What Is Maximum Achieved Efficiency Burning Bunker? 1

[turboco1]

If combustion efficiency, not boiler efficiency, is the amount of heat released by the product verses the heating value then what is the best commercially available achievable combustion as a percent of Bunker or any heavy residual fuel oil and how is it best measured to prove?

I understand that a Chromatographic test is used to analyze all the gases of combustion and determine quality of combustion of the fuel product...is this correct?

What is an industry average expectation as a percent of total product combustion for any of the heavy oils...Bunker, No6 or no 7 FO? Is it possible to achieve 99% combustion and reduce emissions of unburned hydrocarbons? If not why?

 

[rmw]

You can put enough excess air to burn all your fuel, assuming you get your fuel atomized well enough to burn, but your boiler efficiency would suffer with too much excess air.

Combustion is a balancing act between all the trade off's.

Proper fuel heating, good atomization and burner tip maintenance and register tuning are important keys to good fuel oil combustion, if you have the air right and in the right place.


rmw

 

[turboco1]

I hear you perfectly clearly rmw. But there is a power plant in the Caribbean that is claiming 99% combustion of bunker fuel oil and showing it in their daily operating numbers...no reheating, no great expertise in adjusting nozzles or registers to get perfect excess air, no special heat absorbing paints on the furnace tubes, no additives or spiking to the fuel oil. They installed combustion catalytic cells on the air and oil supplies and sent me numbers after 40 days of running showing percent savings from 0% to 4% depending on load. They said they paid nothing for the cells and they only agreed to pay based on performance of reduction in fuel and emissions contaminants. Thus my sudden grand interest in combustion. You see, I have chiefly worked on steam turbines and some gas turbines since 1975 and have never seen 4% changes without "significant" parts and labor dollars. Thanks for your post. If you ever hear of anyone using catalytic combustion that gives back 4% immediately and they did not have to pay for it upfront post to me here will ya?

 

[rmw]

I'd have to have more data regarding the starting point and end point of the operating conditions surrounding this claim before I would start putting any credence in it.

Don't misunderstand. In my career, I have been involved in several technologies that were 'cutting edge' in their time, but all of which are accepted as the norm now. Zirconia cell based O2 trim control as one example-they said it couldn't be done when the first probe type O2 analyzers appeared on the market. Rotating vanes on coal pulverizer mills was another just to name a couple. So I am not discounting what you are presenting, just saying that I want more information.

rmw

 

[turboco1]

Roger that. I have a copy of their excel spreadsheet indicating their baseline and post install data for 40 days. If my customer there will give me permission would you like to see it? The numbers are there. Oh yea, this catalytic cell company also says they guarantee results based on "Chromatographic" tests of unburned hydrocarbons. Two tests before installation and two tests after installation and they promise a reduction in contaminants and improved combustion indications...testing done by an independent agency, company, laboratory. Does this give 'em credence or is the Chromatographic testing not sufficient??

 

[rmw]

Turboco1,

The January 2005 issue of Power Engineering Mag. at

http://www.power-eng.com

has an interesting and informative article about catalytic combustion. You can register with them to get on their site if you aren't already.

Based on the tenor of this article, it is entirely conceivable that someone has given the customer that you saw the technology based on promises of performance.

But, the fuels involved in the process detailed in this article are Natural Gas, not resid. Are there catalysts that can deal with resid? I'm open to learn.

To answer your question, based on what I read, the lack of the need to have excess air to insure complete combustion as well as quench flame temperatures for NOx abatement would produce significant fuel efficiency improvements.

rmw

 

[turboco1]

SCR is a exhaust aftertreatment technology... the catalytic cells which I am referring are on the supply side. I have been checking around with scientific papers on experiments with quantum physics discussing molecular electron spin UP and DOWN and apparently they found that Carbon can be made a magnetic element...so now I'm wondering if the technology being used on the supply side of the fuel oil has something to do with an ability to affect carbon:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/11/7/1

I have found that another utility is forming a committee to study/evaluate whether or not to make a demonstration test.

 

[rmw]

The article I referred you to does a good job of contrasting catalytic combustion to SCR technology with respect to application and history.

I don't understand your response, unless you did not read the article. I can't find any mention above in this thread of SCR. But, the article does only talk about catalytic combustion, which, of course involves the use of catalysts as does SCR, and nowhere deals with any magnetic issues.

rmw

 

[turboco1]

I did not find the correct article I guess...

Catalytic combustion combustion technologies are new as far as I know and yet to be made commercial. I understand they are the future for reduced NOx and effciciency improvements but are still on the board or lab.

Do you have direct link to the article? I did a search of 2005 January and got the issue topics and summaries...and only saw the SCR technology article.

Thanks

 

[rmw]

Here it is:

http://pepei.pennnet.com/articles/a...LE_ID=44122&KEYWORDS=catalytic combustion&p=6

rmw

 

[bonzoboy]

Catalytic combustion has been the holy grail for burning "clean" fuels for a long time. To date, with perhaps one exception near San Francisco, most catalytic combustion tests have failed to demonstrate long term durability (usually thermal excursions or deposit foiling interferes with the catalyst). With regard to using a catalyst system on heavy oil, I'd be very skeptical. Where is the catalyst located? I've done numerous additive studies on catalysts and processes to "improve" combustion efficiency. They all improved nothing except ther sellers pockets. For a heavy oil, the combustion efficiency is reduced with excess CO, unburned hydrocarbons, and soot. Improved atomization (or preheating the fuel for example) is a more likely cause. And you wouldn't need a chromatograph (which is slow and a bit pricey) an old fashioned hydrocarbon analyzer would be sufficient. And if the efficiency did improve, the CO2 (at a the same O2) would increase (as it does in an automobile with a catalytic converter).......

 

[turboco1]

bonzoboy:

I checked with the independent power producer that is using the cells, again. The production manager stands by his numbers.

And now there is another local area utility considering these cells. They are considering doing a 'study'. These cells are not for combustion turbines, they are used on utility boilers and refinery furnaces.