IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2013022.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Analysis of Multi-pollutant Control in Coal-Fired Electricity Plants in China

Author

Listed:
  • Wu Dan

    (Peking University)

  • Xie Xuxuan

    (Peking University)

Abstract

China is experiencing severe complex air pollution and huge greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of its booming economy over the last 30 years. In order to control air pollution, multiple pollutants should be targeted simultaneously. To cope with current international climate change problems, GHG emissions reduction should be considered alongside air pollution control. In the past 30 years conventional air pollution control strategy in China has focused on controlling one pollutant over a period of time, followed by controlling another pollutant in the next period. However, total emissions reduction of a single pollutant does not proportionally improve urban ambient air quality. In this study, single pollutant control strategy (SPC) is defined as an air pollution control strategy that sets pollutant reduction targets one by one. Multiple pollutant control (MPC) is defined as a strategy that sets multiple pollutant reduction targets at the same time. Under SPC polluters choose control technologies with less flexibility, which can lead to higher costs compared to MPC. In this study we show the difference between SPC and MPC, focusing on the coal-fired electricity sector. Our results show that end-of-pipe technology schemes for coal-fired power plants under MPC are more cost-effective than SPC. At plant level, compared to SPC, MPC sacrifices 7% of SO2 removal but provides a 6% and 9% increase in NOX and Hg removal respectively, and costs less than SPC. At sector level, MPC sacrifices 2 million tonnes of SO2 reduction per year but improves PM reduction by 1 million tonnes and increases Hg reduction by 34.5 tonnes per year. These reductions cost 8 billion CNY per year less than SPC. If coal washing were to be added to 20% of the sector’s installed capacity, based on MPC, then more than10 million tonnes of SO2, 56 million tonnes of PM and 55 tonnes of Hg could be further reduced every year, with a total cost of6 billion CNY a year less than SPC. If PM and Hg cause more damage per unit than SO2, then MPC reduces more damage for the same cost or for a reduced total cost. Substituting small units with advanced coal combustion technologies under MPC has the advantage of controlling multiple pollutant emissions as early as possible, especially taking CO2 emissions control into account. Suggestions are given to support China’s pollution control strategy transition. Turning from a SPC strategy to a MPC strategy, the key elements of a pollution control scheme for China’s coal-fired power sector should be: high priority should be given to coal washing; the installation of end-of-pipe technologies should be compared with advanced coal combustion plants for plants of a regular or small size (300MW); plants which have not installed wet FGD should consider other desulfurization facilities because desulfurization facilities with better removal effects for other pollutants (except SO2) are of use; and regulation should be strengthened to ensure the technical performance of installed equipment rather than just pursuing a high installation ratio.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu Dan & Xie Xuxuan, 2013. "Economic Analysis of Multi-pollutant Control in Coal-Fired Electricity Plants in China," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013022, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Feb 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2013022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/2013-RR3_WuDan.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tzimas, Evangelos & Mercier, Arnaud & Cormos, Calin-Cristian & Peteves, Stathis D., 2007. "Trade-off in emissions of acid gas pollutants and of carbon dioxide in fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 3991-3998, August.
    2. Zhao, Lifeng & Xiao, Yunhan & Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Wang, Bo & Xu, Xiang, 2008. "Technical, environmental, and economic assessment of deploying advanced coal power technologies in the Chinese context," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2709-2718, July.
    3. Carnevale, Claudio & Pisoni, Enrico & Volta, Marialuisa, 2007. "Selecting effective ozone exposure control policies solving a two-objective problem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 204(1), pages 93-103.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Odeh, Naser A. & Cockerill, Timothy T., 2008. "Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 367-380, January.
    2. Sinha, Avik & Rastogi, Siddhartha K., 2017. "Collaboration between Central and State Government and Environmental Quality: Evidences from Indian Cities," MPRA Paper 100012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Carnevale, Claudio & Finzi, Giovanna & Pisoni, Enrico & Volta, Marialuisa, 2008. "Modelling assessment of PM10 exposure control policies in Northern Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 217(3), pages 219-229.
    4. Zhou, Wenji & Jiang, Di & Chen, Dingjiang & Griffy-Brown, Charla & Jin, Yong & Zhu, Bing, 2016. "Capturing CO2 from cement plants: A priority for reducing CO2 emissions in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 464-474.
    5. Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Chul-Yong & Kim, Hongbum, 2016. "Technology and demand forecasting for carbon capture and storage technology in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Wu, Ning & Parsons, John E. & Polenske, Karen R., 2013. "The impact of future carbon prices on CCS investment for power generation in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 160-172.
    7. Zhou, Wenji & Zhu, Bing & Fuss, Sabine & Szolgayová, Jana & Obersteiner, Michael & Fei, Weiyang, 2010. "Uncertainty modeling of CCS investment strategy in China's power sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(7), pages 2392-2400, July.
    8. Viebahn, Peter & Vallentin, Daniel & Höller, Samuel, 2015. "Prospects of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in China’s power sector – An integrated assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 229-244.
    9. Cormos, Calin-Cristian, 2012. "Integrated assessment of IGCC power generation technology with carbon capture and storage (CCS)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 434-445.
    10. Mathews, John A. & Tan, Hao, 2013. "The transformation of the electric power sector in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 170-180.
    11. Zaijing Gong & Dapeng Liang, 2017. "A resilience framework for safety management of fossil fuel power plant," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 89(3), pages 1081-1095, December.
    12. Mohsen Fallah Vostakola & Babak Salamatinia & Bahman Amini Horri, 2022. "A Review on Recent Progress in the Integrated Green Hydrogen Production Processes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-41, February.
    13. Farhan-ul-Furqan Khan & Ahmed Tunio & Shakeel Ahmed & Qazi Muhammad Moinuddin Abro, 2014. "Financial Impediments in Harnessing Thar Coal for the Creation of Electrical Energy in Pakistan," International Journal of Management Sciences, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 3(5), pages 370-378.
    14. Schreiber, A. & Zapp, P. & Markewitz, P. & Vögele, S., 2010. "Environmental analysis of a German strategy for carbon capture and storage of coal power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7873-7883, December.
    15. Shahsavari Alavijeh, H. & Kiyoumarsioskouei, A. & Asheri, M.H. & Naemi, S. & Shahsavari Alavije, H. & Basirat Tabrizi, H., 2013. "Greenhouse gas emission measurement and economic analysis of Iran natural gas fired power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 200-207.
    16. Ma, Teng & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2017. "Technology choice for reducing NOx emissions: An empirical study of Chinese power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 362-376.
    17. Devlin, Joseph & Li, Kang & Higgins, Paraic & Foley, Aoife, 2017. "Gas generation and wind power: A review of unlikely allies in the United Kingdom and Ireland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 757-768.
    18. Eto, R. & Murata, A. & Uchiyama, Y. & Okajima, K., 2013. "Co-benefits of including CCS projects in the CDM in India's power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 260-268.
    19. Pérez-Fortes, M. & Bojarski, A.D. & Velo, E. & Nougués, J.M. & Puigjaner, L., 2009. "Conceptual model and evaluation of generated power and emissions in an IGCC plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1721-1732.
    20. Zhou, Wenji & Zhu, Bing & Chen, Dingjiang & Zhao, Fangxian & Fei, Weiyang, 2014. "How policy choice affects investment in low-carbon technology: The case of CO2 capture in indirect coal liquefaction in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 670-679.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pollution; China;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2013022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Arief Anshory yusuf (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eepsesg.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.