壓縮包內(nèi)含有CAD圖紙和說明書,均可直接下載獲得文件，所見所得，電腦查看更方便。Q 197216396 或 11970985
任務(wù)書
題目名稱
150MW燃煤電廠煙氣除塵脫硫工程設(shè)計(jì)
學(xué)生學(xué)院
環(huán)境科學(xué)與工程學(xué)院
專業(yè)班級(jí)
姓 名
學(xué) 號(hào)
一、畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）的內(nèi)容
燃煤電廠煙氣除塵脫硫工程設(shè)計(jì)，包括各種除塵脫硫的工藝原理、各種除塵脫硫的工藝方法比較、主體設(shè)備選型和非標(biāo)準(zhǔn)設(shè)備設(shè)計(jì)，管道輸送系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)及工程投資概算等。
二、畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）的要求與數(shù)據(jù)
廢氣處理量：畢業(yè)實(shí)習(xí)收集，或者“按產(chǎn)排污系數(shù)手冊(cè)”；
廢氣成分：畢業(yè)實(shí)習(xí)收集，或者“按產(chǎn)排污系數(shù)手冊(cè)”；
畢業(yè)實(shí)習(xí)10天以上；實(shí)習(xí)報(bào)告（含資料調(diào)研報(bào)告）10000字以上；
??? 畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)說明書30000字以上；
繪制工程設(shè)計(jì)圖紙8張（A4）以上。
三、畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）應(yīng)完成的工作
查閱和翻譯文獻(xiàn)資料；
參與畢業(yè)實(shí)習(xí)并編寫實(shí)習(xí)報(bào)告；
編寫畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)說明書；
進(jìn)行工程概算和運(yùn)行可行性分析；
繪制工程設(shè)計(jì)圖紙。
序號(hào)
設(shè)計(jì)（論文）各階段內(nèi)容
起止日期
1
參與畢業(yè)實(shí)習(xí)
3月15日~4月12日
2
編寫實(shí)習(xí)報(bào)告、查閱和翻譯文獻(xiàn)資料
4月13~4月25日
3
研究設(shè)計(jì)方案，進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)的有關(guān)計(jì)算
4月26日~5月10日
4
編寫畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)說明書
5月11日~5月25日
5
進(jìn)行工程概算和運(yùn)行可行性分析
5月26日~5月29日
6
繪制工程設(shè)計(jì)圖紙
5月30日~6月8日
7
答辯準(zhǔn)備及答辯
6月9日~6月12日
四、畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）進(jìn)程安排
五、應(yīng)收集的資料及主要參考文獻(xiàn)
1. 王志魁主編 . 化工原理 .第二版.北京：化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社，1998.10
2. 赫吉明 馬廣大主編 . 大氣污染控制工程. 第二版.北京：高等教育出版社，2002
3. 賀匡國(guó)主編.化工容器及設(shè)備簡(jiǎn)明設(shè)計(jì)手冊(cè).化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社，1989
4. 黃學(xué)敏.張承中主編. 大氣污染控制工程實(shí)踐教程.北京：化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社. 2003.9
5. 立本英機(jī).安部郁夫（日）主編.高尚愚譯編. 活性炭的應(yīng)用技術(shù)ü其維持管理及存在問題.南京：東南大學(xué)出版社，2002.7
6. 林肇信主編.大氣污染控制工程.高等教育出版社.1991.5
7. 全燮.楊鳳林主編. 環(huán)境工程計(jì)算手冊(cè).中國(guó)石化出版社.2003.6
8. 吳忠標(biāo)主編 . 實(shí)用環(huán)境工程手冊(cè)ü大氣污染控制工程 化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社. 2001.9
9. 姜安璽主編. 空氣污染控制 .北京：化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社. 2003
10. 朗曉珍. 楊毅宏主編. 冶金環(huán)境保護(hù)及三廢治理技術(shù). 東北大學(xué)出版社. 2002
11. 童志權(quán)等主編. 工業(yè)廢氣污染控制與利用. 北京：化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社，1988
12. 王紹文.張殿印.徐世勤.董保澍主編. 環(huán)保設(shè)備材料手冊(cè).冶金工業(yè)出版社 2000.9
13. 朱世勇，《環(huán)境與工業(yè)氣體凈化技術(shù)》，化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社，2001
14. 李光超，《大氣污染控制技術(shù)》，化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社，2002
15. L.Ekman.LIFAC-經(jīng)濟(jì)有效的脫硫方法.芬蘭：Fortum Engineering Ltd.
16. 唐敬麟，張祿虎編. 除塵裝置系統(tǒng)及設(shè)備設(shè)計(jì)選用手冊(cè)化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社.2004
17. 《給水排水設(shè)計(jì)手冊(cè) （第11卷）》，中國(guó)建筑工業(yè)出版社，1986.
18. 趙毅，李守信，《有害氣體控制工程》，化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社，2001.
19. 陳常貴、曾敏靜、劉國(guó)雄等編，《化工原理》，天津科學(xué)技術(shù)出版社，2002
20. Licht,W《Air Pollution Control Engineering》.Publisher,New York,NY(US);Marcel Dekker,Inc.System Entry Date:2001 May 13.
21. Dry Removal of Gaseous Pollutants from Flue Gases with the GFB(FGD by CFB).Lurgi Report,Germany,1990..
22. 劉天齊主編，三廢處理工程技術(shù)手冊(cè)：廢氣卷，北京：化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社 1999.5
發(fā)出任務(wù)書日期：20xx年3月10日 指導(dǎo)教師簽名：
預(yù)計(jì)完成日期：20xx年6月12日 專業(yè)負(fù)責(zé)人簽章：
主管院長(zhǎng)簽章：
2
1. Amelioration of alkali soil using flue gas desulfurization byproducts: Productivity and environmental quality
1.1 Abstract：
In this study, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) byproducts are used to ameliorate alkali soil. The average application rates for soils with low exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), mid ESP, and high ESP are 20.9, 30.6, and 59.3 Mg ha 1, respectively. The experimental results obtained for 3 consecutive years reveal that the emergence ratios and yields of the crops were 1.1-7.6 times and 1.1-13.9 times those of the untreated control, respectively. The concentrations of Cr, Pb, Cd, As, and Hg in the treated soils are far below the background values stipulated by the Environmental Quality Standard for Soils (GB15618-1995). Their concentrations in the seeds of corn and alfalfa grown in the treated soils are far below the tolerance limits regulated by National Food Standards of China. The results of this research demonstrate that the amelioration of alkali soils using FGD byproducts is promising.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.2 Introduction
Wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) is the dominant technology used in the control of SO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. The major byproduct of the process is CaSO4 or a mixture of CaSO3 and CaSO4 (herein referred to as FGD byproducts). With the rapid development of the energy and power industries in China, the installed capacity of power plants with FGD devices, and therefore the amount of FGD byproduct, is expected to increase rapidly. By the end of 2005, the installed capacity of power plants in China with FGD devices was about 53 GW, and the annual production of FGD byproducts was about 6.5 million tons. According to the National Development Program of China, the installed capacity of power plants with FGD devices will be 200 GW by 2010, with an annual production of FGD byproducts of 40 million tons; by 2020,these figures will be 530 GW and 90 million tons. As FGD byproducts contain large amounts of moisture and ash, they can only be used as building gypsum after purification and dehydration; this represents an economic disadvantage compared with natural gypsum produced in China. If the FGD byproducts were to be directly disposed of without any utilization or treatment, a vast area of land would be required. Such an approach would be a waste of valuable land resources and represent a potential threat of secondary pollution to the environment. Significantly, there are large areas of alkali soil in China.These soils are unsuitable for growing agricultural crops,and some such soils are unable to support any plant growth whatsoever. These barren lands severely limit agriculture production in China and have a negative impact on the ecosystem.According to statistics provided by the Ministry of Land and Resource in China, there are 346000 km2 (34.6 million ha) of alkali soils in the northwest, north, northeast, and coastal areas of China; of these areas, soils with heavy exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) make up about 92 000 km2. The amelioration of alkali soils over such an enormous area is one of the greatest challenges facing Chinese agriculture. Gypsum has been known to be an amelioration agent for alkali soil for more than 100 years; however, it has been used only rarely because of the high cost involved in the exploitation, transportation, and crushing of natural gypsum. Although the main component of FGD byproducts is CaSO4, they also contain about 10% alkali material; however, it is uncertain as to whether FGD byproducts with a pH of 7.7－10.03 (Xu et al.,2005) are suitable for use in the amelioration of alkali soil. In fact, FGD byproducts have been used as a type of modifier for acid soil in the US and other countries (Chen et al., 2001; Li et al., 2004). Professor Matsumoto of Tokyo University firstly proposed the amelioration of alkali soils using FGD byproducts(Matsumoto, 1998).The amelioration of alkali soil using FGD byproducts would make use of tens of millions of tons of FGD byproducts, thereby boosting the application of FGD technology and the development of the pollution-control industry. In addition, the huge extent of barren alkali soil ameliorated by the FGD byproducts would then be suitable for growing agricultural crops; this would be of significant bene?t to both agricultural development and improvement to local ecosystems.
1.3 Materials and methods
Field studies were conducted on alkali soil upon the Tumochuan Plain, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia. There are 2 experimental fields. For the No. 1 experimental fields, the total area is about 2.67 ha; soil ESP ranges from 6.1 to 78.4%; and the soil pH is 8.5e9.77. For the No. 2 experimental fields, the total area is 6.67 ha; soil ESP ranges from 40 to 50%; and the soil pH is 9.4e9.5.The concentrations of the main elements in the FGD byproducts were determined using ICP-AES, while the concentrations of certain heavy metals(Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Se) were determined using ICP-MS, and As and Hg were determined using ICP-AES with a subsequent check using atomic fluorescence spectrophotometry (AFS). The chemical composition of the FGD byproducts is shown in Table 1.
The No. 1 experimental fields were divided into 3 types according to soil ESP: i.e. low ESP fields (soil ESP of 6.1e20%), mid ESP fields (soil ESP of 20-30%), and high ESP fields (soil ESP of 30e78.4%). The average application rates for the different types of ?elds are given in Table 2. The average application rates for No. 2 experimental fields were 33 Mg ha 1. Control fields were also set for each of the three types of No. 1 experimental fields and No. 2 experimental ?elds. The treatments for the experimental and control fields were the same except for the application of FGD byproducts.For No. 1 experimental ?elds, the FGD byproducts were added to the soil in a single application during the spring of 2001 and fully mixed with the surface (0-20 cm) soil. In 2001, mignonette was planted in the low ESP fields,forage corn was planted in the mid ESP ?elds, and the high ESP fields were left unplanted. Forage corn was planted in all types of fields in 2002, and
food corn was planted in all types of fields in 2003. For No. 2 experimental fields, the FGD byproducts were added to the soil in a single application in July 2004 and fully mixed with the surface (0e20 cm) soil. Alfalfa was planted in the same year. The field treatments for both fields included fertilizing, weeding, and irrigation in accordance with local agricultural practices In October 2003, samples of soil and corn seed were collected from the No. 1 experimental fields and control fields with mid and high soil ESPs to determine the concentrations of heavy metals. In September 2005, samples of soil and alfalfa were collected from No. 2 experimental fields. For soil samples, total Pb and total Cd were determined using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry according to National Standards for Soil Quality GB/T17141-1997, total Cd was determined using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry according to GB/T17138-1997, total Hg was determined using AFS, and total As was determined using silver diethyldithiocarbamate spectrophotometry. For plant samples, Pb was determined according to GB/T5009.12-2003 (determination of lead in food), Cd was determined according to GB/T5009.15-2003 (determination of cadmium in foods), As was determined according to GB/T5009.11-2003 (determination of total arsenic and abio-arsenic in foods), Cr was determined according to GB/T5009.123-2003(determination of chromium in foods), and Hg was determined using AFS
1.4 Results and discussion
In 2001, the emergence ratio and yield of mignonette were 1.2 times and 4.2 times those of the untreated control, respectively, and the emergence ratio and yield of forage corn were 5.6 times and 7.6 times those of the untreated control (Table 3).In 2002, the emergence ratio and yield of forage corn were 1.1-7.6 times and 1.1e6.8 times those of the untreated control, respectively, and the emergence ratio and yield of food corn were 1.1-3.7 times and 1.6-13.9 times those of the untreated control, respectively, depending on the soil ESP. The emergence ratios and yields of crops in soils with varying ESP are presented in Figs. 1-4
When examining Figs. 1 and 2, it is apparent that the emergence ratios of corns in experimental fields are higher than that in control fields, especially for soils with higher ESP. The emergence ratio of corns in the soils with high ESP was 70% in 2002, and it was 93.3% in 2003.It is apparent from Fig. 3 that the biomass yield of forage corns in the treated ?elds with high soil ESP reached 51 Mg ha 1, much higher than 7.5 Mg ha 1 in the control fields, and also higher than 32 Mg ha 1 in the control fields with mid soil ESP. It is also apparent from Fig. 4 that the seed yield of food corns in the treated fields with high soil ESP was 8618 kg ha 1, 8000 kg ha 1 higher than that in the control. This indicates that FGD byproducts are much more effective in fields with high soil ESP and produce a significant increase in plant yields. Compared with fields with low soil ESP, however, plant yields in fields with high ESP are still lower.
It is also apparent from Figs. 1e4 that the results for 2003 are superior to those for 2002. In 2003, the emergence ratio and yield of corns were 93.3% and 8618 kg ha 1 for high ESP soils, respectively. These results demonstrate that the barren land had been successfully changed into cultivatable soil. In 2005, the emergence ratio of alfalfa was 30e50% in the
experimental fields, and the yields were 1333e4335 kg ha 1, with the average 2079 kg ha 1. As the comparison, the emergence ratio and yield were almost zero in the control fields.The effect of the application of FGD byproducts on the concentrations of heavy metals in the crops and soils was assessed. The initial assessment involved 3 stages. The first stage involved the detection of concentrations of heavy metals in FGD byproducts (Table 1). Table 4 shows the concentrations of elements stipulated by Control Standards of Pollutants in Fly Ash for Agricultural Use (GB8173-1987) and Environmental Quality Standard for Soils (GB15618-1995).It is apparent from the tables that the concentrations of heavy metals in the FGD byproducts were far below the national standard limits for China: most were below the background levels of the soil.The second stage involved the analysis of concentrations of heavy metals in treated and untreated soils (Table 5). The concentrations of Cr, Pb, and As in treated soils with mid ESP increased relative to the control soils. The concentrations of Cd and Hg in soils with mid ESP and all analyzed elements in soils with high ESP decreased relative to the control soils.The concentrations of Pb, Cd, and Hg in soils of No. 2 experimental fields slightly increased relative to the control soils.The concentrations of all the heavy metals analyzed in the experimental treatments were far below the soil background levels regulated by Environmental Quality Standard for Soils(GB15618-1995).
The final stage involved the analysis of heavy metals in corn seeds and alfalfa (Table 6). No change was found in the concentration of heavy metals in the seeds of corns and alfalfa grown in the treated soils compared with those grown in the control soils. The results of this initial study indicate that the application of FGD byproducts does not contaminate the soil or crops grown in the soil, although further detailed studies are yet to be undertaken.
1.5 Conclusions
The amelioration of alkali soil using FGD byproducts sourced from power plants changes barren land into cultivatable soil, bringing about great social and economic benefits. The experimental results obtained for 3 consecutive years after the application of FGD byproducts in 2001 reveal that the emergence ratio and plant yield of crops were 1.1-7.6 timesand 1.1-13.9 times those of the untreated control, respectively, depending on the soil ESP. The concentrations of heavy metals in the treated soil and crops grown in the soil are far below the soil background levels and the tolerance limits stipulated by National Food Standards. The results of this research demonstrate that the amelioration of alkali soils using FGD byproducts is promising.
2 Macroscopic to microscopic studies of flue gas desulfurization byproducts for acid mine drainage mitigation
2.1 Introduction
The use of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems to reduce SO2 emissions has resulted in the generation of large quantities of byproducts. These and other byproducts are being stockpiled at the very time that alkaline materials having high neutralization potential are needed to mitigate acid mine drainage (AMD). FGD byproducts are highly alkaline materials composed primarily of unreacted sorbents (lime or limestone and sulfates and sulfites of Ca). Approximately 20 million tons of FGD material were generated by electric power utilities equipped with wet lime-limestone FGD systems according to the lastest calculation (l993). Less than 5% of this material has been put to beneficial use for agricultural soil amendments and for the production of wallboard and cement.
Four USGS projects are examining FGD byproduct use to address these concerns. These projects involve 1) calculating the volume of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) byproduct generation and their geographic locations in relation to AMD, 2) determining byproduct chemistry and mineralogy, 3) evaluating hydrology and geochemistry of atmospheric fluidized bed combustion byproduct as soil amendment in Ohio, and 4) analyzing microbial degradation of gypsum in anoxic limestone drains in West Virginia.
2.2 United states FGD data base
The Industrial Minerals Branch of the Office of Minerals Information (formerly the U.S. Bureau of Mines) at the USGS has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that can be used to provide information on the availability and proximity of FGD byproducts and potential markets, such as wallboard plants, portland cement industries, and AMD problem areas. With this information, we are able to assess the economic potential of FGD byproduct markets on a national basis for the first time.
The distribution of electric power utilities equipped with FGD units is widespread. FGD byproduct production and accumulation to the year 1998 was forecast by the Energy Information Administration. At current production rates, as much as 200 million metric tons of FGD materials will be generated and stored primarily in landfills by the year 2000. This is an enormous volume of highly alkaline material. An important objective, therefore, is to characterize FGD byproduct chemistry and mineralogy to identify beneficial and deleterious components.
2.3 Characterization of FGD feed limestone and byproducts
The USGS, the Kentucky Geological Survey, and a Kentucky utility have initiated a project to gather information on the chemistry and mineralogy of feed coal, feed limestone, fly ash, bottom ash, and FGD byproduct at a Kentucky power plant. Samples of each of these materials are being collected at monthly intervals. The wide variety of analyses on each include the concentration of as many as 50 elements; mineralogy (X-ray diffraction, optical petrography); modes of occurrence (scanning electron microscopy, microprobe analysis, selective leaching); organic geochemistry; radionuclide analysis; toxic characterization of leaching procedure (TCLP); and column leaching.
Results from this data base will be made available and are expected to provide insights into the influence of chemistry and mineralogy of the feed limestone and coal on the chemistry of FGD sludges. An important objective is to use the data to determine the relative reactivity of the various byproduct components in surface and ground water.
2.4 Surface and ground water characterization of FGD byproduct utilization at demonstration site in tuscarawas county, ohio
FGD byproducts were applied at an abandoned surface coal mine in Tuscarawas County, Ohio to neutralize AMD, learn about changes in water chemistry, and increase soil alkalinity to aid in revegetation. This research is a joint effort between the USGS Water Resources Division (Ohio District) and The Ohio State University.
Dry FGD byproduct was applied to the surface in late 1994 during reclamation of the 45-acre Fleming site. Pre-reclamation surface-water discharges from the site were acidic (pH 2.9 to 5.5) and erosion was severe owing to lack of vegetation. FGD materials were applied to six 1-acre test watersheds on bases of 4-feet-thick acidic mine spoil. Three replicates of 3 reclamation treatments were applied to each spoil surface, either as (1) standard reclamation practice of 8 in. of topsoil amended with ag-lime; (2) 8 in. of topsoil amended with 125 tons/acre dry FGD byproduct; or (3) 8 in. of topsoil amended with a blend of dry FGD byproduct and yard-waste compost. In addition, FGD materials were applied at a rate of 125 tons/acre to reworked minespoil in a buffer zone that surrounds the test plots. Physical, mineralogical, and engineering properties of FGD materials used at the Fleming site have been extensively investigated [3,4,5]. The dry FGD byproduct used in this study was produced by an atmospheric fluidized-bed boiler operating at a General Motors plant in Pontiac, Mich. The boiler uses coal and limestone produced in Ohio. Constituents having existing primary or secondary drinking water standards and therefore potential adverse affects on water quality if leached in sufficient quantities from the FGD byproduct include As (47 ppm), Cr (75 ppm), Ni (55 ppm), Pb (36 ppm), Se (11 ppm), and SO4 (18 to 21 weight percent as SO4). Paste pH of the FGD byproduct ranges from 10 to 12, and the CaCO3 equivalency ranges from 37.7 to 39.5 tons CaCO3/100 tons of byproduct.
Hydrogeology and geochemistry of the Fleming site were investigated by rock coring and whole-rock analysis, 35 soil-suction lysimeters and 20 monitoring wells, and surface and borehole geophysics. Lysimeters were installed at 1.5-4.5 ft depths, whereas wells were screened at about 30-100 ft depths. Water levels, specific conductance, and temperature have been measured hourly in 7 automated monitoring wells since June 1995. Because of high sulfate concentrations in both shallow ground water affected by AMD and in the FGD leachate, the isotopic composition of dissolved sulfate is being investigated as a possible tracer of FGD byproduct leachate.
Initial results indicate that the composition of surface water and shallow pore water have been affected by FGD byproduct leachate. Pore waters collected from lysimeters in the application area have pH values greater than 6.5, Fe concentrations less than 1.0 mg/L, sulfate concentrations on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 mg/L, and molar Mg:Ca ratios greater than 5, whereas pore-water samples from lysimeters installed outside the application area have lower pH values (4.4-5.7) and sulfate and dissolved solids concentrations that are a factor of 5 to 10 lower than those in samples from lysimeters inside the application area. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that alkaline leachate which infiltrate the unsaturated minespoil is neutralizing acidity produced by oxidation of pyrite. The result is near-neutral pH values and low dissolved iron and aluminum concentrations. High sulfate concentrations primarily reflect leaching of the gypsum component of the FGD material.
In contrast, ground water beneath the Fleming site typically has pH values of 5 to 6, dissolved Fe concentrations of several hundred mg/L, sulfate concentrations of several hundred to several thousand mg/L, and Mg:Ca molar ratios <1.0. These data suggest that leachate from the FGD byproduct has not reached an