systems used to purify
exhaust gas and by the low-temperature conversion of solid fuels
before combustion in various technological systems. The product
of the latter method is clean; often, 95% of the mercury is removed.
It also has significantly improved thermal properties compared
with raw coal. The advantage of low-temperature solid fuel con-
version systems is that a significant amount of mercury is removed
from the fuel; however, these fluidized systems [7] require contin-
uous control of the carrier gas flow and the grain size.
In these systems, the flow of the gas stream to be purified must
be higher, which negatively affects the mercury adsorption on the
activated carbon surface by decreasing the residence time of the
gas molecules on the packed sorbent.
The technology proposed by the Institute for Chemical Process-
ing of Coal, which consists of mild thermal coal treatment using a
rotary reactor, might solve this problem. This technology will
reduce the amount of mercury-contaminated gas that must be
cleaned.
The most advanced work on removing mercury from coal before
thermal combustion is performed at the Western Research Insti-
tute (WRI) in the United States and focuses on the practical appli-
cation of the process. The WRI technology involves thermally
treating coal in two distinct temperature zones, which drying the
fuel and then removing Hg. These tests are performed in the U.S.
with the help of the DOE (Department of Energy) and EPA (Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency) as part of the third phase of a
long-term research program to develop technologies for reducing
mercury emissions from fuel processing [812].
Studies conducted at the IChPW have shown that the mercury
content in fuel can be significantly reduced using mild thermal coal
treatment at the laboratory scale. This process allows Hg to be
removed efficiently without significantly affecting the properties
of the low mercury coal.
2. Materials and methods
In this study, both hard coal and lignite were used; however,
due to the large amount of data obtained, only the lignite data they
were discussed in detail. In the case of hard coal obtained results
were discussed based on the TGA results. In this study, the lignite
employed was from the KWB Belchatow mine. The physicochemi-
cal properties of this brown coal are presented in Table 1. The
physicochemical properties, including the mercury content, of
the fuel used in the mild thermal coal treatment and all the mild
thermal coal treatment process products were measured at the
Laboratory of Fuel and Coal Active IChPW (Research Laboratory
Accreditation Certificate No. AB 081 PCA).
3. Mild thermal coal treatment
The mild thermal coal treatment fuel was pretreated to obtain
an appropriate particle size and moisture level in the raw material.
Because small particles could be removed from the reactor during
fuel processing, a raw material particle size of 0.53.15 mm was
used. The lignite was also dried before the mild thermal coal
treatment.
To perform the mild thermal coal treatment of the solid fuels,
the operating parameters, such as the slope angle and rotational
speeds of the reactor and rotary kiln feeder, were selected to
achieve a certain efficiency and raw material residence time in
the reactor. These parameters were initially estimated based on
the results for a reference material (anthracite EVERZIT N). Mea-
surements were performed using the initial furnace parameters
292 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298

Table 1
Physicochemical properties of the lignite used in the tests (KWB Belchatow lignite).

Parameters Units Result analysis of lignite

WB1 WB2 WB3 WB4
Wrt % 56.00
Wa % 7.80
Aa % 10.20
Ar % 5.10
Va % 44.32
Vdaf % 54.05
Qas J/g 21,676
Qai J/g 20,601
Qri J/g 9005
tS (oxi.) C 1080
tA (oxi.) C 1260
tB (oxi.) C 1270
tC (oxi.) C 1270
tS (semi reduct.) C 1130
tA (semi reduct.) C 1250
tB (semi reduct.) C 1260
tC (semi reduct.) C 1270
Sat % 0.83
Srt % 0.41
SaA % 0.55
SaC % 0.28
Cat % 56.00
Hat % 4.05
Na % 0.68
Cla % 0.013
Hgd mg/kg 0.336 0.379 0.414 0.444

Fig. 1. Schematic of the test stand used to remove mercury during mild thermal coal treatment.

and the chosen material to determine the yield [g/min], mass of the
raw material deposits in the reactor [g], degree of reactor filling [%]
and residence time of the feedstock in the reactor [min]. Prior to
heating the reactor, an inert gas (nitrogen, 30 dm3/h - adjustable
rotameter) was flowed through the reactor to provide an inert
environment, introducing a slight overpressure in the system. After
the selected temperatures of each heating section and the constant
solid product yield were obtained, the mass and energy balances of
the mild thermal coal treatment process were analyzed.
The mild thermal coal treatment of coal was performed using a
large, laboratory-scale test stand (Fig. 1) consisting of the
following:

inert gas (N2) dispensing system equipped with a rotameter and
gas meter,

rotary kiln equipped with three separate heating sections, raw
material dosing system, system for receiving solid products,
and reactor temperature controller,

system for receiving liquid products and cooling and purifying
gas products,

system for measuring the amount of process gas and controlling
the pressure, and

laboratory balance.
4. Efficency of the mercury removal process
The mild thermal coal treatment process of KWB Belchatow lig-
nite was performed at the laboratory scale. The results show that
the mercury concentration in the tested fuel decreased signifi-
cantly. The mild thermal coal treatment process was conducted
at 300 C. The removal efficiencies under these conditions were
92%, 93%, and 93%, as shown in Table 2.
The efficiency of mercury removal from lignite was on average
93%. In case of testing the efficiency of mercury removal from hard
coal, the efficiency was much lower and under 350 C was approx-
imately 24%. In order to increase the mercury removal efficiency
from hard coal was raised temp. to 450 C under these conditions
the removal efficiencies was 38%. The reason for the difference
occurring is the fact that the mercury in hard coal is more closely

Table 2
Mercury removal efficiency from KWB Belchatow lignite.
Test # KWB Belchatow lignite Thermally treated coal
Hg concentration
mg/kg
1 0.485 0.042
2 0.037
3 0.038
associated, as evidenced by a lower degree of removal of the ther-
mal conversion.
The content of mercury in the hard coal is much lower than in
lignite, the increase process temperature to 550 C, where the mer-
cury removal efficiency was 92%, are uneconomical for economy
reasons and a substantial degradation of the coal.
Mercury efficiency was defined by Eq. (1) as a comparison of
mercury in the raw sample of coal to the product of mild thermal
coal treatment process (thermally treated coal) including the
impact of sample weight loss due to process.
Hg T;coal  Hg T;char  1  X pyrolysis
X Hg
Hg T;coal
where
Hg T;coal mercury concentration in raw coal, ppm,
Hg T;char mercury concentration in thermally treated coal, ppm,
X pyrolysis weight loss degree on mild thermal coal treatment
process, defined as:
w0  w
X pyrolysis
w0
where w0 initial weight of the raw sample of coal,
g, w weight of thermally treated coal after process, g.
In this study, the mass balance, energy balance and mercury
distribution were determined for the mild thermal coal treatment
process performed at the laboratory scale using a rotary kiln. They
were calculated (balance sheet) based on the physicochemical
properties of the individual mild thermal coal treatment streams
(coal, char, liquid and gaseous products).
The average mass flows of the mild thermal coal treatment
products and mass and energy balances are shown in fig. 2.
As shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), the mass and energy balances for
the mild thermal coal treatment of lignite are accurately and cor-
rectly calculated. The differences in the masses and energies of
the reactants and products do not exceed 5% (3.4% for the mass bal-
ance and 4.4% for the energy balance).
The mercury balance for the process is shown in fig. 3.
Fig. 2. Mass (a) and energy (b) balances for the mild thermal coal treatment of KWB Belchatow lignite performed in a rotary kiln.
T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298 293
Feed stream Product stream Efficiency of mercury removal
VM HHV
% MJ/kg g/h g/h %
36.6 20.65 1304 1129 92
37.0 20.50 1364 1249 93
36.9 20.82 1401 1277 93
Mild thermal coal treatment at the laboratory scale (in a rotary
kiln) at 300 C results in a separation efficiency of over 90%. The
resulting clean fuel (char) is characterized by a low mercury con-
tent of 0.0436 mg/kg (fig. 3). Furthermore, this process decreases
the moisture content and increases the calorific value of the fuel
without substantially changing the other properties of the fuel
(small decreases in the hydrogen and volatile contents are
observed). Nearly all of the mercury removed from the coal enters
the gas phase (approximately 93% of the recovered labeled mer-
cury is in the gas phase). The relatively large difference in the
masses of mercury in the reactants and products occurs because
the amount of mercury in the gas product was difficult to deter-
1
mine (the small stream size combined with very low mercury con-
centrations contribute to fairly significant differences in the
balance sheet). Based on the mass balance and the energy
generated during the experiments, it can be concluded that the dif-
ferences in the mercury contents on the balance sheet are only due
to the difficulty in analyzing the gas product stream.
The experience gained from ongoing research will allow the
testing and sampling procedures to be optimized, and conse-
quently, a more precise analysis of the mercury distribution in this
2
system can be performed. The tests indicate that the system oper-
ates correctly and that the developed procedure is also appropri-
ate. Mercury concentration in liquid products obtained from the
mild thermal coal treatment of KWB Belchatow lignite at 300 C
amounted respectively 0.0114, 0.0059, 0.0061 ppm for test number
1, 2 and 3.
5. Influence of the lowtemperature process on the purified fuel
properties
Not only does the mild thermal coal treatment process allow for
the highly efficient removal of Hg from the fuel but it also does not
reduce the quality of the purified fuel and actually improves some
of the fuel properties, leading to the following effects:

lower moisture content,

increased carbon percentage,

increased caloric values to 7%, and
294 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298

Fig. 3. Mercury balance for the mild thermal coal treatment of KWB Belchatow lignite performed in a rotary kiln.

Chart 1. Change in the properties and composition of the fuel (KWB Belchatow lignite) upon purification. The compositions (C - carbon, W - moisture, A - ash, V - volatiles)
and heats of combustion of lignite and of the char obtained by mild thermal coal treatment at 300 C.

small chemical enthalpy losses (7% for the purified fuel stream
compared with the input fuel).
The changes in the properties and composition of the fuel upon
purification are given in chart 1.
The gaseous product obtained from the mild thermal coal treat-
ment has a calorific value of up to 1.78 MJ/m3. This gas was dis-
charged from the reaction system by a carrier gas.
6. New concept for a mercury removal system based on mild
thermal coal treatment
Based on this study, the initial assumptions for a system oper-
ating at 250 Mg/h were formulated. The basic data for the techno-
logical process, including its performance and operating time, are
as follows:

plant capacity: 250 Mg/h of raw coal (chemical enthalpy stream
of fuel: 626 MWth),

mercury removal efficiency of the carbon: 90%,

process temperature: 300 C,

fuel temperature after drying: 110 C,

heat loss during the drying and mild thermal coal treatment
processes: 1% of the heat flux supplied to the system,

content of the combustible substances in the ash: 5%,

fresh exhaust gas temperature: 1100 C,

thermal efficiency of the combustion chamber: 90%,

operating time in a continuous mode: 8500 h/year.
A mercury removal system based on mild thermal coal treat-
ment in a rotary kiln (Fig. 4) was proposed and was the basis for
calculations performed using the ChemCAD software.
Before using this process to remove mercury from lignite, the
lignite is prepared by grinding and then is split into two streams.
The first stream is directed to the combustion chamber (63.5 Mg/
h Table 3), where the exhaust gases are generated as a heat car-
rier to the mild thermal treatment process. The exhaust gases are
used in the drying of lignite (250 Mg/h). Flue gases from the drying
after passing through the dust removal system (bag filter, separa-
tion of fine fuel particles raised from the drying) are partly
returned to the drying and partly discharged into the atmosphere.
 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298 295

Fig. 4. Concept for a mercury removal system based on mild thermal coal treatment in a rotary kiln.

Table 3
Mass and thermal balances for the mercury removal system based on low-temperature pyrolysis in a rotary kiln.

No Stream Amount Temp. Entalphy

Physical Chemical Total
kg/h C MW MW MW
1. Input
2. Lignite 250,000 15 1.68 867.00 865.32
3. Fuel to exhaust gas generator 63,500 15 0.39 196.73 196.34
4. Air 258,489 15 0.26 0 0.26
5. Nitrogen 15,000 15 0.04 0 0.04
6. Water boiler 6 bar 9782 25 0 0 0
7. Water boiler 39 bar 8639 25 0 0 0
8. Heating water 261,545 60 10.67 0 10.67
9. Technology water 14,277 25 0.64 0 0.64
10. Electricity 5.72
11. Total input 881,232 7.66 1 063.73 1 077.11

12. Output
13. Fuel after the removal of mercury 126,654 90 2.93 784.64 787.57
14. Ash 10,303 90 0.42 0.98 1.40
15. The exhaust gases from the drying 416,154 130 131.35 0 131.35
16. Exhaust gases from the pyrolysis process 48,155 130 7.68 0 7.68
17. Mercury with sorbent 0.1 150 0 0 0
18. Heating water 261,545 90 19.81 0 19.81
19. Process steam 6 bar 9782 159 7.20 0 7.20
20. Process steam 39 bar 8639 249 6.47 0 6.47
21. Total output 881,232 175.86 785.62 961.48
296 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298
Table 4
Characteristic of the selected, main modules corresponding to the main technological units of the proposed plant for mercury removal from coal.
No. Technology unit Simulation unit
1 Flue gas generator Gibbs free Energy
(Boiler) Reactor (GIBS)
2 Coal dryer Dryer (DRYE)
3 Heat exchangers Heat exchanger (HTXR)
The pre-dried lignite is then directed to the rotary kiln, which has
an inert gas atmosphere, and thermal treatment at 300 C to
remove the mercury.
The carrier gas transports the mercury emitted from the coal tar
by (complex and variable mixtures of phenols, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heterocyclic compounds [13,14]) a
cyclone system through bag filters to heat exchangers. In the heat
exchangers, excess heat and steam are subsequently produced
(39 bar and 6 bar, respectively). The liquid products condensed
from gas from mild thermal treatment process, after water removal
are returned and fed to the combustion chamber. The cooled gas is
then fed to the sorbent. The pure, mercury-free product with
improved thermal properties can be used in combustion processes.
Research results published in the world clearly show that the
mild thermal treatment of coal, including the degree of mercury
removal depends on the nature and type of coal which was used
to the process. The differences are due not so much from different
Chart 2. Mercury removal cost for activated carbon injection technologies (including costs of utilization and losses resulting from not managing the fly ash) and the
IChPWdeveloped technology.
Main parameters
Assumption for calculations:

Heat duty = 1% of the heat flux supplied to the system

Lambda factor = 1.7

Temp. of the flue gas = 1100 C
Main data/information for mass and heat balance:

Air consumption = 258 489 kg/h

Coal consumption = 63 500 kg/h

Slag/fly ash stream = 10 303 kg/h
Assumption for calculations:

Final solid temperature = 110 C

Product Moisture Fraction = 0,12

Heat duty = 1% of the heat flux supplied to the system,
Main data/information for mass and heat balance:

Final solid temperature = 110 C

Stream of the flue gases for coal drying
Assumption for calculations:

Selection of the form of heat to produce
(hot water/ steam at different pressure)
Main data/information for mass and heat balance:

Streams of steam/water produced
physico-chemical properties of fuel but from the mercury forms
present in the fuel [13]. Removal capacity of mercury from coal
in the mild thermal treatment process is assigned the high volatil-
ity of mercury both in the molecular and bound forms. The thermal
treatment of coal causes the decomposition (degradation) of the
organic compounds from coal, which in turn causes the formation
of gas or liquid. The process removed the mercury is accompanied
by the removal of other contaminants that during the processes of
gasification and coal combustion causes the emission of harmful
substances into the atmosphere. Additionally, high temperatures
can decrease the quality of the fuel as a result of a reduction in
calorific value (reduction hydrogen and carbon) especially for
higher processing temperatures above 400 C.
In addition, an economic analysis shows that this technology is
quite cost-competitive with other methods typically used to
remove mercury from the exhaust of energy production systems
(Chart 2).
 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298 297

Table 5 mentioned previously. the fuel obtained from the mild thermal
Basic principles and assumptions for technology of mercury removal cost calculation coal treatment has lower moisture and volatile matter contents
Parameters Units Value and thus has a higher calorific value.
Investment expenditures USD 11,314,615 On the following detailed statement covering 77 separate
VARIABLE COSTS devices and equipment included in the analyzed technological sys-
Raw materials tem estimated the cost of the purchase (Table 5). The costs were
Coal to mild thermal treatment process USD/year 36,740,131.58 estimated [18] taking into account the characteristic parameters
Amount Mg/year 1,861,500.00
Purchase price (2.1 USD/GJ for 9474 kJ/kg) USD/Mg 19.74
of the individual elements of the production plant and indexes
Fuel to exhaust generator USD/year 9,331,993.42 CE (Intratec Chemical Plant Construction Index - as of December
Amount Mg/year 124,426.58 2013).
Purchase price USD/Mg 19.74 Through the cost analysis was established that the cost of
Cost of raw materials together USD/year 46,072,125.00
removing mercury for described technology is 56,05 USD/Mg (or
Media and environmental fees
Electricity USD/year 3,362,456.84 2,24 USD/GJ). The cost of low mercury coal was increased by
Amount MWh/year 42,591 20%, although with increasing prices and radical reduction the
Purchase price USD/MWh 78.95 mercury content obtained fuel characterized by a much higher
Nitrogen USD/year 1,469,605.26 energetic properties (higher calorific value), and as confirmed by
Amount Mg/year 11,169
made investigation are observed 10% relative increase of the rate
Purchase price USD/Mg 131.58
Boiler feed water USD/year 144,381.84 of gasification (in the case of Belchatow coal) relative to the raw
Amount Mg/year 137,163 coal.
Purchase price USD/Mg 1.05
Process water USD/year 13,987.63
Amount Mg/year 106,307 7. Conclusions
Purchase price USD/Mg 0.13
Storage of mercury USD/year 685.79
Amount Mg/year 0.74
The emission of mercury to the atmosphere from fossil fuel
Cost of mercury storage USD/Mg 921.05 combustion is a significant problem for which many solutions
Media and fees together USD/year 4,991,117.37 exist. These solutions for removing mercury from flue gases. which
Variable costs total USD/year 51,063,242.37 include dust extraction processes. dry and semi-dry flue gas desul-
Fixed costs of project
furization and selective catalytic reduction of NOx. generate signif-
Spare parts. repair and overhaul USD/year 282,865.26
Salaries USD/year 24,892.11 icant amounts of waste with low mercury concentrations. The
Local taxes USD/year 79,202.37 technology proposed by the Institute for Chemical Processing of
Insurance USD/year 56,573.16 Coal involves removing mercury from coal before the combustion
Depreciation USD/year 1,131,461.58
process. which allows the coal ash to be used for other purposes.
Financial costs USD/year 226,292.37
Total fixed costs USD/year 1,801,286.58
e.g. in the cement industry. Mercury is removed from the brown
Total costs USD/year 52,864,529.21 coal in a more condensed form and absorbed in the absorption sys-
Cost of disposal of mercury USD/Mg 56.05 tem. allowing for better control over the composition of the gas
Cost of disposal of mercury USD/GJ 2.63 leaving the mercury removal system. The developed technology
Cost of coal after the removal of mercury USD/GJ 2.24
is cost-competitive with commonly used methods and improves
Increase in the cost of coal % 20.0
the thermal properties of the fuel. which is very important for lig-
nite combustion.
A mercury removal system based on low-temperature pyrolysis
in a rotary kiln (Fig. 4) was proposed and was the basis for calcu- Acknowledgment
lations performed using the ChemCAD software.
For the developed configuration of the process, the simple cal- The research results presented herein were obtained during the
culation flowsheet in Chemcad was elaborated which includes all course of the project Development of coal gasification technology
the basic technology islands integrated (connected) with streams for high-efficiency production of fuels and energy. Task No. 3 of
of gases, water vapor (at various levels of pressure), water (process, the Strategic Program for Research and Development: Advanced
cooling and boiler) and the solids. The calculation model (Chem- energy generation technologies funded by the Polish National
CAD flowsheet) was used to define the main streams of solids, liq- Center for Research and Development.
uid and gas required to conduct the process. Similarly, the heat
streams generated by cooling the exhaust gases were estimated.
References
The developed flowsheet allows to balance both each of main cal-
culation units and all the installation. The pyrolysis process was [1] Wojnar K, Wisz J. Rtec w polskiej energetyce. Energetyka 2006;4:2803
not simulated in the Chamcad and for balance purposes the para- [in Polish].
[2] Pavlish JH, Sondreal EA, Mann MD, Olson ES, Galbreath KC, Laudal DL, et al.
metric model was made (black-box) based on results of experi-
Status review of mercury control options for coal fired power plants. Fuel
ments. The characteristic of the selected, main calculation Process Technol 2003;82:89165.
modules corresponding to the main technological units is shown [3] Hocquel M. Verhalten von Quecksilberemissionen bei der Mitverbrennung von
in Table 4. Klarschlammen in Kohlestaubfeuerungen. Wege des Abfalls; VDI Berichte
1540. ISBN 3 18 091540 4.
Compared with conventional methods for removing mercury [4] Control of mercury emissions from coal fired electric utility boilers: EPA
from lignite combustion gas by sorbent injection technology the 600/R 01109.
developed technology appears to be very cost-competitive. In fact. [5] Yang H, Xua Z, Fan M, Bland AE, Judkins RR. Adsorbents for capturing mercury
in coal fired boiler flue gas. J Hazard Mater 2007;146:111.
when factors such as the cost of waste disposal for activated car- [6] Zhang H, Zhao J, Fang Y, Huang J, Wang Y. Catalytic oxidation and stabilized
bon injection (data information from [1517]. approximately 17 adsorpion of elemental mercury from coal derived fuel gas. Energy Fuels
USD/Mg) and losses resulting from the absence of ash (18 USD/ 2012;26:162937.
[7] Feeley TJ, Jones AP. An Update on DOE/NETLs Mercury Control Technology
Mg) are considered. the developed technology is one of the cheap- Field Testing Program, 01.2008 (http://www.netl.doe.gov).
est solutions for high mercury removal (Char 5). In addition. as [8] Merdes AC, Keener TC. Precombustion removal of mercury from coal by mild
pyrolysis. ACS Fuel Divis Preprints 1996;41:8204.
298 T. Chmielniak et al. / Fuel 195 (2017) 290298
[9] Merdes AC, Keener TC, Khang SJ, Jenkins RG. Investigation into the fate of
mercury in bituminous coal during mild pyrolysis. Fuel 1998;77:178392.
[10] Wang M, Keener TC, Khang SJ. The effect of coal volatility on mercury removal
from bituminous coal during mild pyrolysis. Fuel Process Technol
2000;67:14761.
[11] Luo G, Yao H, Xu M, Gupta G, Xu Z. Identifying modes of occurrence of mercury
in coal by temperature programmed pyrolysis. Proc Combust Inst
2011;33:27639.
[12] Luo G, Ma J, Han J, Yao H, Xu Ml, Zhang Ch, et al. Hg occurrence in coal and its
removal before coal utilization. Fuel 2013;104:706.
[13] Granda M, Blanco C, Alvarez P, Patrick JW, Menndez R. Chemicals from coal
coking. Chem Rev 2014;114. 1905-1636.
[14] Borwitzky H, Schomburg G. Separation and identification of polynuclear
aromatic compounds in coal tar by using glass capillary chromatography
including combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A
1978;170:99124.
[15] Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants; Volume 1: Bituminous
Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. DOE/NETL-2007/1281; Revision 1. August
2007; Base case 5.
[16] DOE/NETLs Phase II Mercury Control Technology Field Testing Program.
UPDATED Economic Analysis of Activated Carbon Injection; 2007.
[17] DOE/NETLs Mercury Control Technology Field Testing Program. Preliminary
Economic Analysis of Wet FGD Co-Benefit Enhancement Technologies; 2008.
[18] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. EQUIPMENT COSTS, Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers, 5th edition, <http://www.mhhe.com/
engcs/chemical/peters/data/>.