Optimal Deployment of Emission Reduction Technologies

Published: 2019-09-03 00:00:00
859 words
3 pages
8 min to read
letter-mark
B
letter
University/College: 
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The article is about the development of a multi-objective optimization model which can be used to optimize deployment plans for technologies used to reduce emissions from non-road construction equipment in two counties in Texas. It describes how the benefits accrued from fuel savings and emission reductions can be maximized for construction equipment while satisfying economic, operational, and technical constraints. To demonstrate how the model can be used, a set of reduction emission technologies and various types of construction equipment (TxDOTS) with different performance and operational characteristics were used (Bari et al., 2011).

Hydrogen Enrichment (HE): Hydrogen enrichment systems are used to initiate a better quality flame front in the engine which helps in the reduction of emissions. Hydrogen enrichment technologies can be employed to not only reduce fuel consumption but also to reduce NOx emissions.

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR): it is an advanced active emission technology which works by injecting an agent which is liquid-reduntant via a special catalyst which delivers the liquid reductant into exhaust gases of a diesel engine. The technology can be employed to reduce PM, NOx, and HC emissions.

Fuel additive (FA): Fuel additives are mixed with fuels to improve fuel economy as well as to reduce emissions. Some vendors claim that their products could reduce fuel consumption and help in reduction of emissions such as CO, HC, NOx, and PM. Some additives have been found to increase one or even more pollutant emissions but improve fuel economy, but other additives increase fuel economy while at the same time reduce other pollutant emissions.

Advantages and disadvantages of HE, SCR, and FA

Hydrogen Enrichment (HE): comes with moderate cost and efficiency of its emission reduction is moderate. Better fuel economy can be realized with HE.

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR): technology is most expensive, but it has the most efficient emission reduction technology. All this comes at a fuel penalty.

Fuel Additive (FA): not expensive but the efficiency of emission reduction is low. No fuel economy can be realized in this technology.

The computer model of determining the best technology is the better than other methods. It enables easy manipulation of data to reflect various scenarios. It also enables easier comparison of various technologies. Computer models are not time-consuming. The computer generates accurate information. The model can be upgraded to improve its reliability.

Hydrogen Enrichment offers the best solution because it is moderately inexpensive and its reduction efficiency is moderate. Hydrogen enrichment also has a benefit of improved fuel economy. Fuel additive technology should not be used because it has no benefit when it comes to fuel economy and that its emission reduction is quite low.

Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art

The article is about desulfurization of flue gases in coal-fired power plants using SO2 scrubbers in an attempt to meet regulatory requirements of acid rain reduction program (Srivastava and Jozewicz, 2011). There is further examination of flue desulfurization technologies (FDT) employed in coal-fired boilers. The article also explored other benefits of desulfurization technologies other than reduction of SO2.

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) is a process of capturing SO2 present in flue gases of coal-fired boilers burning fuel which contain traces of sulfur. FGD is used to remove SO2 from flue gases and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere where it causes acid rain.

In a once-through process of FGD, the spent sorbent is either utilized as a byproduct or discarded as waste. However, in re-generable technologies, SO2 is released from the sorbent during the process of regeneration of sorbent and the SO2 trapped can be further processed to produce sulfuric acid, liquid SO2, or elemental sulfur. In re-generable technology, no wastes are produced.

MEL Cost Model. Magnesium Enhanced Slurry (MEL) cost model utilize a sorbent produced from magnesium which has been enhanced with slurry. The sorbent is made to be in contact with flue gases. MEL is more reactive than LSFO (limestone-forced oxidation) and also it requires less residence time of the gas. The size of MEL sorbent is, therefore, smaller than that of LSFO. The MEL (with waste-handling equipment capable of generating byproduct of gypsum) cost model is attractive and is equivalent to a combination of LSFO and LSD (lime spray drying) model. a medium difficulty retrofit of a combination of LSFO and LSD can be innovatively created to achieve a design similar to MEL cost model.

This article is very important for a pollution prevention manager because it not only discuss the various techno lies available for FGD but also the cost implication and the possibilities of retrofitting existing technologies.

An internet search on the best available technologies (BATs) for FGDs shows that wet system, spray dryer system, and dry injection systems. These systems are configurations of the once-through and regenerable processes discussed in the article. Some of the BATs currently employed include lime spray drying, duct spray drying, and duct sorbent injection.

References

Srivastava, R. K., & Jozewicz, W. (2001). Flue gas desulfurization: the state of the art. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 51(12), 1676-1688.

Bari, M. E., Zietsman, J., Quadrifoglio, L., & Farzaneh, M. (2011). Optimal deployment of emissions reduction technologies for construction equipment. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 61(6), 611-630.

sheldon

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: