Re: Dioxin formation

[Neil Tangri <ntangri@essential.org>]

Hi folks,

As I understand it, activated carbon injection is now considered "state of
the art" mercury pollution control for mercury. Does anyone know what kind
of capture rates you can expect with carbon injection and bag filters?

Neil



At 04:37 10/23/99 -0400, Emmanuel de Broux wrote:
> At 01:49 23/10/99 -0400, you wrote: 
> 
> "" mercury emissions. The plan is for a carbon injection system that cools
>flue gases allowing extra mercury to be captured. A dastardly option! If
>I'm understanding some of how dioxin is formed in the incineration process,
>cooling the stack gases produces more dioxin. Correct? If this is the case,
>it would be another argument against retrofit. Thanks for any help. Jackie
>
> Activated carbon injection is supposed to catch mercury and dioxins
>provided the flue gases pass through a bag filter. Carbon particulates
>cling to the bag to form an rather effective filter. When bags are shaken
>to clean them, filtering dioxins and mercury losses much of its efficiency.
>Activated carbon is often lignite coke powder which exists in an activated
>variety.
> 
>"" cokefied lignite supposes a careful process to avoid evaporation of the
>mercury. That process is not cheap.
> 
> Best regards, Emmanuel
> - Mr Emmanuel de Broux, avenue du Sacre-Coeur 7, B-5590 Leignon, Belgium.
>Tel + fax: international access code + 32 83 21 54 30