Tech-powered emission controls enhance power plant performance

These innovative technologies support sustainable energy production and contribute to broader climate change mitigation efforts by minimising the environmental footprint of power generation.

- 

Power plants are essential for meeting global energy demands. However, their operations release significant quantities of air pollutants, including sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), mercury and greenhouse gases. A range of emission control products and technologies are used to reduce these emissions and comply with increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Many leading companies have started emphasising the use of primary emission control products in power plants, their working principles and their effectiveness in reducing pollution.

Advanced emission control products and technologies

FGD (Flue Gas Desulphurisation) systems, commonly known as scrubbers, are used to remove SOx from the flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants. The most prevalent type is the wet limestone scrubber, which uses a slurry of limestone and water to absorb SO₂, converting it into gypsum, a usable byproduct. Dry and semi-dry scrubbers are used, especially in smaller plants or where water availability is limited. FGD systems have the potential to remove up to 95 per cent of SO₂ emissions and produce gypsum in the plants, which can be further used in construction activities.

Moreover, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) are post-combustion technologies used to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in power plants. SCR uses a metal-based catalyst and injects ammonia or urea into the flue gas, facilitating a reaction at lower temperatures to convert NOx into harmless nitrogen and water achieving up to 90 percent NOx reduction. In contrast, SNCR does not use a catalyst; instead, it injects ammonia or urea directly into the hot flue gas at higher temperatures, where it reacts with NOx to form nitrogen and water typically achieving 30–70 percent reduction, however, with greater variability and lower efficiency than SCR.