The honest thoughts of an environmental protection veteran on ultra-low emissions from coal-fired power plants and environmental subsidies!

Thread Content

The two explorers were traveling in a hot air balloon and were about to collide with a mountain; they had to discard some items to make the balloon rise enough so as to avoid the collision. So the two of them discussed it: each would make a contribution and give up some of their possessions in order to save both of their lives. Explorer A brought a bunch of expensive and heavy photography equipment, while Explorer B brought N gold bars; neither of them was willing to give them up. So they started bargaining: A said, “Look, I’ve lost three very important things – my hat, socks, and water bottle – at a huge cost, while you’ve only lost a bag of Nongshim instant noodles.” ”Then B became upset and said, “I also lost my nail clippers, scarf, and sunglasses – that’s four items in total, which is more than your three…” So the two of them began to calculate in detail whether fairness had been achieved, and they also considered whether it would be possible to escape successfully if more items such as shoes were thrown down, while adjusting the balloon’s power to its maximum level and taking advantage of the sudden air currents near the mountains... These days, there has been heavy fog in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region for several consecutive days; today, Beijing finally issued a red alert, and people there are discussing extensively the issue of ultra-low emissions. Under the blue sky of Paris, a conference is taking place that determines the fate of humanity, where people are discussing ways to reduce emissions. Wait, these two types of “emissions” are not the same thing. In many countries that have largely completed their industrialization and urbanization process, those focused on environmental protection, when talking about \"emissions,\" usually refer specifically to the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide; in their view, global climate change is the biggest environmental problem. However, when Chinese environmentalists talk about emissions, carbon dioxide is often overlooked. On the one hand, pollution issues seem more urgent; on the other hand, in terms of functional division, climate issues as well as energy conservation and emission reduction fall under the jurisdiction of the National Development and Reform Commission. However, although the focus of the topics is different, the stories of explorers A and B are playing out everywhere. **It’s about discussions among industries, activities carried out within those industries, and actions taken by experts – often involving such obscure and elaborate nonsense, from which a whole bunch of misleading claims arise, deliberately confusing people. Focusing on trivial matters instead of the essential ones – sometimes it’s a matter of cognitive ability, but more often it’s a tactic used to pursue personal gain. The environmental enthusiasm of real estate tycoons: I have a young friend who was also in Paris during the climate conference; he said he went there to conduct interviews, but no article seemed to be written as a result. Instead, he excitedly told me that he managed to disrupt the proceedings there. There is a very famous real estate mogul who made a big splash at the climate conference; it is said that even his personal assistant handled the issuance of **entry tickets for the delegation. The celebrity promoted his own environmental philosophy through sponsoring official events, as well as the emission-reduction commitments made by his real estate company in partnership with other companies to the world. Naturally, they have many concepts that can help improve their reputation and property values, such as low-carbon communities and energy-efficient buildings, among others. These are certainly good too, as they can reduce the weight of the hot air balloon just like hats, socks, and sunglasses do. But my young friend wasn’t happy and asked this big shot directly: What’s your opinion on many entrepreneurs coming to climate conferences in an attempt to give themselves a green image? What hasn’t this big shot seen? He replied calmly, \"It’s better to claim to be a good person than to admit straight away that I’m a bad person who does nothing. If I keep claiming it enough times, maybe I’ll really become green.” ” The child was still not satisfied and continued to ask, saying that the green at the end of the industrial chain is not really green. Everyone knows that it is the industries at the beginning of your supply chain – such as steel, cement, and ceramic tiles – that are the real sources of heavy emissions. Over the past few years, the surge in housing prices has led to the expansion of these industries, and you have benefited from this; many real estate tycoons have become extremely wealthy overnight. However, it is well known that many of these manufacturing industries are built illegally; in addition, there are those with a history of illegal discharge of pollutants due to overcapacity. Even those that are not illegal often operate in a crude and energy-intensive manner. The cheaper the building materials they produce, the more likely it is that they are reaping environmental benefits. Can you disclose your suppliers and trace your raw materials? Or, through joint efforts within your industry, can you establish industry standards to drive the ‘greening’ of upstream industries? The child’s thinking is simple yet correct: if one merely relies on the statement that ‘underdeveloped production capacity must be phased out’, without relying on standardization within the industry and market mechanisms, then any attempt to push for industrial upgrading will face numerous obstacles, no matter who tries to do it. The executive replied calmly, saying that although China’s green building system does not include a green supply chain, our company is forward-thinking and has long joined the WWF’s \"Green Pioneers\" program to establish a traceability system for raw materials… This is the first of its kind in the real estate industry worldwide. The child said he wasn’t being fooled, believing that the other person was trying to change the subject, and added, “WWF’s Green Pioneers program is only related to timber; it’s about protecting forests and rare trees, and it involves environmental protection from an ecological perspective. What I’m talking about is concrete…” Before he could finish speaking, the important person interrupted him, saying impatiently, “Timber is the hardest to trace, while concrete is much easier to track.” ”And immediately turned to someone else, stopping talking to the child. “It’s certainly easy to conduct investigations. But the question is: with such easy access to information, do you have the courage to carry out those investigations, and the determination to make the supply chains transparent and to make certain commitments? For example, what about those manufacturers that start construction without approval, those that emit pollutants beyond allowed levels, and those who have been fined by environmental authorities? No matter how cheap their steel, concrete, or ceramics may be, can you refrain from using their products? Do the relevant authorities have the courage to include green supply chains in the standards for green buildings? How unreliable are ultra-low emission levels? Similarly, the ultra-low emissions from power plants are, in essence, just a kettle thrown down by Explorer A. A few days ago, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Wang Zhixuan, the secretary-general of the China Electricity Council. After that, I read his important works and found myself in strong agreement with many of his views; I then read several more of his articles, which were all very enlightening. His arguments against ultra-low emissions from power plants are highly professional and demonstrate vision and foresight; however, they are too technical to be easily understood by the general public. Nevertheless, I highly recommend them to those who are involved in environmental protection efforts. When it comes to ultra-low emissions, my own feelings are pretty much the same as those of a child facing that real estate tycoon. According to Secretary Wang, ultra-low emissions are not only difficult to monitor, but their costs and environmental economic benefits are also unsuitable; in other words, a great deal of effort may be invested, yet the results may not be worth it. A simple analogy: A student has one week to prepare for a final exam. There are several subjects whose content needs to be memorized. If this student does well in history, with another week of hard studying they can raise their score from 95 to 99. Their score in geography is poor – they haven’t studied much of the material – so it’s unlikely they will pass; however, if they study diligently, they might be able to score 80. If he wants to achieve a high overall score, how should he arrange his time and effort wisely at this point? Naturally, his academic performance should improve over the long term; it would be ideal to score 99 points in every subject. However, with many power plants still unable to ensure that emissions of major pollutants meet regulatory standards, and the emission issues related to other characteristic pollutants in these plants not yet receiving sufficient attention or resolution, it seems wasteful to invest additional resources in continuously improving desulfurization, denitrification, and dust removal measures. Objectively speaking, this is by no means a conspiracy theory. Many people today advocate for \"ultra-low emissions\" or even \"near-zero emissions,\" not because they truly want to exercise self-discipline and contribute to the environment, but rather in order to overcome restrictions and continue building power plants in areas where the environmental capacity is already exhausted in the east; their real intention is not what they claim it to be. Moreover, just because emissions are extremely low does that mean that coal-powered electricity is now green and clean? It’s likely the opposite; the more such measures are taken at the end of the process, the more needs to be added at the beginning. More environmental protection facilities do not necessarily mean better results – greater efforts do not always lead to positive outcomes, as these facilities themselves can have an impact on the environment and increase energy consumption as well. When it comes to emissions from power plants, we can’t just focus on that large chimney equipped with online monitoring devices; there are many other sources of emissions as well. It all starts with coal mining; there is dust and VOCs generated at coal storage sites. Moreover, various processes such as slag storage, ash storage, gypsum handling, crushing, drying, and transportation all contribute to pollution, so it’s not just that one chimney that matters. Moreover, it’s not just air pollution – the wastewater generated from desulfurization is also difficult to treat. Various heavy metals and organic substances present in coal are also found in this wastewater. If desulfurization is intensified, pollution associated with the limestone-based process will increase accordingly. Moreover, ammonia used in denitrification can also serve as a precursor for Pm2.5 when it escapes during use. Both desulfurization, denitrification, and dust removal require energy from the flue gas. Because of these factors, waste heat recovery becomes very difficult. And to achieve even lower emission levels, how much energy is required? In short, one has to consider the entire industrial chain as a whole; in an effort to reduce emissions by just one spoonful at the last chimney, a large amount of pollution is generated earlier in the process. Not only do the pollutants not necessarily decrease, but carbon dioxide emissions also increase. This seems to conflict with our efforts to address climate change – isn’t it just a costly form of pretense? Can pollution control be approached in a more rational and scientific manner, with a comprehensive assessment? Instead of focusing on minor issues while ignoring bigger problems, creating many hidden “chimneys” as a result of trying to deal with one chimney. The harms of environmental subsidies are not only inappropriate from the perspective of the industrial chain but also from the standpoint of resource allocation. A few months ago, a city in Hebei encouraged power plants to carry out energy-saving upgrades, setting targets for reducing coal consumption at each plant and requiring them to use high-quality coal as much as possible in order to contribute to emission reductions. Why? Because in order to generate more electricity while using less coal, companies naturally choose high-calorific-value coal with less moisture and impurities for power generation, so as to reduce the emission levels of the power plants. But the high-quality coal is used for power generation – what about the medium and low-quality coal? Is it buried back in the ground? Of course not. Since power plants prefer to use higher-quality coal, more of the lower-quality coal remains for other industries, including ordinary residents. In Hebei, many local residents still rely on burning coal for heating, and in such cases there’s no talk of desulfurization or denitrification. As is well known, among various coal-burning industries, power plants have the easiest emissions to control, and the relevant technologies are the most mature. Under such circumstances, a rational overall assessment should be made: if a region needs to burn 1 million tons of coal per year, with 400,000 tons used for power generation (without considering other forms of coal utilization such as coal chemical processing, just pure combustion), it is precisely appropriate to use the lowest-quality coal for power generation, so as to minimize the total amount of pollutants emitted from those 1 million tons of coal. It is for such reasons that the emission standards for thermal power plants should be just appropriate. From a practical perspective, it’s actually sufficient to first manage the existing emissions well to meet the standards. The emission standards for thermal power plants in the EU are even looser than those in China in 2011; naturally, they don’t implement ultra-low emission measures either, as there’s no need to incur such costs. So how do they control coal use? By gradually replacing it with renewable energy sources, reducing the proportion of coal as an energy source, and adjusting the energy structure – that’s the solution. Of course, the coal power industry doesn’t need to use the guise of being ultra-clean to seek space for its development either; it’s all just pretense. But what’s the situation in China? It is the responsibility of power plants to carry out desulfurization and denitrification processes, yet it is the entire population that has to bear the costs, which creates unfairness in the market. A rough estimate shows that the subsidies provided to thermal power plants each year amount to around 50 billion. As long as the facilities are in operation, a subsidy is given for every unit of electricity generated; even when emissions exceed the allowed levels, subsidies are still provided. This essentially creates opportunities for many companies to take advantage of such rules in order to obtain subsidies. Now, there is even a need to provide a financial subsidy of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for ultra-low emission power plants, in addition to ensuring the number of hours those plants operate to generate electricity. Guo Jingpu, the leading analyst in the energy and chemicals sector at Cinda Securities, recently said in the media that the **standard requirements for ultra-low emissions from coal-fired power plants are not very high. At present, the coal-fired power plants owned by electricity companies such as Shenhua and Guodian are all capable of achieving ultra-low emissions. The costs associated with desulfurization and denitrification processes for these companies have gradually dropped below 0.02 yuan per unit of energy produced; since energy conservation and emission reduction can generate profits, electricity companies are eager to carry out such efforts. Moreover, according to an industry expert, there is already an excess of electricity supply across the country, with an average generation time of less than 5,000 hours; yet thermal power plants still show such enthusiasm for launching new projects, mainly due to excessive subsidies. As a result, vicious competition emerges; in some areas of the west, wind and solar power are largely displaced, leading to serious problems of discarding wind and solar energy resources, which results in huge waste, and in some cases these projects even turn into investment traps. Thermal power plants take advantage of the traditional policy advantages in the electricity grid to seize market share; then they mock renewable energy sources, claiming that they are inferior – expensive and of poor quality, and therefore not desired by other power grids… They completely ignore the fact that, in the absence of any subsidies for thermal power plants, the generation costs of renewable energy sources have already dropped below those of the best thermal power plants – and this does not even take into account the environmental costs. If things continue like this, how can China fulfill its commitments on the international stage to significantly increase the share of renewable energy and assume its responsibilities as a major power? Of course, it’s not necessary to use money as a subsidy, nor is it required that the whole country rush into action; it’s acceptable if companies voluntarily strive to reduce emissions of various pollutants even further, or if, in special cases, they are required to achieve extremely low levels of emissions. Moreover, considerations should be made on a regional basis and for specific cases, taking into account the emission levels of various pollutants as a whole. The most fundamental principle is to link things to the local environmental quality and adapt measures to local conditions; this is also what refined management based on quality should entail. To work on environmental protection, one must confront the real problems head-on, identify what is most important and address those issues first; there are no shortcuts.