“Hot” versus “Enlarged” Electrostatic Precipitation of Fly Ash: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

Abstract

An article in the February 1974 issue of the Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association entitled “Hot” versus “Enlarged” Electrostatic Precipitation of Fly Ash: A Cost Effectiveness Study,¹ by D. R. Selzler and W. D. Watson, Jr., arrives at the generalized conclusion that “enlarged” precipitation is likely to be a less costly method of attaining high collection efficiencies for low sulfur fly ash. The basis of this conclusion is a multivariate regression analysis of 37 full-scale cold electrostatic precipitators. Using the predictive ability of the resulting equation, modified to include a 95% probability of attaining design efficiency, together with functions describing capital and operating costs, the authors arrived at the above conclusion.

It is our contention that while the overall approach presented is a good attempt to develop a more systematic method of attacking the problem and arriving at a generalized solution, there are many errors in the development which have resulted in incorrect conclusions. Among the more serious errors in this work is the development and acceptance of a regression model based on cold precipitation performance data which is not compatible with the observed performance of cold precipitators. The use of the same equation for hot precipitator sizing can also be shown to be invalid. Additionally, one of the basic parameters used by the authors to distinguish precipitation performance of coals is not meaningful for hot precipitation and of questionable validity for cold precipitation. And, finally, the authors do not appear to recognize that power input to the precipitator (actually power density) is a constrained function which can hardly ever be increased to levels defined by their “optimum” precipitator sizing.