Addressing the Impact of Environmental Xenobiotics in Coal-Fired Flue Gas
<p>Symmetry axis A-A for combustion gas chimney. Combustion gas wedge α = 45°.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Iso-mass curves: Iso<sub>500</sub>, Iso<sub>400</sub>, Iso<sub>300</sub>, Iso<sub>200</sub>, Iso<sub>100</sub>. (The colours in <a href="#sustainability-07-02678-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> correlate with the colors in <a href="#sustainability-07-02678-t005" class="html-table">Table 5</a>, which describe the distances on the iso-mass curves).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Overall nomogram of mass concentration for ash-particulate matter from the Turceni power plant (n = 2).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Simulation model for spatial vector of concentration. Case 1.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Modulating signal obtained on the basis of absorption circuit elements. Case 1.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Harmonic oscillation of xenobiotic. Case 1.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Simulation diagram for spatial vector of concentration <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics> </math>. Case 1.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Simulation model for spatial vector of concentration. Case 2.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Modulating signal obtained on the basis of absorption circuit elements. Case 2.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Xenobiotic shape evolution. Case 2.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Simulation diagram for spatial vector of concentration <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics> </math>. Case 2.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Flue Gas Pollutant Vector for a Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Station
- (1)
- Operation of the Turceni power plant at 33.33% of the installed power capacity (i.e., at 660 MW), which corresponds to two thermoelectric units (n = 2) of 330 MW; flue gas from the two thermoelectric units pass through one chimney.
- (2)
- Operation of the Turceni power plant at 66.66% of the installed power capacity (i.e., at 1320 MW), which corresponds to four thermoelectric units (n = 4) of 330 MW; flue gas from the four thermoelectric units pass through two chimneys.
- (3)
- Operation of the Turceni power plant at full installed power capacity (i.e., at 1980 MW), which corresponds to six thermoelectric units (n = 6) of 330 MW; flue gas from the six thermoelectric units pass through three chimneys in this case.
2.1. Flue Gas Assessment with SEDD Methodology
- (1)
- The fuel is lignite (a type of coal) with a lower calorific value = 6280 kJ/kg and the following composition: sulfur S = 0.8%, carbon C = 20%, ash A = 25.5%, total moisture W = 45%, and other components (bringing the total to 100%).
- (2)
- The consumption rate of coal for a 330 MW thermoelectric unit is determined on the basis of the medium flow rate of pulverized coal by the 5 coal mills (5 × 92.6 t/h = 463 t/h), and accordingly the lignite flow rate is BL = 463 t/h.
- (3)
- Oil is utilized as a fuel support and has a lower calorific value = 39,770 kJ/kg and the following composition: sulfur S = 3% and carbon C = 76%.
- (4)
- The consumption rate of oil for a 330 MW thermoelectric unit is BP = 10 × 103 kg/h.
2.1.1. Component SO2 of Pollutant Vector
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Fuel type | Reference value (n = 1) | Case I (n = 2) | Case II (n = 4) | Case III (n = 6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lignite: fuel flow rate | BL | kg/h | lignite | 463 × 103 | 926 × 103 | 1852 × 103 | 2778 × 103 |
Oil: fuel flow rate | BP | kg/h | oil | 10 × 103 | 20 × 103 | 40 × 103 | 60 × 103 |
Lignite: SO2 emission factor | eLSO2 | kg/kJ | lignite | 2.04 × 10−6 | 2.04 × 10−6 | 2.04 × 10−6 | 2.04 × 10−6 |
Lignite: SO2 pollutant flow rate | ELSO2 | kg/h | lignite | 5930 | 11.860 | 23.720 | 35.580 |
Oil: SO2 emission factor | ePSO2 | kg/kJ | oil | 1.51 × 10−6 | 1.51 × 10−6 | 1.56 × 10−6 | 1.51 × 10−6 |
Oil: SO2 pollutant flow rate | EPSO2 | kg/h | oil | 600 | 1200 | 2400 | 3600 |
Total flow rate of SO2 pollutant | ESO2 | kg/h | all fuels | 6530 | 13.060 | 26.120 | 39.180 |
Concentration of SO2 pollutant | CmSO2 | mg/m3N | all fuels | 3840 | 3840 | 3840 | 3840 |
2.1.2. Component CO2 of Pollutant Vector
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Fuel type | Reference value (n = 1) | Case I (n = 2) | Case II (n = 4) | Case III (n = 6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lignite: fuel flow rate | BL | kg/h | lignite | 463 × 103 | 926 × 103 | 1852 × 103 | 2778 × 103 |
Oil: fuel flow rate | Bp | kg/h | oil | 10 × 103 | 20 × 103 | 40 × 103 | 60 × 103 |
Lignite: CO2 emission factor | eLCO2 | kg/kJ | lignite | 116.8 × 10−6 | 116.8 × 10−6 | 116.8 × 10−6 | 116.8 × 10−6 |
Lignite: CO2 pollutant flow rate | ELCO2 | kg/h | lignite | 33.960 | 67.920 | 135.840 | 203.760 |
Oil: CO2 emission factor | ePCO2 | kg/kJ | oil | 70.1 × 10−6 | 70.1 × 10−6 | 70.1 × 10−6 | 70.1 × 10−6 |
Oil: CO2 pollutant flow rate | EPCO2 | kg/h | oil | 27.880 | 55.760 | 111.520 | 167.280 |
Total flow rate of CO2 pollutant | ECO2 | kg/h | all fuels | 61.840 | 123.680 | 247.360 | 371.040 |
Concentration of CO2 pollutant | CmCO2 | mg/m3N | all fuels | 36.380 | 36.380 | 36.380 | 36.380 |
2.1.3. Component PM of Pollutant Vector
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Fuel type | Reference value (n = 1) | Case I (n = 2) | Case II (n = 4) | Case III (n = 6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lignite: fuel flow rate | BL | kg/h | lignite | 463 × 103 | 926 × 103 | 1852 × 103 | 2778 × 103 |
Oil: fuel flow rate | BP | kg/h | oil | 10 × 103 | 20 × 103 | 40 × 103 | 60 × 103 |
Lignite: PM emission factor | ePM | kg/kJ | lignite | 0.345 × 10−6 | 0.345 × 10−6 | 0.345 × 10−6 | 0.345 × 10−6 |
Lignite: PM pollutant flow rate | EPM | kg/h | lignite | 1003 | 2006 | 4012 | 6018 |
Concentration of PM pollutant | CmPM | mg/m3N | all fuels | 590 | 590 | 590 | 590 |
2.1.4. Component NOx of Pollutant Vector
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Fuel type | Case I (n = 2) | Case II (n = 4) | Case III (n = 6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lignite: fuel flow rate | BL | kg/h | lignite | 926 × 103 | 1852 × 103 | 2778 × 103 |
Oil: fuel flow rate | BP | kg/h | oil | 20 × 103 | 40 × 103 | 60 × 103 |
Lignite: NOx emission factor | e80LNOx | kg/kJ | lignite | 2.44 × 10−7 | 2.44 × 10−7 | 2.44 × 10−7 |
Lignite: NOx pollutant flow rate | ELNOx | kg/h | lignite | 1420 | 2840 | 4260 |
Oil: NOx emission factor | e80PNOx | kg/kJ | oil | 2.52 × 10−6 | 2.52 × 10−6 | 2.52 × 10−6 |
Oil: NOx pollutant flow rate | EPNOx | kg/h | oil | 200 | 400 | 600 |
Total flow of NOx pollutant | ENOx | kg/h | all fuels | 1620 | 3240 | 4860 |
Concentration of NOx pollutant | CmNOx | mg/m3N | all fuels | 480 | 480 | 480 |
2.2. Projection in Mirror of Flue Gas Pollutant Vector
- the pollutant vector origin is represented by the gases exiting from the power plant chimney;
- the pollutant vector direction has a temporal character and is affected mainly by climatic factors, wind speed being the most important;
- the pollutant vector sense is defined by the evacuation chimney for the combustion gases; and
- the pollutant vector magnitude is determined by the concentration of pollutants and varies spatially, decreasing with increasing distance from the chimney.
No. | iso-mass curves | Iso = iso-mass indicative | Cm[mg/m3N] = maximum concentation | k[m−2] = correction factor | z − zc [m] = distance on iso-mass curve |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Iso500 | 500 | 590 | 0.00002 | 85 |
2 | Iso400 | 400 | 590 | 0.00002 | 135 |
3 | Iso300 | 300 | 590 | 0.00002 | 185 |
4 | Iso200 | 200 | 590 | 0.00002 | 235 |
5 | Iso100 | 100 | 590 | 0.00002 | 300 |
- the variable x which is represented by the distance on the iso-mass curve (z − zc) [m];
- the variable y which is denoted by k = correction factor, with values in the range 10−5 to 10−4 [m−2].
2.3. Testing Validation and Discussion
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Sample I | Sample II | Sample III |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SO2 emission factor | eLSO2 | kg/kJ | 2.02 × 10−6 | 2.06 × 10−6 | 2.1 × 10−6 |
Concentration of pollutant SO2 | CmSO2 | mg/m3N | 3802 | 3878 | 3955 |
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Sample I | Sample II | Sample III |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CO2 emission factor | eLCO2 | kg/kJ | 114.5 × 10−6 | 119.1 × 10−6 | 120.3 × 10−6 |
Concentration of pollutant CO2 | CmCO2 | mg/m3N | 35,652 | 37,108 | 37,471 |
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Sample I | Sample II | Sample III |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PM emission factor | ePM | kg/kJ | 0.335 × 10−6 | 0.355 × 10−6 | 0.359 × 10−6 |
Concentration of pollutant PM | CmPM | mg/m3N | 572 | 608 | 614 |
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Sample I | Sample II | Sample III |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOx emission factor | eLNOx | kg/kJ | 2.41 × 10−7 | 2.49 × 10−7 | 2.51 × 10−7 |
Concentration of pollutant NOx | CmNOx | mg/m3N | 475 | 490 | 495 |
- (a)
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) xenobiotic: emission factor = 2.06 × 10−6 kg/kJ; pollutant concentration = 3878 mg/m3N; average error εmean ≤ 1%; maximum error εmax ≤ 3%.
- (b)
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) xenobiotic: emission factor = 118 × 10−6 kg/kJ; pollutant concentration = 36744 mg/m3N; average error εmean ≤ 1%; maximum error εmax ≤ 3%.
- (c)
- Particulate matter (PM) xenobiotic: emission factor ePM = 0.35 × 10−6 kg/kJ; pollutant concentration CmPM = 598 mg/m3N; average error εmean ≤ 1.5%; maximum error εmax ≤ 4%.
- (d)
- Nitrogen oxides (NOx) xenobiotic: emission factor = 2.47 × 10−7 kg/kJ; pollutant concentration = 487 mg/m3N; average error εmean ≤ 1.5%; maximum error εmax ≤ 3%.
3. Linear Mathematical Model of Xenobiotics Absorption Process
4. Modelling and Simulation of Oscillating Regime of Environmental Xenobiotics Absorption
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References and Notes
- Dincer, I.; Rosen, M.A. Exergy: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, M.A.; Bulucea, C.A. Using exergy to understand and improve the efficiency of electrical power technologies. Entropy 2009, 11, 820–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istrate, M.; Gusa, M. Impactul Producerii, Transportului si Distributiei Energiei Electrice asupra Mediulu (Environmental Impact of Electric Energy Generation and Transportation); AGIR Publishing House: Bucharest, Romania, 2000. (In Romanian) [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, M.A.; Dincer, I. Exergy analysis of waste emissions. Int. J. Energy Res. 1999, 23, 1153–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, U.C. Environmental impact of coal industry and thermal power plants in India. J. Environ. Radioact. 2004, 72, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, A.J.; Anderson, H.R.; Ostro, B.; Pandey, K.D.; Krzyzanowski, M.; Kunzli, N.; Gutschmidt, K.; Pope, A.; Romieeu, I.; Samet, J.M.; et al. The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2005, 68, 1301–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagarkatti, P.S.; Nagarkatti, M. Immunotoxicology: Modulation of the immune system by xenobiotics. Def. Sci. J. 1987, 37, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koller, L.D. Immunotoxicology today. Toxicol. Pathol. 1987, 15, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Danzo, B.J. Environmental xenobiotics may disrupt normal endocrine function by interfering with the binding of physiological ligands to steroid receptors and binding proteins. Environ. Health Perspect. 1997, 105, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bulucea, C.A.; Jeles, A.; Mastorakis, N.E.; Bulucea, C.A.; Brindusa, C. Assessing the environmental pollutant vector of combustion gases emission from coal-fired power plants. In Proceeding of the 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on EMESEG'11, 2nd Int. Conf. on WORLD-GEO'11, 5th Int. Conf. on EDEB'11—Recent Researches in Geography, Geology, Energy, Environment and Biomedicine, Corfu Island, Greece, 14–16 July 2011; pp. 35–43.
- Metodologie de evaluare operativă a emisiilor de SO2, NOx, pulberi (cenuşă zburătoare) şi CO2 din centrale termice şi termoelectrice (Methodology for operative evaluation of emissions of SO2, NOx, particulate matter (fly ash) and CO2 in the thermal and electric power stations), Romanian Autonomous Electricity RENEL, Bucharest, 1994.
- Brînduşa, A.; Kovacs, J. Thermoenergetic block on coal. Pollution vector: Burning gas. Ann. Univ. Petrosani 2007, 9, 218–221. [Google Scholar]
- Weil, J.C. A diagnosis of the asymmetry in top-down and bottom-up diffusion using a Lagrangian stochastic model. J. Atmos. Sci. 1990, 47, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulucea, C.A.; Rosen, M.A.; Mastorakis, N.E.; Bulucea, C.A.; Brindusa, C.C.; Jeles, A.C. Building Awareness of the Impact of Environmental Xenobiotics in Coal-Fired Flue Gas. In Proceedings of the 4th World Sustainability Forum, 1–30 November 2014; Volume 4.
- Breuil, J.M. Input-output analysis and pollutant emissions in France. Energy J. 1992, 13, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hnatiuc, E. Procedes Electriques de Mesure et de Traitment des Polluant (Electrical Methods for Measurement and Treatment of Pollutants); Lavoisier Publishing House: Paris, France, 2002. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Penney, S.; Bell, J.; Balbus, L. Estimating the health impacts of coal-fired power plants receiving international financing. Available online: http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2015).
- Bulucea, C.A.; Rosen, M.A.; Mastorakis, N.E.; Bulucea, C.A.; Brindusa, C. Approaching Resonant Absorption of Environmental Xenobiotics Harmonic Oscillation by Linear Structure. Sustainability 2012, 4, 561–573. [Google Scholar]
- Niculescu, T. The Study of RLC Circuits Transitory Phenomena Using Matlab—Simulink Software; University of Petroşani Publishing House: Petrosani, Romania, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bulucea, C.A.; Mastorakis, N.E.; Rosen, M.A.; Brindusa, C.; Bulucea, C.A.; Jeles, A. Enhancing Understanding of the Environmental Xenobiotics in Coal-Fired Flue Gas. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conferences on Energy and Development-Environment-Biomedicine (EDEB’12), Vouliagmeni, Greece, 7–9 March 2012; pp. 58–67.
- Nicola, D.A.; Bulucea, C.A. Electrotehnica, Echipamente si Masini Electrice (Electrotechnics, Electrical Equipment and Machines); Electrotehnica Teoretica (Theoretical Electrotechnics); SITECH Publishing House: Craiova, Romania, 2005; Volume I. (In Romanian) [Google Scholar]
- Boashash, B. (Ed.) Time-Frequency Signal Analysis and Processing: A Comprehensive Reference; Elsevier Science: Oxford, UK, 2003.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bulucea, C.A.; Rosen, M.A.; Mastorakis, N.E.; Bulucea, C.A.; Brindusa, C.C.; Jeles, A.C. Addressing the Impact of Environmental Xenobiotics in Coal-Fired Flue Gas. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2678-2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032678
Bulucea CA, Rosen MA, Mastorakis NE, Bulucea CA, Brindusa CC, Jeles AC. Addressing the Impact of Environmental Xenobiotics in Coal-Fired Flue Gas. Sustainability. 2015; 7(3):2678-2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032678
Chicago/Turabian StyleBulucea, Cornelia A., Marc A. Rosen, Nikos E. Mastorakis, Carmen A. Bulucea, Corina C. Brindusa, and Andreea C. Jeles. 2015. "Addressing the Impact of Environmental Xenobiotics in Coal-Fired Flue Gas" Sustainability 7, no. 3: 2678-2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032678