Aggressive Corrosion Damaging Coal Plant Scrubbers After 1 Or 2 Yrs On Systems Expected To Last 25

[hatrack]

When American Electric Power installed a pollution scrubber at its Cardinal plant along the Ohio River in 2007, it was supposed to last 25 years. That might not happen.

About a year later, an inspection found that something was eating through its steel walls. "There were some areas in the tank vessel itself that ultimately corroded all the way through," said Bill Sigmon, AEP's senior vice president for engineering, projects and field services.

It wasn't a freak occurrence. The Electric Power Research Institute, which is funded by utility companies, is investigating reports of "aggressive" corrosion in scrubbers across the nation. "Our findings, so far, show it's fairly widespread through the industry," said John Shingledecker, senior project manager in the research institute's fossil materials and repair program.

Without a fix, corrosion threatens plant shutdowns and costly repairs, both of which could affect Ohioans' power bills. Scrubbers are key weapons in the fight to reduce pollution at coal-fired power plants. They were installed to help meet a federal mandate that coal-fired power plants cut 71percent of their sulfur-dioxide emissions by 2014.

EDIT

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/11/aggressive-decay-eats-at-power-plants.html?sid=101

[kristopher]

1. Good chance to highlight -+ of two policy approaches.

With the first approach the government sets a standard and allows industry to find the least cost method of achieving that standard. - think gas mileage standards for car.

The other approach would be for the government to select a specific technological fix for the problem and mandate that all places where the fix is needed use that specific technology - think catalytic converters.

The scrubbers are an example of approach #1, but the widespread failure is a drawback typically associated with approach #2.

Interesting.

[Nihil]

2. Well, it certainly highlighted the negatives of approach #1

> With the first approach the government sets a standard and allows industry
> to find the least cost method of achieving that standard. - think gas mileage
> standards for car.

That's what they tried and - surprise, surprise - the industry chose the lowest
cost method ... that failed after a fraction of the projected lifetime.

Alternatively, as in the "gas mileage standards" for cars, the bar is set so low
as to be almost worthless as the politicians give in to one bribe after another.

Still, at least it will give you an opportunity for a different photomontage
of corroding pieces of pipework ... yet somehow I suspect you will overlook
this one ...

:P