Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 7047f0-YzY0M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions

Description:

Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions & Technical and Non-technical Reduction Measures for Particulate Matter Katja Kraus, Federal ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:10
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 11
Provided by: krau150
Learn more at: http://www.unece.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions


1
Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal
Emissions Reductions
  • Technical and Non-technical Reduction Measures
    for Particulate Matter
  • Katja Kraus, Federal Environmental Agency, Germany

2
Current situation
  • Parties apply lower ELVs for PM and HM than in
    Protocol (Annex V)
  • Abatement techniques employed in UNECE and in
    particular in EECCA countries are very different
  • For example,
  • the average daily TSP emission concentration in
    LCPs in Germany is below 20 mg/m3
  • for existing LCPs the limit value in the
    LCP-Directive is 100 mg/m3 for LCPs below 500 MW
  • BAT in the context of IPPC refers more and more
    to ranges of values
  • and efficient fabric filters can reach lt1mg/m3
  • In some cases IPPC requirements (BAT) are still
    an ambitious goal and these can be regarded as
    additional in the new member states of the EU
    (and EECCA countries?)
  • In particular, costs may rise to replace old
    technologies with latest abatement devices

3
Relevant industry sectors for HM and PM
  • PM
  • Combustion of fossil fuels
  • Small furnaces, residential heating
  • Ferrous metals industry
  • Non-ferrous metals industry
  • Mineral Industry (Glass, Ceramic products,
    Asphalt production)
  • Waste incineration
  • Fertiliser production
  • Production of Carbon Black etc.
  • HM
  • Combustion of fossil fuels
  • Ferrous metals industry
  • Non-ferrous metals industry
  • Mineral Industry (Glass)
  • Waste incineration

4
Results of the German Measuring Programme for
Stationary Sources
Industrial Sources Abatement technique PM mg/m3 Share of PM 10 Share of PM 2,5 Share of PM 1
Electric power generation, Industrial power generation, fabric filter 0,1 20 oftenlt 5 80 99 50 80 20 60 80 99 50 80 20 60 80 99 50 80 20 60
Crusher for rock, Chemical industry electrostatic precipitator 1 30 often lt 10 80 99 50 80 20 60 80 99 50 80 20 60 80 99 50 80 20 60
Cement industry Glass industry wet electrostatic precipitator lt 3 means gt95 70 45 means gt95 70 45 means gt95 70 45
Iron foundry, Production of fertilizer, high efficient wet scrubber 11 - 52 one value 803 means gt95 70 45 means gt95 70 45 means gt95 70 45
Ceramics- and Asphalt Cyclone2 16
Small scale firing unit 6 kW --------- 8 50 mean 90 100 mean 79 99 mean 70 95
1 amine-scrubber in an iron foundry 2
combination with electrostatic precipitator 3
combination cyclone with venturi scrubber on a
cupola furnace
5
Size-related Efficiency of Different Dust
Abatement Systems (Fritz and Kern, 1990)
  • Fabric filters and ESP are able to reduce every
    fraction (size) of particulates, i.e. both PM 10
    and PM 2.5
  • HM particulates are very fine and bound to every
    fraction of PM

6
Removal Efficiencies of Dust Separators for PM 10
Raw gas Raw gas Raw gas Dust separator Clean gas Clean gas Removal Efficiency
Industrial Source (e.g.) Share of PM 10 Share of PM 10 PM g/m3 Share of PM 10 PM mg/m3
Industrial power generation, brown coal app. 20 app. 20 4 10 electrostatic precipitator 80 85 10 20 97,9 - 99,6
Fluidized bed combustion app. 20 app. 20 60 80 fabric filter app. 85 10 - 20 99,86 - 99,95
Melting furnaces for zinc scrap app. 20 app. 20 1 - 3 venturi scrubber 80 - 98 10 - 40 81 - 98,5
Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator
Other industrial sources including power generation 20 90 1 bis 100 (e.g. 10) 1 bis 100 (e.g. 10) fabric filter electrostatic precipitator high efficient wet scrubber 80 99 often gt 95 0,1 30 often lt10 95 - 99,999 often gt99
7
Additional Technical Reduction Measures for
Primary PM 10
  • Point sources
  • Upgrading of implemented reduction systems,
    designing, maintenance
  • Combining ESP and FF to upgrade undersized ESPs
    (ENTEC)
  • ESP Removal Improvement by SO3 or steam
    conditioning, ultrasonic agglomeration and high
    voltage pulsation
  • Application of low-emission process technology,
    i.e. KSR-Technology and low emission poling for
    secondary copper
  • Fugitive process-emissions
  • Optimized collection of fugitive process
    emissions
  • A German investigation project at a primary
    copper plant and iron foundry showed that 80 of
    total PM is emitted via roofline, windows and
    gates in a subsequently conducted funded project
    these emissions were reduced by app. 80 due to a
    so-called house-in-house- technology (housing
    of a converter leads to less off-gas)

8
Additional Non-Technical Reduction Measures for
Primary PM 10
  • Additional Non- technical Reduction Measures
  • Policy! (New ELVs)
  • Extra energy saving efforts
  • Fuel switch where possible (e.g. to gaseous fuel,
    to light fuel oil with 0,1 sulphur)
    gives 30 PM 10 reduction
  • Successful air quality management plans
    (Duisburger Hafen, local scale, short term)
  • WHOs PM health effect studies provide the basis
    for the cost-benefit arguments in favour of PM/HM
    reduction
  • In particular in the eastern part of the
    Convention area adverse health effects are even
    more significant. From projections based on a
    current legislation scenario (CLE) an average
    life expectancy in 2020 within the EU 25 will
    still be reduced by 6 months.
  • No threshold could be identified below which no
    adverse effects on human health are to be
    expected from either fraction. WHO1 gives an
    air quality guideline of 10 µg/m3 PM 2,5.
  • 1 www.who.int/phe/air/aqg2006execsum.pdf

9
Conclusions (concerning PM)
  • 'Additional' measures should not in particular
    focus on new or emerging technologies
  • 'Additional' also means implementation and
    improvement of existing abatement techniques
  • Stringent TSP limitation (ELV) is better than
    requirements on the removal efficiency
    (measurement time effort, raw gas, size
    fraction)
  • In many cases fugitive PM emissions from
    processes and storage become more relevant than
    point source emissions
  • Available Fabric Filter, ESPs and optimized Wet
    Systems show high removal efficiency for PM 10
    and PM 2,5
  • 'Additional' technical PM abatement means in
    particular an improvement in the off-gas
    collection
  • Combined HM and PM reduction improves cost
    effectiveness (due to health effects)

10
Conclusions (general)
  • The current level of applied techniques differs
    within the UN ECE
  • What possibilities do we have to to support
    countries to ratify? (Workshop for East Europe
    and EECCA?)
  • Longer time-scale to use new abatement techniques
  • Technical options are available to make proposals
    for an improvement of the technical Annexes of
    the Protocol
  • To reduce PM effectively means to reduce HM and
    therefore to lessen health effects
About PowerShow.com