37th meeting of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modeling. 22-24 February 2010, UNECE, Geneva...
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of 37th meeting of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modeling. 22-24 February 2010, UNECE, Geneva...
37th meeting of the Task Force on Integrated 37th meeting of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modeling. 22-24 February 2010, Assessment Modeling. 22-24 February 2010,
UNECE, GenevaUNECE, Geneva
Towards widening the application of integrated Towards widening the application of integrated
assessment for abatement costs and benefits assessment for abatement costs and benefits
modelling in EECCA: case study Belarusmodelling in EECCA: case study Belarus
Sergey Kakareka, Tamara Kukharchyk, Hanna MalchikhinaSergey Kakareka, Tamara Kukharchyk, Hanna Malchikhina
Institute for Nature ManagementInstitute for Nature Management
Minsk, BelarusMinsk, Belarus
Rationale: - up to now application of IAM in EECCA is limited;- potential of wider application of IAM in these regions and at a local scale on the whole exists;- what should be done for its realization?
Starting points:- IAM modelling results for application in scientific provision of national and local air abatement policies need to be of a certain level of accuracy and detail;- testing of accuracy of IAM estimates and model parametrization using all available information may act as a method of verification.
Such analysis is made for Belarus on example of RAINS/GAINS as an IAM model.
Methodology:- statistical etc. national data vs RAINS/GAINS assessments and parameters.
Included in this presentation:- emission abatement efficiency and costs statistics for Belarus;- marginal and specific operational costs;-RAINS/GAINS efficiencies and costs for key technologies;- comparisons and conclusions.
1. Abatement efficiency by sector in BelarusAverage emission abatement efficiency in Belarus in
2007 comprised 87%; waste gases from fuel combustion abatement amounted 5%, from technological processes - 90%. PM (TSP) is mainly controlled: for PM efficiency comprised 35% and 98% accordingly.
Among economy sectors highest level of PM abatement is typical for industry – about 99%. In steel production PM abatement level is about 99%, in cast iron production – 80%, in cement production – 97%.
Average efficiency of PM abatement from fuel combustion in industry comprise 68%, in residential-communal sector – 17%. No emission abatement in domestic sector.
Average abatement efficiency by pollutant in Belarus
PM
CO NOx
0
20
40
60
80
100
All
ind
us
try
Po
we
r in
du
str
y
Fu
el i
nd
us
try
Pe
at
bri
qu
ett
ep
rod
uc
tio
n
Fe
rro
us
ind
us
try
Ch
em
ica
lin
du
str
y
Ma
ch
ine
-b
uild
ing
ind
us
try
Bu
ildin
gm
ate
ria
lsin
du
str
y
Tra
ns
po
rt a
nd
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
Re
sid
en
tia
l-c
om
mu
na
ls
ec
tor
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mac
hine
-bui
ldin
gin
dust
ry
All
indu
stry
Ferr
ous
indu
stry
Bui
ldin
g m
ater
ials
indu
stry
Pow
er in
dust
ry
Res
iden
tial-
com
mun
al s
ecto
r
Tran
spor
t and
com
mun
icat
ion
Agr
icul
ture
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Gla
ss-fi
ber
prod
uctio
n
All
indu
stry
Mac
hine
-bui
ldin
gin
dust
ry
Ferr
ous
indu
stry
Pow
er in
dust
ry
Res
iden
tial-
com
mun
al s
ecto
r
Tran
spor
t and
com
mun
icat
ion
Agr
icul
ture
%
2. Total abatement costs
Total air and climate protection costs in 2007 in Belarus amounted 59.2 mln Euro; operational costs comprised 58%, major repair costs - 2,6%, investment costs - 39,4%.
Share of operational costs in the costs structure is the greatest and vary last 8 years from 58 to 91%.
Investment costs share vary from 9% to 53%.
Structure and trends of air protection costs in Belarus
0
20
40
60
80
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
mln
. E
uro
Operational costs Major repairs costs Investment costs
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Operational costs Major repairs costs Investment costs
3. Abatement costs by sector95% of total costs on air protection are spent in industry.
Share of transport and residential-communal sectors were about 2% each; costs in agriculture by statistics were lower than 0.1% of total air protection costs.
In industry greatest operational costs were in chemical and petrochemical industries (10.8 mln. Euro) - 34% of total costs, in fuel industry - 21% of total costs. In cement industry costs amounted 0.87 mln Euro, in ferrous industry – 3.9 mln. Euro, in machine building – 2.9 mln Euro.
GAINS estimates rather different picture of costs distribution: significant costs is expected in residential and domestic sectors.
4. Specific costs by sector Volumes of collected PM were estimated by sector; these
values were used for specific abatement costs per ton of pollutant estimation.
Highest specific operational costs are in energy sector (about 3.3 thous. Euro per ton).
In machine-building industry specific costs are 0.16 thous. Euro/t; in ferrous industry – 0.17 thous. Euro/t, in fuel industry – 0.05 thous. Euro/t, in chemical industry – 0.008 thous. Euro/t; lowest operational costs are in cement industry – 0.001 thous. Euro/ton.
Specific operational air protection costs in Belarus
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Po
we
rst
atio
ns
Dis
tric
th
ea
ting
Fu
el i
nd
ust
ry
Fe
rro
us
ind
ust
ry
Ma
chin
e-
bu
ildin
gin
du
stry
Tra
nsp
ort
an
dco
mu
nic
atio
n
Re
sid
en
tial-
com
mu
na
lse
cto
r
Eu
ro/t
5. Costs of additional abatement measures (marginal)These costs were estimated according to data on measures
costs and projected emission reduction. Methodology of calculation is not sophisticated to results are very preliminary.
Average cost of additional measures in 2008 – 1.5 thous. Euro/ton of pollution reduction. Level of marginal costs vary greatly. Highest marginal expenses are in energy sector – 2.3 mln Euro/t additional pollutants emission reduction.
Marginal costs comprise: 10 thous. Euro/t in chemical industry, 1 thous. Euro/t in ferrous and fuel industries, 0.9 thous. Euro/t in cement industry, 6.2 thous. Euro in agriculture.
Average marginal abatement costs by sectors
0
10000
20000
30000
Mea
n fo
rIn
dust
ry
Fue
l in
dust
ry
Pea
t br
ique
tte
prod
uctio
n
Fer
rous
indu
stry
Che
mic
alin
dust
ry
Mac
hine
-bu
ildin
g
Bui
ldin
gm
ater
ials
Agr
icul
ture
Tra
nsp
ort
and
com
mun
icat
ion
Res
iden
tial-
com
mun
al
Eu
ro/t
6. Specific and marginal costs of PM abatement in Belarus according to RAINS/GAINS (industrial processes)
GAINS/GAINS databases on abatement costs were analyzed; marginal costs for different options were assessed.
Specific costs of PM emission abatement (technological processes) in Belarus by RAINS, Euro/t
Case studies with in-depth analysis – cast iron and cement
0
100
200
300
400
500
E F with 1 pole E F with 2poles
E F with 3poles
F abric filter C yc lone Wet s crubbers
C as t iron S teel G las s C ement L ime
Cast Iron production
TSP emission from cast iron production – about 900 t/year
Open cupolas and induction furnaces are used in cast iron production in Belarus
Open cupola – predominant technology for cast iron production in Belarus and EECCA.
Only wet dedusters (scrubbers) with CO afterburning are used for emission abatement from open cupolas;
Every abatement system is individual and projected separately;
TSP abatement efficiency for cast iron enterprises of Belarus vary from 50 to 92% with average about 80%.
Wet dedusters at open cupola
Variability of wet deduster efficiency by
facilities
Variability of TSP emission factors from cast iron production
by facilities
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
%
Wet deduster efficiency Wet scrubber efficiency by RAINS
0
4
8
12
16
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
kg/t
Variability of PM content in waste gases and wet
dedusters efficiency for open cupolas
Correlation of PM content in waste gases and
volume of waste gases for open cupolas
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
mg/
m3
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
PM content before abatement PM abatement efficiency
0
20000
40000
60000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
m3
0
6000
12000
18000
mg/
m3
Waste gases volume PM content before abatement
New abatement
unit
Initial abatement
unit
Wet scrubber
EF with 1 pole
EF with 2 poles
EF with 3 poles
Fabric filter
Cyclone 745.4 304.5 384.1 455.3 512.2
EF with 1 pole
- - 1640.8 1834.6 2411.3
EF with 2 poles
- - - 2101.4 3472.0
Marginal costs for PM abatement in cast iron production in Belarus according to RAINS, Euro/t PM
Shift from cyclones to wet scrubbers in cast iron will cost 745 euro/t additional PM emission reduction, to EF with 1 pole – 305 Euro, to EF with 2 poles – 384 Euro etc. All this options are not applicable for open cupolas.
Cement production is among key PM emission source in
Belarus: about 3.4 thous. tons PM is emitted annually;
Dry and wet technologies are used in cement production;
TSP abatement efficiency for cement production in Belarus vary
from 88.5 to 99.5% with average about 97%.
Cement production
Variability of PM abatement efficiency by cement kilns
Correlation between PM emission factors and
abatement efficiency by cement facilities
85
90
95
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
%
ESP 3 efficiency ESP 3 efficiency by RAINS
0
0,4
0,8
1,2
1 2 3
kg/
t
40
60
80
100
%
Actual emission factor Abatement efficiency
Marginal costs for PM abatement in cement production in Belarus by RAINS, Euro/t PM
New abatement
Initial abatement
EF with 1 pole
EF with 2 poles
Wet scrubber
EF with 3 poles
Fabric filter
Cyclone 11.6 14.6 43.6 17.4 16.3
EF with 1 pole - 34.4 259.2 48.5 41.3
EF with 2 poles - - - 105.4 68.5
Shift from EF with 1 field in cement production to EF with 2 fields will increase PM abatement efficiency onto 3% with additional costs 34,4 Euro/t PM, to bagfilters - 4% and 41.3 Euro/t accordingly etc. In reality all clinker roasting furnaces at cement plants in Belarus are equipped by EFs with 3 poles but efficiencies are rather different.
Conclusions
- further verification of abatement costs and efficiencies in RAINS/GAINS databases is necessary for its effective application in preparation of national and regional air protection programs in EECCA; national statistics and inventory data may be widely used;-more detailed classificators of abatement options and technologies are needed;-additional flexibility in the model, for instance possibility of emission scenario assessment from emission projections data will be useful;-as a result of analysis guidelines on integrated assessment modelling (with emphasis on RAINS/GAINS) usage will be issued.
Thank you for your attention!