Thanks for your input Artem and Leland. Leland we are working from a source separated feedstock ... but of course no separation method is every perfect. As far as air toxics I think I will start with the argument that if we get below the detection limit for a given species when using good quality industrial analysers (not research lab instruments) then our job is done.
On a related note we normally use CO as an operational performance indicator for all hydrocarbon derived compounds... in our systems it is by far the most prevalent residual gas species and in my experience is that is the last compound (apart from soot) to be oxidised completely in a biomass flue gas ... is that the experience shared by others ? One aspect we may have to face is questions about dioxins. We do all the right things to avoid formation in terms of feedstock selection and operating temperatures/residence times ... however we have not done actual measurements. I am told that Dioxin measurements are around $3000/analysis in Australia ... is that the case elsewhere ? That makes performance data collection prohibitively expensive. What are others doing for Dioxin analysis ? Artem, bag filtering at 600 deg C is interesting ... it keeps you well above the Dioxin formation temperature range ... I could not see much detail on your site. Can you provide any more information on this ? Are you referring to Cerafume bags like those described here: http://www.albkleinco.com/cerafume-high-temperature-gas-filters/ Regards, James -----Original Message----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:50:23 +0200 From: "Artem Filimonov - TVT" <[email protected]> Dear Sirs, It is a really interesting discussion. I haven?t written yet. But I want to share with all of you information regarding a fumes treatment part. As you can see in signature the company name we deal with fumes treatment units. We work mainly in renewable energy field such as gasification offering our systems to clean the fumes. This is our main archived goals: - Bag filtering systems, emissions < 1mg/Nmc, flue gas flow temperature 600 ?C; - A unique filtering system to DeDust ? DeNOx ? DeSOx, direct dedusting at temperature 350 - 400 Celsius degree; - Heat recovery systems. Please be free to contact me for any issue, Best regards, Artem Filimonov TVT Termoventiltecnica S.r.l. Via Lo Stradone, 7 31050 Ponzano Veneto (TV) Tel <tel:%2B39%200422%20609%20110> +39 0422 609 110 Fax <tel:%2B%2039%200422%20612%20633> + 39 0422 612 633 Da: Gasification [mailto:[email protected]] Per conto di [email protected] Inviato: luned? 23 giugno 2014 0.35 A: [email protected] Oggetto: Re: [Gasification] Clean Air Regulation requirements imposed on Waste to Energy Plants This standard is not uncommon and most of it is just verbiage to cover as many sources as possible. If below detection limit, or not in the input gas, then it complies. The measurement is very expensive using standard US EPA methodologies, but there is equipment that can be used to detect below the standard methods of analysis and costs around the same cost as one comprehensive gas analysis, which could be $35-60k in US terms. The best way to comply is to remove as many of the contaminants as possible before the fume incinerator or flare. I can go into more detail, and indeed there may be a very inexpensive way of complying if they would accept it, but I don't do it for free. Sincerely, Leland T. "Tom" Taylor Thermogenics Inc. -----Original Message----- From: James Joyce < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jun 21, 2014 4:36 pm Subject: [Gasification] Clean Air Regulation requirements imposed on Waste to Energy Plants Some questions for the group. We have been asked to comply to the following regulation regarding operation of our thermal oxidiser. My questions are: 1. Can any technology anywhere in the world claim to comply to this regulation ? For example 99.99% destruction efficiency means that 100 ppmw of say formaldehyde in your process off-gas has to be reduced below 0.01 ppmw, which I am sure is well below the detection limit of available detection devices. How you demonstrate 99.9999% removal is another matter again. 2. How many pyrolysis plants are using the nuclear fission reactions that would be necessary to destroy the metals in their list ! 3. What work around are people using to deal with emissions regulations that appear impossible to comply with ? ..... snipped _______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
