LITTLETON, Colo., March 4, 2005 — ADA-ES, Inc., an environmental technology and specialty chemical company, completed full-scale tests of a new proprietary product produced by its market development partner, NORIT Americas.
The tests were conducted at AmerenUE’s 140 megawatt (MW) Meramec Unit-2, located in St. Louis County, Mo., as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s mercury control technology R&D program. This plant burns 100% coal from the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) and is equipped with electrostatic precipitators for particulate control, a common configuration for plants burning PRB coal that represents a challenging application when controlling mercury emissions.
Previous ADA-ES testing on a similar application produced a maximum of 70% removal when a conventional untreated carbon was injected. However, with the new and improved chemically modified sorbent, NORIT DARCO Hg-LH, an average of more than 90% of the mercury was removed. Following a short optimization period, the removal rate was maintained between 80 and 97% at load conditions for the 30-day test period on one-half of the flue gas [SCW1], and performance was validated by two different test methods.
Jean Bustard, ADA-ES’ Chief Operating Officer, will present the results at the Institute of Clean Air Companies 2005 Clean Air Technologies and Strategies Conference in Baltimore, Md. on March 9th. This Conference is expected to attract over 1,000 participants.
“These results are very important to the industry because previous testing had shown that plants burning Western coals had lower mercury capture rates,” said Dr. Michael Durham, President of ADA-ES. “Providing a technology that can control mercury for all coal types, even difficult PRB coals, could reduce [SCW2] the financial impact of a mercury regulation on the coal and power generating industries.”
[SCW3] Plants that sell their ash for use in concrete will have to apply other technology, such as the EPRI TOXECON or TOXECON II configuration, to maintain ash sales. ADA-ES recently completed a yearlong evaluation of TOXECON and will be testing TOXECON II at other plants later this year.
The Meramec test is the second program successfully completed under an $8.6 million cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL) program to perform longer-term mercury control technology testing for coal-fired power plants. Funding for this program includes $2.6 million provided jointly by ADA-ES, AmerenUE, EPRI, Arch Coal, and 15 other companies in the industry.
In the first successful test program under the cooperative agreement, the new NORIT product achieved greater than 90% mercury removal at a very low injection rate [SCW4] on another difficult PRB application at the 360 MW Sunflower Electric Holcomb Station. The results from these two programs show that high levels of mercury removal may be achieved for difficult Western coals at a much lower cost than previously expected when compared to other carbon based sorbents [SCW5]. State legislative initiatives and pending Federal regulations (expected in March 2005) requiring reductions in coal-fired power plant mercury emissions have generated the need for flue gas mercury removal technologies at existing and new plants.
Dr. Durham concluded, “We and NORIT are thrilled with these results and believe that the new sorbent will offer benefits at many PRB and lignite burning sites. NORIT has the production capacity to manufacture the new product at commercial quantities so that ADA-ES can now offer it as part of turn-key mercury control systems for these difficult applications.”
AmerenUE is a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation. (NYSE:AEE). Ameren companies serve 2.2 million electric customers and 900,000 natural gas customers in a 64,000 square-mile area of Missouri and Illinois.
Headquartered in Littleton, Colorado, ADA-ES develops and implements proprietary environmental technology and specialty chemicals that mitigate the environmental impact of electric power generation and industrial companies, while reducing operating costs.
[SCW1] Clarify that only 1/2 of the flue gas from Meramec unit 2 was treated during the test.
[SCW2] Actual cost and level of control required have not been defined. Assumes that similar results will be realized on all units and does not address impacts on sale of ash.
[SCW3] The basis for the statement is not defined. Whether it is 30% of all coal-fired units, 30% of all PRB units or some other basis is not stated. There may be other technologies available that could be used and maintain ash sales such as coal additives and other non-carbon sorbents.
[SCW4] The term “very low injection rate” is not defined. Based on the Meramec test the injection rate was similar for treated and untreated carbon.
[SCW5] A basis for the comparison needs to be made. Suggested language is included.