Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Electric Power Plants: Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Dioxide, and Mercury and a Renewable Portfolio Standard - Table 33. Comparison of EPA and EIA Assumptions for Costs of Mercury Emission Control Equipment by Selected Plant Configurations and Percentage of Hg Emissions Removed

Table 33. Comparison of EPA and EIA Assumptions for Costs of Mercury Emission Control
Equipment by Selected Plant Configurations and Percentage of Hg Emissions Removed

Existing Configuration and Coal Rank	Controls Added	Percent Hg Removed	Capital Costs (1999 Dollars per Kilowatt)		Total Operating and Maintenace Costs, Excluding Activated Carbon (1999 Mills per Kilowatthour)		Variable Costs for Activated Carbon (1999 Mills per Kilowatthour)
Existing Configuration and Coal Rank	Controls Added	Percent Hg Removed	EPA	EIA	EPA	EIA	EPA	EIA
Cold Side ESP, SUB	SC and ACI^a	65	8.24	NA	0.30	NA	0.31	NA
Cold Side ESP, SUB	SC, ACI, and FF	65	NA	45.23	NA	0.29	NA	0.07
Hot Side ESP, BIT	SC, ACI, and FF	85	45.57	53.37	0.91	0.81	0.41	0.71
Hot Side ESP, SUB	SC, ACI, and FF	85	44.92	45.23	0.86	0.75	0.24	0.11
DS and ESP, BIT	Simple injection system	85	1.62	3.24	0.14	0.15	0.41	3.54
DS and ESP, SUB	Simple injection system	85	0.97	2.42	0.09	0.14	0.24	0.69
^aEIA did not model a plant configuration of spray cooler with simple injection. ACI = activated carbon injection, BIT = bituminous, DS = dry scrubber, ESP = electrostatic precipitator, FF = fabric filter, SC = spray cooler, SUB = subbituminous. NA = not applicable. Notes: EPA’s rates of reduction are fixed; EIA’s variable costs are reported at the fixed level specified. Sources: EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Analysis of Emissions Reductions Options for the Electric Power Industry (Washington, DC, March 1999), web site www.epa.gov/capi/multipol/mercury.htm. EIA: Unpublished data from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).