Примеры использования Removal efficiencies на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
A/ Hg removal efficiencies increase with the proportion of ionic mercury.
Example of emission control costs and removal efficiencies for coal combustion from Pacyna et al 2010.
Removal efficiencies for some techniques are given in Table 7(c) below.
As shown in the table, simple electrostatic precipitators sometimes only have very low mercury removal efficiencies.
Ammonia removal efficiencies of 70 per cent can be guaranteed for properly designed filters.
Note: Medium- and low-pressure scrubbers andcyclones generally show lower dust removal efficiencies.
Mercury removal efficiencies of flue gas cleaning systems for waste incinerators UNEP toolkit.
Dry Sorbent Injection uses either a calcium or sodium based reagent for moderate to high acid gas removal efficiencies.
Using the techniques mentioned above, mercury removal efficiencies vary extensively from plant to plant, as seen in table 3.
Higher removal efficiencies(up to 90 per cent) can be achieved if combining FF and scrubbers at an average cost of 2.63(1.13) 2010-USD.
Note: Medium- and low-pressure scrubbers andcyclones generally show lower dust removal efficiencies and are not considered to be BAT on their own.
For the roasting of sulphides, removal efficiencies of 80 to 99% for 10,000 to 200,000 m3/h units have been reported(depending on the process);
Also scrubbers are installed at some plants,e.g. mercurous chloride or hypochlorite injection scrubbers that achieve high mercury removal efficiencies.
Measurements at a hydrometallurgical zinc smelter in China(Wang et al 2010)showed mercury removal efficiencies of air pollution control devices handling waste gas from the roasting furnace.
Sulfur- and iodine-impregnated carbon adsorption systems are commonly used to reduce the mercury levels in the hydrogen gas stream if high removal efficiencies are desired.
For example, the Expert Group has compiled removal efficiencies and abatement costs for some activities(refineries and cement), which may help with decisions on amendments.
The use of abatement technology such as fabric filters or ESPs is common on cement plants,but information on removal efficiencies of mercury specifically from cement kilns is scarce.
It can, in general, be expected that mercury removal efficiencies in kilns may potentially be higher or are comparable to mercury removal efficiencies with similar devices employed in e.g. power plants, as long as the Cement Kiln Dust(CKD) is actively purged and disposed of.
FGD systems are currently installed in 27 countries and have led to enormous reductions in emissions- wet scrubbers,the most widely used FGD technology, can achieve removal efficiencies as high as 99.
Hylander and Herbert(2008)in their emission inventory of mercury from non-ferrous metal production assume mercury removal efficiencies of between 95-99 per cent if a sulphuric acid plant is present at a copper, lead or zinc pyrometallurgical smelter, assuming that mercury was prevented from contaminating the sulphuric acid product.
The application of techniques to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides,sulphur dioxide and particulates from the flue gas can also remove PCDD/F emissions. When using these techniques, PCDD/F removal efficiencies will vary from plant to plant.
For the REF scenario,the stricter standards were implemented in two stages(2005/2006 and 2008/2009), and the removal efficiencies have been changed according to the standards in the above document;
Annual total costs( i.e. annual capital- and O&M costs), range from 1.3 USD 2008/MWhe for ESP installation with an estimated mercury removal of>63 per cent to 2-5- 5 USD 2008/MWhe for more advance air pollution control(particle and sulphur removal in scrubber)with mercury removal efficiencies estimated to>93 per cent.
For HMIWI(hazardous, medical infectuous waste incineration)removal efficiency of around 89 per cent was presented, but removal efficiencies were dependant on the mercury content in the input waste.
The removal efficiency ranged from 0 to 60% with 21% as average reduction.
In general, removal efficiency of FGD installations for mercury ranges from 30 to 50.
A/ For high-sulphur fuel the removal efficiency has to be adapted.
The mercury removal efficiency is between 90.0 and 95.0.
A/ For high sulphur content in the fuel the removal efficiency has to be adapted.
The removal efficiency of 99.0% has been measured.