Transcript Document

Introduction to Large Combustion
Plant (LCP) Directive and
Compliance Issues.
ECENA Training Workshop
Bristol, March 2008
1
Introduction

This presentation, Session 1, will address:
The history and goals behind the LCP directive.
 Its interface with IPPC and the E-PRTR.
 How other Member States have implemented the LCP
Directive.
 New developments in LCP legislation.

2
Historical Basis
Pollution levels in European cities in 18th and 19th
century over a 100 times current limit values, e.g.
famous London smog.
20th Century led to development of large centralised
power plants with tall stacks, ‘dilution was the solution’.
This led to transboundary pollution, acidification and
dying forests.



3
Moneypoint Coal Fired Power Station
Ireland (large stacks)
4
Estimated Source of Air Releases
(as % of Total UK Emissions)
Pollutant
Source
Industry Transport
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
89%
2%
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
37%
46%
Carbon Monoxide
12%
75%
Fine Particulates (PM10s) 59%
26%
Lead
18%
78%
Benzene
20%
67%
1,3-Butadiene
13%
77%
Volatile Organic Compounds53%
29%
Source: National Air Quality Strategy, DETR
Other
9%
17%
13%
15%
4%
13%
10%
18%
Pollution from LCPs
LCPs accounted for about 75% of SO2 and 21% of NOx of UK
totals in 1998.
Widespread use of coal in power generation throughout Europe
led to similar values.
Expected that these values will fall sharply over 2000 – 2010 by:
 SO2: 1,000 kilotonnes
 NOx: 4,000 kilotonnes
 Particulates: 100 kilotonnes
Savings in less material damage, morbidity and mortality alone
estimated by EU at €38,444 million.




6
Historical Basis (First Step)
1983 Germany
implemented Federal
Imissions Control Act
(BImSchG), leads in ten
years to a 89% reduction
of SO2, driven by high
awareness of
environmental damage to
forests.

7
Control of Air Pollution from Industry
By the early eighties it was obvious that air pollution
from industry needed to be controlled on an EU level,
although some countries had already implemented
comprehensive national legislation.
Air Framework Directive 84/360/EEC established system
of permitting




8
Use of Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive
Cost (BATNEEC).
Plant must not cause significant air pollution, i.e. applicable
emission limit values and air quality values must be met.
German Control Measures for Pollution
from LCPs
Public outcry over the death of forests (Waldsterben) led
to the 13 BImSchV of 1983.
With a ‘command and control’ approach a general SO2
limit of 400 mg/m3 was adopted which LCPs had to meet
by 1993 or close down.
By 1988 W.Germany had retrofitted flue gas
desulphurisation to 70 LCPs, roughly 75% of
the total capacity.
Final cost of desulphurisation: 14.3 Billion DM.




9
Implementation of Desulphurisation in
Germany



10
With regard to achieving a dramatic
reduction in SO2 discharges the
legislation was a major success.
However, its implementation was
rushed; processes were not optimised,
contractors were overloaded, estimated
that nowadays it would cost 30% less.
However, it did lead to the 1988 LCP
directive.
EU Control of Pollution from LCPs



Obvious that LCP sector required particular regulation
as a major source of SO2 and NOx emissions.
Long drawn out highly politicised and contested process
with first proposal of LCP directive presented in 1983 as
a daughter directive to the Air Framework Directive.
Finalised in 1988 as Directive 88/609/EEC,which set
Emission Limit Values (ELVs) for new plant and gave a
national ‘bubble’ of emissions for existing plants.


11
New Plant – licence granted after July 1987.
Existing Plant – licence granted before July 1987.
First LCP Directive 88/609/EEC

Scope of Directive 88/609/EEC limited to:




Does not include:



12
Rated thermal input ≥ 50 MW.
Combustion plants for the production of energy.
Direct use of the products of combustion in manufacturing
process
Combustion of waste or combustion for air emissions control.
Situations where products of combustion used for direct
heating or drying, e.g. furnaces.
Diesel, petrol or gas engines or gas turbines.
Approach of First LCP Directive

Goal was to reduce emissions of SO2, NOx and
particulates.
Classic ‘command and control’ approach for new
plants setting uniform Emission Limit Values (ELVs)
based on plant size and fuel type.
 More flexible approach for existing plants; staged
reduction (national emissions ceilings) for SO2 and
NOx for 1993, 1998 and 2003.

13
Additional Requirements of LCP Directive




14
Member States to determine total annual emissions for
both new and existing plants.
National emission reduction targets to be agreed with
EU. Compliance programmes to achieve targets to be
developed with the operators.
Options include fuel switching, energy saving measures,
pollution abatement technologies.
Licences need to consider measurement methods and
measures in event of failure of control devices, etc.
LCP Reduction Targets
15
Updating of LCP Directive

16
By 2001 the LCP directive was updated (2001/80/EC)
reflecting the progress in technology and EU
environmental legislation and the need to include gas
turbines, promote combined heat and power and tighten
up monitoring.
 Updated ELVs for modern LCPs operational after
27/11/2003.
 ELVs set for gas turbines, which were becoming
increasingly common, in addition to those set for
solid fuel and liquid fuel fired LCPs.
 Diesel, petrol and gas engines still excluded.
‘End of Life’ Exemption

Directive 2001/80/EC included the following important
exception:

17
An existing plant may be exempted from compliance with the
ELVs and from inclusion in the national plan if the operator
declares by 30 June 2004 that the plant will not be operated for
more than 20,000 hours beyond 1 January 2008 and up to 31
December 2015; “end of life”.
LCP Directive 2001/80/EC

Member States have two options for controlling
emissions from existing plants:
(a) applying the new plant ELVs in the original
Directive to existing plant by 1 January 2008, or
 (b) by 1 January 2008, reducing emissions from
existing plant under a national plan to the same levels
which would have been achieved by the application of
the new plant ELVs to existing plant in operation in
the year 2000.

18
Interface with IPPC Directive

19
Recital 8 of LCP directive: Compliance with the
Emission Limit Values laid down by the LCP
directive should be regarded as necessary but
not sufficient for compliance with the
requirements of directive 96/61/EC (IPPC)
regarding the use of Best Available Techniques.
Such compliance may involve more stringent
ELVs, ELVs for other substances and other
media, and other appropriate conditions.
Conclusions on LCP / IPPC Interface
In all cases an IPPC permit is required.
 This is a more complex issues than the ELVs
specified in the LCP directive.
 The IPPC permit must contain BAT based ELVs,
for which there is flexibility for existing plants.
 Where BAT based ELVs are less demanding than
LCP directive’s ELVs possible to use national
plan option.

20
European Pollution Emissions Register
(EPER)


21
Gives access on pollution
emissions of 50
pollutants from approx.
12,000 IPPC facilities in
the EU. Updated every 3
years.
http://www.eper.cec.eu.int
/eper/
European Release and Transfer Register
(E-PRTR)



22
European Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) will
replace EPER for 2007. Number of pollutants is
expanded to 91.
E-PRTR and LCP directive include combustion plants
with a heat input of > 50 MW.
Relevant pollutants for LCPs among the 91 include:
 CO2, CO
 NOx, SO2, PM10
 Heavy Metals
European Release and Transfer Register
(E-PRTR)



23
Thresholds set for pollutants above which reporting
required.
Consider 50 MWt Combine Cycle Gas Turbine (cleanest
power generation), running for 8,200 h/a, i.e.
continuous load, with low emissions (NOx 50 mg/m3,
CO 25 mg/m3 and PM10 2 mg/m3).
Does this require reporting??
50 MWt CCGT Plant  E-PRTR
Parameter
CO2
Threshold
(1,000 kg/a)
100,000
Release
(1,000 kg/a)
108,000
CO
500
31
NOx
100
47
PM10
50
2
SO2
150
Trace
24
Interface between LCP and E-PRTR
Appears likely that even the smallest LCPs will
have some reporting requirements under the EPRTR each year!
 More on reporting in Session 3!

25
How have other Member States
implemented the LCP Directive?


The cost of upgrading every LCP would be prohibitive.
For older plants it is essential to consider:




26
What is the residual lifespan of older plants?
Are these base load stations or used to match peak loadings?
Which is cheaper? Upgrade or replace with new plant?
Consider applying for ‘end of life’ reduced hours exemption?
(20,000 hrs over 8 years)
Economic Considerations
Need to carefully consider economic
considerations before initiating upgrade projects.
 Dash for Gas adopted by UK and Ireland:

Combine Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) have the best
environmental performance of all LCPslow stacks!
 CCGTs have very high efficiencies; typically 55%
versus about 35% for older LCPs  good Kyoto!
 CCGT are low cost; typically €0.8 million / MW 
good economics!

27
New CCGT Power Station (small stacks)
28
Is Gas the Answer?

Energy policy must consider ‘security of supply’:


Fuel costs:



Gas is a premium fuel and will cost more than coal. Western
European gas supplies exhausted in 25 years!!
Investment in gas infrastructure is required; pipelines,
compressors, etc.
Socio-economic factors:

29
1970s oil shocks showed the folly of dependency on a single
energy source. France takes the nuclear route!
Is there an indigenous fuel supply worth developing? German
reliance on coal, while political hostility in UK to coal industry.
Is Gas the Answer ?




30
Efficiency of CCGTs drop rapidly when load is < 80% 
base load technology.
New ‘peaking’ open cycle gas turbines have efficiencies
of 45% and hold this down to 50% load with rapid
response to load changes  variable load technology.
Day / night time load demand is inherently variable but
variability increasing due to renewable sources such as
wind being connected to the grid!
Unless considerable hydro resources available peaking
gas turbines will need to be considered!
What is Ireland doing?



31
Older plants on ‘End of Life’ exemptions restricted to
peak load duty. Use of low sulphur fuels and low NOx
burners.
Moneypoint Power Station; Largest in Ireland at 915
MWe supplies 25% of country’s power. Coal fired plant
undergoing €264 million environmental upgrade to meet
LCP directive’s emission limit values; deNOx and flue
gas desulphurisation
National Emissions Reduction Plan seeks emission
reductions of up to 73% for SO2, and 66% for NOx from
the levels emitted in 2002.
What is Ireland doing?



Emission reductions in Moneypoint to offset NOx emissions in
other plants under National Emissions Reduction Plan.
New gas fired CCGT plants under construction, gas turbine
peaking plants under consideration.
Older Heavy Fuel Oil plant at Tarbet (595 MWe) closed.

Meeting the NOx requirements remains the greatest
challenge!!!

Newer CCGT power stations will help but state owned power
supplier ESB is protesting about the costs that could occur.
Over 650 MW of wind generation installed on Irish grid, average
output for April 07 was 132 MW  we need our LCPs!!!!

32
What is UK doing?
History of opposition to the LCP Directive as
extensive Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD)
would be required to existing coal plants
supplying 65% of electricity in 1989.
 Liberalisation of electricity market with resultant
fuel switching; construction of CCGTs and
increase in nuclear power. Currently:


33
Gas: 39%
Coal 33% Nuclear: 21%
New Developments


34
Report for the EEA
using data from 2004
would indicate that
there is still progress to
be made by Large
Combustion Plants
(LCP), particularly those
coal and lignite fired.
Note BAT associated
emission limit values
are lower than those in
LCP Directive.
Summary
Justification is strong for the considerable
investment required to upgrade or replace LCPs.
 Approach taken by Member States has differed,
from going nuclear (France), going gas (UK and
Ireland), or major retrofitting to existing coal fired
generation (Germany).
 Future trend is that even tighter controls are
technically feasible and will be sought by EU.

35
New Developments

Need for further industrial emission reductions to meet
Thematic Strategy 2020 targets:





36
-30% for SO2
-35% for NOx
-24% for PM2.5 (<2.5 micron particulate matter)
-17% for Volatile Organic Compounds
Recent proposal from EU Commission (21/12/2007) for a
new Directive on industrial emissions will incorporate
the above targets for licensing of LCPs.
Don’t be shy – Question time!
37