Talk:Flue-gas desulfurization

Merged

It seems to me that two articles with almost identical titles should be merged. mbeychok 01:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the merging was not done and since the contents of both articles were word-for-word identical, I merged them. - mbeychok 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

As one who has worked in the field of designing flue gas desulfurization units, this article had two problem areas:

(1) The article included a discussion about some of the sulfur in oil or coal fired power plants being converted to gaseous, hydrogen sulfide under certain conditions. That may or may not be true theoretically .. I don't know. But what I do know is that if it happens in real world power plants, it is a well-hidden secret. In my 40 year career as a chemical engineering process designer, I have never heard of oil and coal fired power plant flue gases containing hydrogen sulfide. I therefore deleted that part of the article.

With the newer generation of combined coal gasification and power generation, the synthesis gas produced by the coal gasification will indeed contain hydrogen sulfide ... and such combined plants will include facilities for removal of the hydrogen sulfide. However, such combined plants deserves their own article and I might add that the field of such combined plants is still in its infancy.

(2) Equations 4 and 5 in the "SO₂ Chemistry" section are practically unreadable in their present form. If the author of that section will contact me on my User talk:mbeychok page and tell me where he found those equation or, better yet, fax me a copy, I will endeaver to re-do them and make them readable.
- mbeychok 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just finished an extensive re-write of most of this article. Any comments? - mbeychok 07:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here is a comment. By removing the electron beam method rather than just adding the scrubbing using basic matter you reduced the amount of information in wikipedia, I think you should have added rather than replaced. I have returned the electron beam material in a slightly altered state. It is important as the chemistry used is very different and rather than making CaSO4/CaSO3 it forms a very different product (NH4)2SO4.Cadmium 00:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cadmium, the IAEA you referenced was about a demonstration plant in Poland that was under construction in Poland in 1995. That was 10 years ago. Do you have any formation on how many power plants (and their size in megawatts) have actually been built and successfully used the electron beam technology in the 10 years since that demonstration plant? I think such information would be germane as to whether it should remain in the article.

It has been my experience that there have been a great many new desulfurization technologies proposed in the past 20 or so years and many of them progressed to the demonstration stage ... but never gained commercial acceptance. That was my reason for removing the electron beam section. "Proving" that a new technology is economically competitive on paper is far different than proving it in the marketplace. If we included all of the proposed techniques, laboratory research, pilot plant and demonstration plant projects ... we would have quite a lengthy list to write about. I have no objection to leaving the description in the article, but I do think it would be most useful if you could provide information as to how many successful, commercial size plants have been built.

This article is about Flue Gas Desulfurization and not about scrubbers for other purposes

Cadmium, I deleted the section you added about scrubbing in other industries because that should be a completely separate article or multiple articles. Removing hydrogen from sewage gases is not Flue Gas Desulfurization. Aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine and diethanolamine have been used for over 50 years to remove acid gases such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from raw natural gas and from petroleum refinery gases. Almost every petroleum refinery in the world has an amine scrubbing unit for that purpose. There are many other uses of scrubbing in many different industries for removing many different chemicals from many different gases. Such processes are distinctly different than removing sulfur dioxide from combustion flue gases ... and they deserve an article of their own. I don't think we should turn this article into a compilation of the chemistry involved in every conceivable type of scrubber.

By the way, I would appreciate confirmation that you received the email I sent you in regard to the information you wanted. - mbeychok 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate methods

I moved the mention of a different method from the opening paragraph. They really should not be in the introduction at all. Think about moving them either to a section at the end or to the "see also" section. --Blainster 02:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do sometime tomorrow. - mbeychok 07:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ash Disambiguation

This request is because I assume that ash is refering to either Fly ash or bottom ash. Thanks! ----Knulclunk 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Knulclunk, I believe that I have addressed your concern by linking the word ash in this article to ash which defines the total ash content of coal (both fly ash and bottom ash). - mbeychok 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. spellings versus British spellings

Wikipedia policy regarding words that have alternative spellings is that the spelling used in the earliest chronological introduction of such words in an article shall be used in that article from then on. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English.

Since the originators of this article used U.S. English spellings rather than British English spellings when choosing to use the words desulfurization, sulfur dioxide and sulfur in creating this article means that U.S. English spellings are always to be retained in this article. This does not mean that either spelling is "right" or "wrong". It simply means that it is Wikipedia policy. - mbeychok 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "WikiProjectPhysics" tag

I fail to to see how this article belongs to WikiProject Physics or how anyone could think so ... unless one believes that every technical aricle is related to physics. Therefore, I removed the tag. - mbeychok (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Query regarding facts and statistics

The facts and statistics section states the information was obtained from a US EPA published fact sheet. This fact sheet appears to make no reference to Scottish Power's Longannet power station. The FGD process used at Longannet is that of SO₂ removal by way of absorption in seawater inside a packed column. This process does not appear to be discussed in the article. The plant installation was undertaken by a consortium of Alstom and Amec, and, according to Scottish Power's web site, the investment was around £170 million, not the £400 million quoted.--Tim J Wright (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested I've included some input/general theory regarding the seawater FGD process which are currently under implementation at Longannet provided by the ALSTOM AMEC consortium ALSTOM Norway's web site. Additionally, such a technology is implemented at RWE's Coal Fired Power station Aberthaw as well as in several plants in Asia (see ALSTOM Norway's web site for reference list).--Marianne Holmen (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009

Merge proposal – Wellman-Lord Process

I propose to merge the Wellman-Lord Process as one of the flue gas desulfurization processes. Currently the Wellman-Lord Process article is a short and it is questionable if there is enough information for a separate article. If it remains as a separate article, this article here is needing a summary of this process and a wikilink to the Wellman-Lord Process. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beagel, the Wellman-Lord Process is indeed a FGD system that generates a saleable by-product (sulfuric acid). I agree with you, with the mention that if not merged, it should be enriched with details. Please also ask mbeychok's opinion. The Vindictive (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)