FGD retrofit options

Hightech solutions are often based on simple ideasANDRITZ air pollution control

Energy Community Workshop, October 2012

Retrofitting of LargeCombustion PlantsCh. Patterer, 31.10.2012, Vienna

2 ANDRITZ Energy & Environment

Overview of the Andritz Group

WET Flue Gas Desulphurisation (W-FGD)

DRY Flue Gas Desulphurisation (D-FGD)

Comparison of WET and DRY FGD Solutions

WET and DRY FGD Projects under Execution

Energy Community WorkshopTable of content

3Company

ANDRITZ AG, Graz, Austria (Group headquarters)

More than 180 production and service sites worldwide

Employees: approximately 17,400 worldwide (as of June 30, 2012)Key figures 2011

Order intake: 5,707 MEUR

Sales: 4,596 MEUR

Net income (including non-controlling interests): 232 MEUR

Equity ratio (as of end of 2011): 21 %Products and services

Plants and services for hydropower stations, the pulp and paper industry, solid-liquid separation in the municipal and industrial sectors, the steel industry, and the production of animal feed and biomass pellets

The ANDRITZ GROUPOverview

ANDRITZ Energy & Environment

4* Long-term average share of the ANDRITZ GROUPs total order intake

Electromechani-cal equipment for hydropower plants (mainly tur-bines and genera-tors); pumps; turbo generators

Systems for the production of all types of pulp and of certain paper grades (tissue, cartonboard); boilers

Equipment for the mechanical and thermal solid/liquid separation for municipalities and various industries

Systems for the production and processing of stainless steel and carbon steel strips; industrial furnaces

Systems for the production ofanimal feed pellets (pet and fish food) and biomass pellets (wood, straw)

HYDRO40-45%*

PULP & PAPER30-35%*

SEPARATION10%*

METALS10%*

FEED & BIOFUEL5%*

ANDRITZ Energy & Environment GmbH company presentation October 2012

Company ProfileA world market leader in most business areas

5Sales of the ANDRITZ GROUP (MEUR)

1.110 1.2251.481

1.744

2.710

3.2833.610

3.1983.554

4.596

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PULP & PAPER1990 Sprout-Bauer1992 Durametal1994 Kone Wood1998 Kvaerner Hymac1999 Winberg2000 Ahlstrom Machinery2000 Lamb Baling Line2000 Voith Andritz Tissue LLC (JV)2002 ABB Drying2003 IDEAS Simulation 2003 Acutest Oy2003 Fiedler2004 EMS (JV)2005 Cybermetrics2005 Universal Dynamics Group2006 Ksters2006 Carbona2006 Pilo2007 Bachofen + Meier2007 Sindus2008 Kufferath2009 Rollteck2010 Rieter Perfojet2010 DMT/Biax2011 AE&E Austria2011 Iggesund Tools2011 Tristar Industries2011 Asselin-Thibeau

FEED & BIOFUEL1995 Jesma-Matador2000 UMT2005 Chemes Strojarne

HYDRO2006 VA TECH HYDRO2007 Tigp2008 GE Hydro business2008 GEHI (JV)2010 Precision Machine2010 Hammerfest Strm (55.4%)2010 Ritz2011 Hemicycle Controls

SEPARATION1992 TCW Engineering1996 Guinard2002 3SYS2004 Bird Machine2004 NETZSCH Filtration2004 Fluid Bed Systems of

VA TECH WABAG2005 Lenser Filtration2006 CONTEC Decanter2009 Delkor Capital Equipment2009 Frautech2010 KMPT

METALS1997 Sundwig1998 Thermtec2000 Kohler2002 SELAS SAS Furnace Div.2004 Kaiser2005 Lynson2008 Maerz2012 Bricmont2012 Soutec

Strengthening of the Market PositionGrowth through organic expansion and acquisitions


6Important Key Figures Q2 and H1 2012 at a GlanceSatisfactory business development

Unit H1 2012 H1 2011 +/- Q2 2012 Q2 2011 +/- 2011

Order intake MEUR 2,554.4 3,644.5 -29.9% 1,193.2 1,978.5 -39.7% 5,706.9

Order backlog (as of end of period) MEUR 6,935.9 7,249.0 -4.3% 6,935.9 7,249.0 -4.3% 6,683.1

Sales MEUR 2,437.8 2,011.1 +21.2% 1,252.1 1,087.4 +15.1% 4,596.0

EBITDA MEUR 184.7 157.0 +17.6% 98.2 88.3 +11.2% 386.2

EBITA MEUR 155.6 131.6 +18.2% 83.1 75.5 +10.1% 331.5

EBIT MEUR 143.1 123.1 +16.2% 76.4 71.1 +7.5% 312.7

EBT MEUR 149.8 127.1 +17.9% 79.7 72.1 +10.5% 321.7

Financial result MEUR 6.7 4.0 +67.5% 3.3 1.0 +230.0% 9.0

Net income (including non-controlling interests) MEUR 107.5 89.7 +19.8% 57.1 50.9 +12.2% 231.5

Cash flow from operating activities MEUR 119.4 206.8 -42.3% 88.2 55.7 +58.3% 433.8

Capital expenditure MEUR 34.5 23.5 +46.8% 15.0 13.2 +13.6% 77.0

EBITDA margin % 7.6 7.8 - 7.8 8.1 - 8.4

EBITA margin % 6.4 6.5 - 6.6 6.9 - 7.2

EBIT margin % 5.9 6.1 - 6.1 6.5 - 6.8

Employees (as of end of period) - 17,420 16,119 +8.1% 17,420 16,119 +8.1% 16,750


7Broad research coverageBaader Bank, Berenberg Bank, Cheuvreux, Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank, Erste Bank, Goldman Sachs, Hauck & Aufhuser, HSBC, J.P. Morgan, Kepler Capital Markets, RCB, UBS

Relative share price performance of the ANDRITZ share versus the ATX since the IPO:

Performance June 2001(ANDRITZ IPO) untilJune 30, 2012: ANDRITZ: +1,444% ATX: +60%

Performance in H1 2012: ANDRITZ: +23% ATX: -2%

Market capitalizationANDRITZ as ofJune 30, 2012: 4,215 MEUR

Note: On April 23, 2012, the ANDRITZ share was split in a ratio of 1:2. All share price data and key figures were adjusted accordingly.1 June 2001: IPO at 2.63 EUR/share 2 June 2003: Secondary Public Offering at 2.85 EUR/share 3 Closing price as of March 30, 2012: 40.52 EUR

ANDRITZ ShareSolid performance, broad research coverage


8Pulp & Paper

ServicesPaper

TechnologyMechanical

PulpingFiber

PreparationPulp DryingRecovery &

PowerFiber and Chemical

Wood Processing

ANDRITZ GROUP

Air Pollution Control

Steam generators and plants


Power plant services

Air Pollution Control within ANDRITZDiversified product range and a clear focus

WET Flue Gas Desulphurisation (W-FGD)Limestone based open spray tower technology

10

Raw gas

Cleangas

Gypsum

Limestonepowder

Process characteristics: Open spray tower optimized by advanced CFD tools Removing of acid gaseous pollutants (SO2, HCl, HF) Low operation cost due to low sorbent costs (limestone) Low maintenance costs Beneficial use for solid product (marketable gypsum) Most used technology worldwide

Performance data: High SO2 removal rate: up to 99 % SO3 removal rate: up to 70 % Dust removal rate: up to 80 % High HCl removal rate: up to 99 %

Capacity: Flue gas volume flow: 4.8 Mio. m3/h (std,wet) SO2 concentration: up to 30,000 mg/m3 (std,dry)

Applications: Power stations (bituminous coal, lignite, fuel oil, ..) Industry (cement, steel, ..)

WET Limestone Flue Gas DesulphurizationWell proven technology for high removal efficiencies


11

Advantages:

Low operation cost

Low maintenance costs

Limestone as available and cheap absorbent

Producing marketable gypsum

WET Limestone Flue Gas DesulphurizationTailor made solutions for each application


12

Removing of acidic gaseouspollutants (SOX, HCl, HF) anddust


Clean gas

Gypsum

Limestone

Water

Oxidation air

Raw gas

WET Limestone Flue Gas DesulphurizationOne process step for various pollutants


WET Limestone FGD Process and Auxiliary SystemsHighly efficient and maintenance friendly

Limestone Storage, Slurry Preparation System

Gypsum Dewatering and Storage System

Absorber, Oxidation Air System, Slurry Recirculation

Waste Water Discharge

Ash Removal System

14

FGDplus as Enhancement of the Open Spray TowerReduced investment as well as operation costs

Process characteristics: Scrubber with adapted mass-transfer regime Optimized combination of high removal and fine removal

within the absorption zone Increase SO2-removal efficiency for high inlet concentration Maximize dust, aerosol and HM removal Decrease of invest costs

Number of spray banksAbsorber height (sump, absorption zone)Pump size

Decrease of operation costs Pressure at nozzlesDecrease of liquid to gas ratioOptimized behavior at variable load conditions

Capacity: Flue gas volume: up to 4.8 Mio. m3/h (std,wet) SO2 concentration: up to 30,000 mg/m3 (std,dry)

Applications: Upgrade of existing absorber New installations

Liquid Bulk

Raw Gas

Redispersed Droplets

Velocity magnitude (regions only) [m/s]



Ca(OH)2 + SO2 = CaSO3 * H2O + H2O (1)

Ca(OH)2 + SO3 = CaSO4 * H2O + H2O (2)

Ca(OH)2 + SO2 + O2 = CaSO4 * H2O + H2O (3)

CaSO3 * H2O + O2 = CaSO4 * H2O (4)

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 = CaCO3 + H2O (5)

Ca(OH)2 + 2 HCl = CaCl2 * 2 H2O (6)

Ca(OH)2 + 2 HF = CaF2 + 2 H2O (7)

Wet FGD Process Product Sorbent

Basic Wet Flue Gas Cleaning ChemistryOverall chemical reactions


Basic Sorbent Requirements for Wet Flue Gas CleaningSorbent quality significantly impacts the system efficiency

Limestone Unit minimum preferredCaCO3 [wt. %] > 90 > 95

MgCO3 *) [wt. %] < 4.0 < 2.0

Inerts [wt. %] < 6.0 < 3.0

Grain size distribution d90 (powder) [m] < 63 90 < 44 63

Grain size (pebbles)**) [mm] < 80

Reactivity - according to Andritz standard reactivity testAverage middle European price [/to] ~ 35 55*) Considered as soluble and reactive**) In case of onsite crushing and milling plant


Basic Wet Flue Gas Cleaning Performance FiguresHigh removal efficiencies for various trace components

Removed trace component Unit normal maximumSulphur dioxide SO2 [%] 90 - 97 ~ 99

Sulphur trioxide SO3 [%] 50 - 60 ~ 70

Hydrochloride HCl [%] 90 - 97 ~ 99

Hydrofluoride HF [%] 95 - 97 ~ 99

Particulate matter [%] 50 - 75 ~ 80

Mercury *) Hg [%] 75 - 80 ~ 95

Heavy metals **) [%] Mainly accomplished by pre wet FGD dust removal*) for oxidized Mercury**) Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Sn

DRY Flue Gas Desulphurization (D-FGD)Circulating dry scrubbing (CDS)

DRY Flue Gas Cleaning Based on CFB TechnologyBasic process characteristics

ANDRITZ Energy & Environment 19

DRY Flue Gas Cleaning Based on CFB TechnologyNo moving parts in the flue gas path

Circulating fluidized bed with intense and turbulent contact between solid sorbent and flue gas

Water injection for re-activation of absorbent

CFD optimized turboreactor inlet including venturi nozzle(s)

Filter designed for very high solids amounts

Cleangas

Raw gasfrom boiler

WaterHydrated lime

Product recirculation and discharge

ANDRITZ Energy & Environment 20

21

Process characteristics: Dry flue gas cleaning optimized by advanced CFD tools Dry flue gas cleaning is based on fluidized bed technology Removing of acid gaseous pollutants (SO2, HCl, HF) Low investment costs Applicable for installation up to 600 MWel

Performance data: High SO2 removal rate: up to 99 % High SO3 removal rate: up to 99 % High dust removal rate: up to 99.99 % High HCl removal rate: up to 99 %

Capacity: Flue gas volume flow: 50,000 to 1.2 Mio. m3/h (std, wet) SO2 inlet concentration: up to 20,000 mg/m3 (std, dry)

Application: Small to middle sized power stations Industry (cement, steel, ..), EfW and biomass plants

Cleangas

Raw gasfrom boiler

FGD product(for disposal mainly)

WaterHydrated

Lime

DRY Flue Gas Cleaning Based on CFB TechnologySingle step process for high removal efficiencies



CDS Process and Auxiliary SystemsA simple system for high performance

Sorbent System

Product Discharge System

Turboreactor, Baghouse Filter, Product Recirculation System

Process Water


Ca(OH)2 + SO2 = CaSO3 * H2O + H2O (1)

Ca(OH)2 + SO3 = CaSO4 * H2O + H2O (2)

Ca(OH)2 + SO2 + O2 = CaSO4 * H2O + H2O (3)

CaSO3 * H2O + O2 = CaSO4 * H2O (4)

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 = CaCO3 + H2O (5)

Ca(OH)2 + 2 HCl = CaCl2 * 2 H2O (6)

Ca(OH)2 + 2 HF = CaF2 + 2 H2O (7)

Dry FGD Process Product Sorbent

Basic Dry Flue Gas Cleaning ChemistryOverall chemical reactions


Basic Sorbent Requirements for Dry Flue Gas CleaningSorbent quality significantly impacts the system efficiency

Hydrated lime Ca(OH)2 Unit minimum preferredContent of free, reactive Ca(OH)2 [wt. %] > 80 > 90

Moisture [wt. %] < 2 < 1

Specific surface (BET-method) [m2/g] > 15 > 18

Grain size distribution d50 [m] < 8 < 5

Average middle European price [/to] ~ 150 180

Burnt lime CaO*) Unit minimum preferredContent of free, reactive CaOnot sintered, soft burnt [wt. %] > 85 > 90

Rest CO2 [wt. %] < 5 < 3

t60 value [min] < 4 < 2

Mean particle diameter d50 [mm] < 2 < 0,2

Average middle European price [/to] ~ 70 100*) In case of onsite hydration plant


Basic Dry Flue Gas Cleaning Performance FiguresHigh removal efficiencies for various trace components

Removed trace component Unit normal maximumSulphur dioxide SO2 [%] 90 - 95 ~ 99

Sulphur trioxide SO3 [%] 95 - 98 ~ 99

Hydrochloride HCl [%] 90 - 97 ~ 99

Hydrofluoride HF [%] 95 - 97 ~ 99

Particulate matter [%] 99.9 99.95 ~ 99.99

Mercury Hg [%] 90 - 95 ~ 97

Heavy metals *) [%] 95 98 ~ 99*) Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Sn


Basic Dry Flue Gas Cleaning ArrangementCompact layout and small footprint


Basic Dry Flue Gas Cleaning ArrangementCompact layout and small footprint for 2 x 145 MWel


Basic Dry Flue Gas Cleaning ArrangementRevised design reduces investment costs significantly


Dry Flue Gas Cleaning in OperationA view into the Turboreactor beneath the venturi nozzles

WET or DRY Flue Gas Desulphurisation SolutionsA comparison of two well proven technologies


About 85 to 90 % of installed FGDs worldwide are based on wet technology. The reasons are mainly lower operational cost (cheap limestone can be used, dry FGDs operate with more expensive burnt lime) and the production of commercial grade gypsum.

However, there are also arguments for dry FGD. For certain applications and for smaller power stations dry FGD might be the better solution. Which are the selection criteria to choose the right system?

Wet FGD

Dry FGD

Wet FGD versus Dry FGDOperation costs versus investment costs


Selection Criteria WET versus DRY FGD (1 of 3)Sorbent costs and basic design parameters

Parameter WET FGD DRY FGD RemarkFlue gas volume 100,000 4,800,000

m3/h (std, wet)50,000 1,200,000

m3/h (std, wet)

Installed boiler capacity

~ 1,100 MWel ~ 150 MWel (lignite)~ 300 MWel (hard coal)

Capacity just for information, flue gas volume is decisive

SO2 removal efficiency > 99 % up to 99 % (95 %)

Sorbent consumption CaCO3 (limestone)SF 1.03

CaO / Ca(OH)2SF 1.3 1,8 (depending on removal efficiency)

Yearly operating hours to be considered

Sorbent costs(middle European) 35 /to 70 /to

Water consumption 100 % 80 %

Possible dust inlet concentration

< 200 mg/m3 (std, dry) Dust removal in wet

FGD limited

< 125 g/m3 (std, dry) High dust removal in

dry FGD

Dry FGD may be interesting for retrofit (ESP performance in old plants)


Selection Criteria WET versus DRY FGD (2 of 3)Beneficial product use and waste discharge

Parameter WET FGD DRY FGD RemarkSO3 removal < 50 % > 99 % Important for oil fired

boilers

FGD product Commercial grade gypsum

OR disposal gypsum

Product for disposal (CaSO3/CaSO4)

Is beneficial product use required?What are the disposal costs?

Waste water If commercial grade gypsum is produced, waste water has to be

discharged

Waste water free system

Can waste water be discharged?What kind of waste water treatment is required?

Maintenance cost higher lower

Erection period ~ 30 Mo ~ 24 Mo

Power consumption /pressure drop

Lower pressure drop especially for part load

Lower power consumption for

auxiliary equipment

Has to checked on a case by case basis


Selection Criteria WET versus DRY FGD (3 of 3)Boundary conditions for retrofit projects

Parameter WET FGD DRY FGD RemarkCondition of existing stack

Existing stack has to be modified in all

cases long outage of boiler

Existing stack can most of the times be used without modification

Stack condition has to checked in case of dry FGD application

Boiler ID fan Lower pressure drop possible that

existing ID fan can be modified and used

Operation flexibility 20 100 % 20 100 % Flue gas recirculation < 60 % is necessary for dry FGD applications

Flue gas temperature at FGD outlet

Saturation temperature50 60 C

75 85 C Required stack outlet temperature has to be checked


WET versus DRY FGD Case Study 1 (Lignite)660 MWel, 11,000 mg/m3 (std, dry) 2.8 Mio. m3/h (std, wet)

Parameter WET FGD DRY FGD RemarkSorbent consumption 48 to/h 50 to/h

Sorbent costs per year (7,000 operating hours)

~ 11.8 Mio. 24.5 Mio. 12.7 Mio. higher sorbent costs per year for dry FGD

Equipment 1 wet scrubber 3 dry scrubbers

Water consumption

Electrical power consumption

Invest costs*) Emission limit: 200 mg/m (std, dry)

Based on usual boundary conditions and requirements only a wet FGD installation is

financially reasonable


WET versus DRY FGD Case Study 2 (Hard Coal)200 MWel, 3,500 mg/m3 (std, dry) 0.7 Mio. m3/h (std, wet)

Parameter WET FGD DRY FGD RemarkSorbent consumption 3.9 to/h 3.4 to/h

Sorbent costs per year (6,000 operating hours)

~ 0.82 Mio. 1.43 Mio. 0.61 Mio. higher sorbent costs per year for dry FGD

Equipment 1 wet scrubber 1 dry scrubber

Water consumption 38 m3/h 28 m3/h Less with dry FGD

Electrical power consumption

~ 2,000 kWh/h ~ 1,500 kWh/h Less with dry FGD

Amount of FGD product

8.0 to/hGypsum

6.0 to/hLandfill

Landfill costs have to be evaluated

Waste water discharge 1.5 m3/h - Dry FGD can be used as waste water sink

Invest costs 100 % 70 %*) Emission limit: 200 mg/m (std, dry)

The Andritz Turbo-CDS technology has been installed in 21 coal fired power plants (35 turboreactor trains) in Europe, China and USA with a total capacity of > 2,000 MWel.

Due to numerous advantages in comparison to wet FGD and semi-dry spray absorption the CDS based technology has gained a considerable share in the flue gas cleaning market

Most important is the possibility to remove nearly all pollutants apart from CO and NOx in one process step

The CDS technology is waste water free and can be used as waste water sink

Single vessel units for boiler sizes up to 300 MWel are state of the art

Executive SummaryThe market share of CDS based FGD systems will increase


Projects under executionANDRITZ air pollution control

Technical data:

Fuel: Hard coal

Capacity: 1 x 910 MWel

Flue gas volume: 2,500,000 m/h (std,wet)

SO2 inlet: 3,800 mg/m (std,dry)

Removal efficiency: > 95%

Customer: EnBW Start Up: 2012

Karlsruhe, Germany

Wet limestone FGD

Technology/Supply:ESP, ash handling system, flue gas system, absorber, limestone slurry supply, gypsum dewatering and storage, installation & commissioning


Technical data:

Fuel: Hard coal

Capacity: 800 MWel



Removal efficiency: 95.0%

Customer: Trianel Start Up: 2012, Consortium: SIEMENS / IHI / AE&E

Lnen, Germany

Wet limestone FGD

Technology/Supply:Civil engineering, absorber, ducts, limestone slurry supply, gypsum dewatering and storage, booster fan, waste water treatment plant, installation &commissioning


Technical data:

Fuel: Lignite





Customer: SC Complexul Energetic,Turceni SAStart Up: 2012

Turceni, Romania

Wet limestone FGD

Technology/Supply:Turnkey plant, 4 absorbers, flue gas system incl. flue gas fans, limestone slurry preparation plant, gypsum dewatering and storage, installation & commissioning


Technical data:

Fuel: Lignite




Removal efficiency: > 96%

Customer: CEZ a.s.Start Up: 2013

Ledvice, Czech Republic

Wet limestone FGD

Technology/Supply:Civil works, absorber, ducts, limestone storage and slurry system, gypsum dewatering system, installation & commissioning Turnkey project


Technical data:

Fuel: lignite


Flue gas volume: 3 x 1,010,800 m/h (std,wet)


Removal efficiency: 89,2%

Customer: CEZ a.s., Skoda Praha InvestStart Up: 2014

Prunerov, Czech Republic

Wet limestone FGD

Technology/Supply:Turnkey wet FGD plant, 3 absorbers, auxiliary systems


Technical data:Fuel: Mixed petroleum residue

Capacity: 820 MWth(5 existing, 2 new boilers)

Flue gas volume: 2 x 505,000 m/h (std,wet)



Dust outlet: 20 mg/m (std,dry)

Customer: MOL, Slovnaft a.s Start Up: 2011

Slovnaft, Slovak Republic

Wet limestone FGD

Technology/Supply:Turnkey FGD plant after refinery power plant, 2 absorbers, steam reheater, limestone preparation, gypsum dewatering, 2 gypsum silos


Technical data:Fuel: Waste water sludge


Hg inlet: 0.3 mg/m (std,dry)

Hg outlet: 0.03 mg/m (std,dry)

PCDD/PCDF inlet: 12 ngTE/m (std,dry)

Sorbent: Activated carbon

Customer: BASFStart Up: 2012

Ludwigshafen, Germany

Dry sorption


Technical data:Fuel: Lignite


Sulfur content: up to 3.5%


SO2 inlet: up to 15,000 mg/m (std,dry) 1,100 mg/m (std,dry) to TS

SO2 in clean gas: < 200 mg/m (std,dry)

SO2 removal: > 80 % in TS plant> 98.5 % total

Sorbent: CaO and fly ash from CFB boiler

Customer: Adularaja EnerjiStart Up: 2013, Installed after CFB boiler without pre-dedusting

Yunus Emre, Turkey

Dry FGD (Turbo CDS with ESP)


Technical data:

Fuel: coal

Capacity: 150 MWel

Flue gas volume: 650,000 m/h (std,wet)




Customer: Community Timisoara Start Up: 2013

Timisoara, Romania

Dry FGD (Turbo-CDS)

Technology/Supply:Turnkey Turbo CDS plant after coal-fired CFB boiler,CDS-reactor, fabric filter, absorbent storage andpreparation, product handling and storage.


Technical data:

Fuel: coal




Removal efficiency: 80 %


Customer: AES Start Up: 2013, 2014

Tocopilla, Chile

Dry FGD (Turbo CDS)

Technology/Supply:Turnkey Turbo CDS plant after coal-fired power plant, 2 reactors, fabric filters, absorbent storage and preparation, product handling and storage, desalination plant


Technical data:

Fuel: coal

Capacity: 1 x 120 MWel, 1 x 220 MWel


1 x 910,000 m/h (std,wet)


Removal efficiency: 80 %


Customer: AES Start Up: 2013, 2014

Ventanas, Chile

Dry FGD (Turbo CDS)

Technology/Supply:Turnkey Turbo-CDS plant after coal fired power plant, 1 reactor, fabric filters, absorbent storage and preparation, product handling and storage, desalination plant


Waagner-Biro-Platz 18074 Raaba, Austria Phone: +43 (316) 501 0Fax: +43 (316) 501 [email protected] www.andritz.com/aee

ANDRITZ Energy & Environment GmbH

Legal Disclaimer

All data, information, statements, photographs, and graphic illustrations contained in this presentation are without any obligation to the publisher and raise no liabilities to ANDRITZ AG or any affiliated companies, nor shall the contents in this presentation form part of any sales contracts, which may be concluded between ANDRITZ GROUP companies and purchasers of equipment and/or systems referred to herein.

ANDRITZ AG 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this copyrighted work may be reproduced, modified or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in any database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of ANDRITZ AG or its affiliates. Any such unauthorized use for any purpose is a violation of the relevant copyright laws.

51 Flue Gas Cleaning Expert Conference 2011, ANDRITZ Energy & Environment

FGD retrofit options

Documents

Transcript of FGD retrofit options