LCP Data Assessed

Transkript

LCP Data Assessed

This project is co-financed by the European Union and
the Republic of Turkey
Bu Proje Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti
tarafından finanse edilmektedir
Technical Assistance for Better Air Quality by
Transposing the Large Combustion Plants
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
LCP Data Assessed
By Pat Swords
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Content of the Presentation
–
–
–
–
–
Assessment by ‘Traffic Lights System’
‘Red’ Plants
Impact on older LCPs
Impact on smaller LCPs
Gas turbines
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
Traffic Light assessment:
• ‘Green’: Generally in compliance with the legislative
norm, in which the CAPEX and OPEX impacts, if any, were
considered of negligible significance.
• ‘Yellow’: In which compliance issues were identified, but
the CAPEX and OPEX was considered to be of a limited
nature.
• ‘Red’: Compliance issues were identified and considered
to involve significant CAPEX and OPEX.
Based on engineering judgement of the data provided by the
operators and knowledge of the technology types.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Summary of Compliance Status of Turkish LCPs.
LCP Directive
Industrial
Emissions
Directive
LCP Bye-Law
Green
72 sites (81%)
55 sites (62%)
71 sites (90%)
Yellow
10 sites (11%)
22 sites (25%)
8 sites (9%)
Red
7 sites (8%)*
12 sites (13%)
10 sites (11%)
Compliance
Status
*Based on legislative requirements applicable prior to 1st Jan 2016, post this
date the number of reds increases to 10 sites (11%).
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Rapid growth in Turkish generation capacity, with half of
generation capacity installed since 2002  new and
generally compliant LCPs.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• However, problem areas remain: Data from European
Environment Agency for 2013 emissions of SO2, NOx and
PM10 from public electricity and heat production in the
EU-28 and Turkey.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• 12 ‘Red’ sites are predominantly older lignite fired LCPs in
the power generation sector.
• Discussions held with operators as to potential CAPEX and
OPEX – financial assessment of impacts.
• Recognised that older plants are:
– (i) less efficient and therefore less likely to be
dispatched to the grid;
– (ii) less remaining lifespan to ‘write off’ investment in
emissions control.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• LCP BREF: Example 500 MWth coal plant with Selective
Catalytic Reduction DeNOx:
– Cost per MWh for an LCP, operating at a 30% load
factor and with five years remaining life, is 7 times
greater than that for a base load, long-lifetime, plant.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• In terms of the overall Turkish LCP sector, financial costs
associated with upgrades at smaller LCPs, such as sugar
industry, is not large.
– However, disproportionate to those operators due to
small size of LCP and limited run hours.
• Specific cost for a flue gas desulphurisation upgrade for a
100 MWe LCP is twice that for the same upgrade at a
1,000 MWe LCP.
• Costs are also substantially increased when plants are
used less frequently; less run hours to write off
investment.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• UNECE data on relationship of specific cost of Flue Gas
Desulphurisation (FGD) and Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) DeNOx with size of LCP.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Eurelectric Position Paper on Draft Industrial Emissions
Directive: Increase in cost of generation of electricity due
to implementation of NOx reduction measures in Dutch
gas plants.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Mismatch with gas turbines and legislative requirements.
– For LCP Directive (2001/80/EC); emission limits applied
for gas turbines post 2003, but not for pre-2003.
– For Industrial Emissions Directive all gas turbines have
to meet emission limit values, irrespective of age, but
derogation given for emergency use of < 500 hours per
year or less stringent limits for < 1,500 hours per year.
– For LCP Bye-Law emission limit for NOx of 300 mg/m3
if pre-2004, then same limits as per EU Directives.
• As a result same gas turbine LCP gets different ‘traffic
light’ depending on what legislation applies.
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Some assumptions made with gas turbines:
– Existing units operating with water / steam injection to
Turkish Bye-Law of 300 mg/Nm3 could meet EU limits
if injection rate increased, slight penalty in efficiency
 ‘Green’.
– Existing turbines without NOx controls could be
retrofitted with water / steam injection or restricted to
use of < 500 / 1,500 hours per year  ‘Yellow’
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)
• Compliance situation in Turkey generally good with exception of
some older lignite fired LCPs.
• Inherent financial penalty in upgrading:
– (i) Older LCPs with limited remaining lifespan
– (ii) Smaller LCPs, particularly when operated for reduced
number of hours per year.
• Compliance options need to include:
– Limited lifetime derogation (‘Opt-out’).
– Operation for emergency use only < 500 / 1,500 hrs per year.
– Fuel switching for smaller LCPs, such as using natural gas or if
not available diesel.
Questions?
Directive (TR2010/0327.04-01/001)

LCP Data Assessed

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

Technical Requirements for LCPs

Large Combustion Plant (LCP) Directive Flexibility Mechanisms

Regulatory Impact Assessment

Envision Diversity Project “Bu poster Avrupa Birliği

Agenda Costs of emissions prevention and control of

T.C. ZONGULDAK KARAELMAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ

gas fireplace

Altay Haber