Haywood Jordan M, Cooper C David
a Harding Lawson Associates , Orlando , Florida.
b Civil and Environmental Engineering Department , University of Central Florida , Orlando , Florida , USA.
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1998 Mar;48(3):238-246. doi: 10.1080/10473289.1998.10463679.
Research at the University of Central Florida has determined that the injection of hydrogen peroxide (HO) into a simulated flue gas stream effectively oxidizes NO to NO, and NO to HNO and HNO. These oxides of nitrogen are much more soluble in water than NO, and therefore may be more easily scrubbed from the flue gas in a typical wet scrubber. Oxidation and NO removal efficiencies of greater than 90% were demonstrated in the laboratory. An economic comparison between the HO injection-wet scrubbing method and the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) method of NO removal was conducted for a design base case and a variety of alternative cases. This study illustrates the trade-off between capital and operating costs for the two alternatives. The single largest factor in determining whether the total cost of the HO injection-wet scrubbing method compares favorably with the total cost of the SCR method is the HO:NO molar ratio. At the HO:NO molar ratio demonstrated in the laboratory (1.92:1.0), the HO injection-wet scrubbing method of NO removal was shown to be uneconomical. However, the molar ratio in a full-size coal-fired power plant could be lower than that found in the laboratory. Based on all the cost assumptions stated in this article, at a molar ratio of 1.37:1.0, the hydrogen peroxide injection method was calculated to be an economically feasible alternative to the SCR method for NO control.
