Unscientific understanding and environmental management systems are the main obstacles to addressing haze caused by coal-fired power generation

Thread Content

This post was last edited by Desert Fish on 2016-6-25 at 17:22. Unscientific understanding and environmental management systems are the main obstacles to using coal power to combat haze. With the worsening problem of fog and haze pollution in China, coal-based pollution has repeatedly come under criticism. Although all industries related to coal are affected, coal power plants are the most impacted. Through media hype, guidance from experts and opinion leaders, efforts by the general public and stakeholders, and leadership from state-owned power companies, round after round of increasingly stringent environmental regulations for coal-fired power plants have been introduced. 　　This trend can be seen from several landmark actions. First, emission standards are becoming increasingly stringent. The \"Emission Standards for Air Pollutants from Thermal Power Plants\" (GB13223-2011), revised and issued in 2011, already meet the strictest standards in the world, requiring most existing coal-fired power plants to carry out upgrades to their environmental protection facilities to varying degrees. Second, the requirements for total volume control are becoming increasingly strict. Building on the 28.8% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from the power sector during the 11th Five-Year Plan period, the 12th Five-Year Plan for energy conservation and emission reduction sets targets to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from the power sector by 16.3% and 29% respectively. Third, the time required to meet the total volume control requirements is continuously decreasing. In some areas, in order to exceed or meet pollution reduction targets ahead of schedule, the time required for upgrading environmental protection facilities is further reduced, with tasks that would normally take 3 or 2 years being completed in around 1 year. Fourth, the scope of areas subject to special emission limits has been expanded, and the implementation timeline has been advanced. The scope for implementing special emission limits has been expanded from the core urban areas of key cities in key regions to the entire key region ； Only the special emission limits for dust are extended to cover three pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and dust ； The deadline was tightened from the implementation period of the 13th Five-Year Plan to the end of 2014; for example, environmental protection authorities recently required coal-fired power plants in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region to complete upgrades to meet special emission limits by the end of 2014. Fifth, the requirements for environmental impact assessment have become even stricter. Some coal-fired power projects are approved in accordance with the emission standards for gas turbine air pollutants and the “near-zero” emission requirements. Sixth, local requirements are stricter than **’s requirements. For example, Zhejiang requires that by the end of 2017, existing thermal power units with a capacity of 600,000 kilowatts or more meet the emission standards of gas-fired units ； Environmental protection agencies in Shandong, Guangdong, and other regions have also set higher requirements for coal-fired power plants. Seventh, led by Beijing, there has been a surge in using gas to replace coal in urban heating power plants. Taking Beijing as an example, the four power plants must be shut down by 2017 and replaced with gas turbines for power generation and heating. Eighth is the revision and promulgation of the Environmental Protection Law, which has comprehensively strengthened environmental protection management requirements. Such as stricter regulations on the establishment of environmental quality standards and penalties for exceeding these standards ； For items already specified in the environmental quality standards, local authorities may establish local environmental quality standards that are stricter than those standards; such provisions, under the environmental protection law prior to its amendment, applied only to emission standards ； Furthermore, requirements for imposing continuous daily penalties on those who discharge pollutants illegally have been introduced, thereby lowering the thresholds for authorities to impose restrictions on production, order shutdowns for rectification, suspend operations, or close down enterprises that exceed emission limits. Although the Environmental Protection Law will come into effect on January 1 next year, it is believed that a new round of stricter measures will begin earlier. 　　From the perspective of the principles of the Administrative License Law, as well as the means and objectives of environmental management, environmental protection requirements should increase or decrease in a coordinated manner. When a new requirement is introduced, other existing requirements should be correspondingly reduced or altered; for example, when emission standards become stricter, the fees associated with pollution discharge should be reduced or eliminated accordingly. However, based on practical outcomes, the environmental requirements for coal-fired power plants continue to increase and become more stringent, with no corresponding reduction or improvement; it’s like layers of ropes that repeatedly bind these coal power companies. The essence of the issue is not whether to tie things together for enterprises – since environmental regulations are mandatory – but rather how to do so properly. Even when making zongzi, one person can use a suitable rope; it’s not appropriate for multiple people (or multiple departments) to work together on making one zongzi, using ropes, hemp strings, rubber bands, plastic cords, or even wire (various methods). Although it is often the strictest requirement that proves decisive, multiple layers of demands and regulations consume a great deal of administrative resources and waste a significant amount of corporate effort. 　　Overall, an increase in the efficiency and pollutant control levels of a single industry is not necessarily reasonable. Given stricter environmental regulations, how much can coal power plants reduce their pollutant emissions? What proportion of industrial emissions do these reduced pollutant emissions account for? What proportion of the country’s total emissions? How much of an improvement in environmental quality does this reduction in pollutant emissions bring? How much can it contribute to reducing fog? What is the economic cost of reducing these pollutants, and what effects would there be if that money were spent on other pollution control measures? What are the environmental, economic, social, comprehensive benefits, and energy security implications of using gas instead of coal? Also, why did overall emissions of power-related pollutants decrease during the 11th Five-Year Plan period, yet fog and haze increased? Can significantly raising the pollution discharge fees truly lead to reduced emissions? 　　For example, implementing total pollutant control in coal-fired power plants is questionable. Regarding the three typical air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants – dust, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides – based on the nature of these pollutants, the requirements set by environmental quality standards, and the characteristic of stable emissions from such plants, countries generally adopt methods for controlling pollutant emission concentrations, or calculate the hourly emission rates using diffusion theory in accordance with the requirements regarding environmental quality thresholds (for example, Japan uses the P-value method for overall emission control at power plants). Although the United States has also adopted total emission control methods for sulfur dioxide, its objectives and approaches are completely different from those of China’s total emission control requirements. From the perspective of mechanisms and practical outcomes, China’s requirement for total pollutant control in power plants is not aimed at reducing pollutant emissions or improving regional environmental quality – as these goals can be achieved by tightening or adjusting pollution emission standards, environmental impact assessments, and environmental planning methods – but rather seems to serve as a tool for relevant departments to carry out additional administrative approvals. 　　Through round after round of increasingly stringent measures, coal-fired power plants have undergone successive rounds of technological upgrades and had to deal with the continuous improvement in coal quality: desulfurization, dust removal, and nitrogen oxide removal systems that were newly installed or recently upgraded needed to be modified again; some desulfurization equipment had to be rebuilt from scratch, and some power plants that had just installed such systems were shut down and demolished. Power plants located in sparsely populated areas required efficient desulfurization, nitrogen oxide removal, and dust removal systems, while those with very low sulfur content still needed desulfurization processes. Coal-fired power plants that already met the world’s strictest emission standards were required to meet the standards of gas-fired power plants on a large scale... It seems that as long as there is the courage and the determination, power plants can achieve these goals. 　　Solving the “fog and haze” problem is a systematic optimization issue related to energy, environment, economy, and society, driven by factors such as nature and human activities, production and consumption, emissions and atmospheric dispersion, as well as the optimization of total energy usage and its structure. It cannot be viewed merely as a simple pollution emission problem; nor can measures such as restricting coal-fired power plants or replacing coal with gas in heating plants be adopted simply, nor should approaches like raising emission standards or increasing fees for pollution discharge be the only solutions. Only on the basis of scientific understanding and under conditions of scientific environmental management can coal-fired power play its due role in combating haze. In fact, if a charging system for polluting enterprises is adopted where no fees are charged if emissions do not exceed limits, and progressive fees are imposed when emissions exceed those limits, this is not only theoretically sound but also encourages enterprises to operate in compliance with the law, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the fees imposed for pollution control.