Environmental Standards And Controls And Their Influence On Development Of Clean Coal Technologies
September 2003
Legislations, governments, and government organizations are continually looking for ways to cut down on their NOx, SOx, CO2, and mercury emissions. Driven by environmental and health quality, as well as available technologies, governments are searching for the best solution to cut down on emissions produced from coal burning power stations. Airborne Clean Energy knows that with our clean coal technologies, we can be a part of the solution.
The following is the relative information from the article “Environmental Standards And Controls And Their Influence On Development Of Clean Coal Technologies” by Lesley Sloss, Colin Henderson and John Topper of the IEA Clean Coal Centre, London, UK.
Introduction
The link between air pollution and human health has been established for well over a century. This has led to major changes in the way fossil fuels are used particularly over the past fifty years in both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants. Pollution legislation such as emission standards is the only way of ensuring that air pollution is brought under control and that the detrimental effects on human health are minimized (Sloss, 2003).
Increasingly, policy makers are looking at ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and phrases such as “zero emissions technologies” are entering the jargon in the west to describe the concept of progressively reducing all significant emissions to atmosphere to negligible levels. In this paper, recent and impending legislation in Europe, USA and Japan are considered with respect to “conventional” pollutants such as SOx, NOx, particulates and trace elements, since these tend to be used as models for future potential use in India. This leads onto considerations of how clean coal technologies have developed and how they might develop in the future.
Types of legislation
In the past there have generally been two forms of environmental legislation (Concawe, 2001):
-
legislation driven by environmental quality; and
-
legislation driven by available technologies.
Environmental quality was the original driver for environmental legislation. Deterioration in air quality prompted authorities to find a way to reduce ambient concentrations of pollutants. The environmental quality-driven approach to legislation has dominated in Europe in, for example, the 2nd UNECE Sulfur Protocol and the UNECE Gothenburg Protocol. It was also the basis of the Clean Air Acts seen in the USA and elsewhere.
The technology driven approach is a progressive one which ensures that emissions are
continually reduced as new and improved control technologies come onto the market. Best available technology (BAT, Europe) and maximum achievable control technology (MACT, USA) are derived from a technology driven approach (Concawe, 2001). The technology- driven approach assumes that all sources within the countries to which the legislation is applied, such as those within the EU, have similar emission problems.
The main types of legislation seen throughout the world at the moment are:
-
Emission limits;
-
Cap and trade;
-
BAT/MACT;
-
IPPC;
-
Economic mechanisms
Emission limits are generally linked to ambient pollution concentrations and are based on epidemiological data, ambient air quality and ambient air quality standards (Wijetikkeke and Karunaratne,1995).
Cap and Trade is a regulatory approach that recognizes that allowing the market to find its own means of emission reduction may be more cost effective than strict emission limits. The most established example is the US EPA’s Acid Rain Program, which allows SO2 emissions trading under a tonnage cap on affected sources. A larger NOx cap and trade market is planned to begin in the 2004 ozone season for the 19 Eastern US states (Bradley and Jones, 2002).
Much legislation, such as that for SO2 and NOx in the EU and the USA, includes requirements for BAT or MACT. It is generally recognized that BAT for individual sources may differ due to the technical characteristics of the installations, the geographical location and local environmental conditions. In order to make the prescription of the most appropriate BAT simpler, the European Commission has organized an exchange of information between member states (JRC, 2002). The US EPA is currently finalizing the MACT standard for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) is another technology-based approach to legislation. IPPC moves away from narrow end-of-pipe policies such as BAT and MACT and even emission standards towards a broader integrated and preventative approach. It includes wider issues such as energy efficiency and the minimization of waste. It also includes management and organization issues and considers cross-media effects ranging from local to global (James, 2002; Nalbandian, 2002). The application of the IPPC Directive to all existing plants in Europe is required by 2007 at the latest.
Economic mechanisms take several forms. Fines are commonly based on the Polluter Pays Principle, and are a way of penalizing sources for non-compliance with emission legislation. In some situations it has been deemed that all emissions should be fined or taxed, not just emissions over the specified limit. For example, charges can be made for the total amount of any pollutant emitted from a single source. These charges can be levied on actual source emissions - direct emission charges, or on estimated emissions - presumptive emission charges (World Bank, 1999).
International legislation
UN
The United Nations has several protocols and programs that cover emissions from sources such as coal combustion. Countries that are members of the UN can decide whether or not to sign and/or ratify any of these protocols and programs on an individual basis. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) was signed in 1979 by 33 countries, including the USA and Canada and most EU states. By June 2002 the number of member countries had increased to 48.
EU
The European Union currently consists of fifteen member countries. Most EU legislation is given in the form of directives as this allows the Member States more flexibility in achieving environmental objectives. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive of 1996 (96/61/EC) required the introduction of an integrated environmental licensing system which will apply to a range of industrial processes including combustion installations greater than 50 MWt. It was to be implemented by Member States by 1999.
The European Parliament worked with the European Council of Ministers to produce a
National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD) for acidifying and ozone-forming air pollutants. This directive (2001/81/EC) sets limits for each member state for SO2, NOx, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) and ammonia. The NECD sets more stringent limits of SO2 and NOx emissions for many countries than those specified in the Gothenburg Protocol (Agren, 2002).
The future
Coal-fired power generation advancement needs a strategy that allows for developing both conventional CCTs and the related near-zero emission technologies. This requires the planning and management of an overall long-term coal strategy, with synergistic interactions at all technical levels. There are effectively two pathways (or roadmaps) with close linkages between them. While CCTs move toward the long-term target of near-zero emissions, during the interim period progressively reducing emissions and costs must occur. Apart from the value of continuing benefits per se, this is essential to ensure the technology base on which to build economical near-zero emission plants and to provide credibility in achieving the near- zero emission goal.
The second main strand of the strategy is essential for the long term security of energy supplies, through coal-fuelled systems with very low emissions of conventional pollutants and heavy metals and, especially, the means of capture of CO2 for sequestration.
It is necessary to tailor the strategy according to regional issues, as the geographical location envisaged for deployment has an influence on the most appropriate pathway. Thus, in the extremely heavily coal-dependent electricity systems here in India and in China, where electricity demand is set to continue to rise more rapidly than in more industrialized countries, it seems more realistic to adopt a policy related to improving existing plants over a longer timescale and introducing advanced PCC before development and deployment of CO2- capture plants, perhaps only eventually based on gasification.
Conclusions
Emission legislation arises in response to concerns over increasing concentrations of pollution in the atmosphere. The concentrations of these pollutants can be reduced either by applying a simple emission limit to all major sources (the environmental quality approach) or by requiring that all sources fit suitable control equipment to reduce emissions (the technology driven approach). In reality, much of the legislation seen around the world is a combination of these two approaches. Historically, policies that have set emission standards for coal-fired plants have driven the industry to produce the most cost-effective technological solutions. These BAT or MACT systems can then also be required within legislation.
Emission limits have the advantage of being simple and universal, applying to all prescribed sources. Maximum emission limits can be tightened as required. Technological legislation, such as the requirement for BAT or MACT requires that the required pollution control system for each source be identified. However, this definition may change with time and with continuing developments in pollution control and can therefore be regarded as continually increasing in stringency.
Economic tools are less specific in their actual controls on individual plants. Fines can be successful if the system is well run and the fines are set at such a level that they genuinely promote the installation of pollution control technologies rather than simply taking money from non-compliant sources. Taxes and refund systems, when used correctly, can result in the application of BAT or MACT to plants that would otherwise been unable to afford such modifications.
Flexible mechanisms, such as emission trading schemes or cap and trade schemes are becoming more popular. These set overall targets for emission reductions in a country or region and are more flexible than strict emission standards and BAT requirements. This allows the authorities to select the most suitable controls and requirements in each area and even on a plant-to-plant basis.
Different legislative approaches to control of “conventional” pollutants such as SOx, NOx, and particulates have been described for the EU citing UK and Germany as examples, for the USA and for Japan. The technological responses have converged over time and similar techniques for these end-of-pipe controls are similar across OECD countries.
CO2 is now the biggest driving force behind long-term CCT development programs as they become increasingly focused on zero emissions. In the short- medium term, improved environmental controls and efficiency improvement measures plus further deployment of clean coal technologies such as ultra supercritical PCC, PFBC and IGCC with wet gas cleaning should occur. This may be achieved more rapidly in retrofits in certain situations. Meanwhile, for the longer term, systems ready for separation of CO2 need to be developed and demonstrated to the point of commercialization. These may include second-generation co-production IGCC, perhaps with fuel cells, with CO2 separation, and low-CO2 ultra supercritical PCC.
The full text of the above article can be found on the following website:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2003/india/SESS651.PDF
|
