Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (5) : 11    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-018-1065-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Permitted emissions of major air pollutants from coal-fired power plants in China based on best available control technology
Xiaohui Song1,2, Chunlai Jiang1(), Yu Lei1, Yuezhi Zhong1, Yanchao Wang1
1. Atmospheric Environment Department, Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China
2. College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China
 Download: PDF(574 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

We proposed the SO2 and NOx emission performance standards for coal-fired power plants based on the best available control technology.

The CFPGUs’ SO2 emission performance reference values should be 0.34 g/kWh for active units in general areas and 0.13 g/kWh for newly built units and active units in key areas.

The CFPGUs’ NOx emission performance standard reference values should be 0.35 g/kWh for active units in general areas and 0.175 g/kWh for new units and active units in key areas.

Based on the activity level and technical information of coal-fired power-generating units (CFPGU) obtained in China from 2011 to 2015, we, 1) analyzed the time and spatial distribution of SO2 and NOx emission performance of CFPGUs in China; 2) studied the impact of installed capacity, sulfur content of coal combustion, and unit operation starting time on CFPGUs’ pollutant emission performance; and 3) proposed the SO2 and NOx emission performance standards for coal-fired power plants based on the best available control technology. Our results show that: 1) the larger the capacity of a CFPGU, the higher the control level and the faster the improvement; 2) the CFPGUs in the developed eastern regions had significantly lower SO2 and NOx emission performance values than those in other provinces due to better economic and technological development and higher environmental management levels; 3) the SO2 and NOx emission performance of the Chinese thermal power industry was significantly affected by the single-unit capacity, coal sulfur content, and unit operation starting time; and 4) based on the achievability analysis of best available pollution control technology, we believe that the CFPGUs’ SO2 emission performance reference values should be 0.34 g/kWh for active units in general areas, 0.8 g/kWh for active units in high-sulfur coal areas, and 0.13 g/kWh for newly built units and active units in key areas. In addition, the NOx emission performance reference values should be 0.35 g/kWh for active units in general areas and 0.175 g/kWh for new units and active units in key areas.
Keywords Coal-fired power-generating units (CFPGU)      Emission performance      Best available control technology     
Corresponding Author(s): Chunlai Jiang   
Issue Date: 03 September 2018
 Cite this article:   
Xiaohui Song,Chunlai Jiang,Yu Lei, et al. Permitted emissions of major air pollutants from coal-fired power plants in China based on best available control technology[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 11.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-018-1065-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2018/V12/I5/11
Fig.1  Coal-fired unit capacity distribution in China from 2010 to 2015
Fig.2  Power generation and coal consumption of coal-fired power-generating units in China from 2010 to 2015
Fig.3  Nationwide coal-fired power-generating units’ total desulfurization and denitrification scale proportion from 2010 to 2015
Fig.4  Nationwide coal-fired units’ sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission performance changes over time
Fig.5  Spatial distribution of nationwide coal-fired units’ sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission performance in 2015
Fig.6  Spatial distribution of nationwide coal-fired units’ nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission performance in 2015
Fig.7  Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission performance of nationwide coal-fired units with different capacities in 2015
Fig.8  Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission performance of coal-fired units with different coal sulfur contents
Fig.9  Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission performance of coal-fired units with different operation starting time
Fig.10  Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission performance of Chinese coal-fired units with different capacities in 2015
Fig.11  Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission performance of coal-fired units with different operation starting time
Device name Removal effect Applicable conditions
Limestone-gypsum wet method 95%–98% All
Ultra low emission technology based on the limestone-gypsum wet desulfurization process Traditional desulfurization technology efficacy 99% Low-sulfur coal with inlet concentration less than 1000
Dual-cycle desulfurization process 99% Low-sulfur coal with an inlet concentration of 1000–2000, medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6002 and high-sulfur coal of more than 6000
Composite tower desulfurization technology 99% Low-sulfur coal with an inlet concentration of 1000–2000 and medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6001
Single-tower dual-zone technology, rotary exchange coupling wet desulfurization technology 99% Low-sulfur coal with an inlet concentration of 1000–2000, medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6002 and high-sulfur coal of more than 6000
Flue gas circulating fluidized bed 95% All
Ammonia desulfurization 98% Acid recovery of the sulfur industry, small and medium-sized pulverized coal furnaces
Seawater desulfurization 99% Coastal power plants with better sea area diffusion conditions and sulfur content not higher than 1 can be regarded as ultra-low technology
Magnesium desulfurization 95% All
Tab.1  Desulfurization technology optimal control level
NOx control technology Removal effect Application scope
Low nitrogen burner 50% Bituminous coal
SCR 90% Varies with catalyst layer number
SNCR 30%–50% For small and medium-sized pulverized coal furnaces
40%–75% For circulating fluidized beds
70% Circulating fluidized beds with SNCR+ catalytic oxidation absorption
SNCR/SCR combined flue gas denitrification 55%–85% For pulverized coal furnace and circulating fluidized beds
Tab.2  Nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution control feasible technology
Combustion method Coal type Boiler capacity (MW) Maximum production concentration (mg/m3) Feasible technology combination
Anthracite All 850 No advanced technology
Tangentially burning Lean coal All 800
Bituminous coal 20%≤Vdaf≤28% ≤100 400 Low-NOx combustion retrofit+ SCR (3+ 1)a or SNCR/SCR combined denitrification (300 MW and below)
200 350
300 320
≥600 290
28%≤Vdaf≤37% ≤100 300
200 290
300 240
≥600 200 Low-NOx combustion retrofit+ SCR (2+ 1)a
37%<Vdaf ≤100 290 Low nitrogen combustion retrofit+ SCR (3+ 1)a or SNCR/SCR combined denitrification (300 MW and below)
200 240
300 200 Low-NOx combustion retrofit+ SCR (2+ 1)a
≥600 180
Lignite ≤100 300 Low-NOx combustion retrofit+ SCR (3+ 1)a or SNCR/SCR combined denitrification (300 MW and below units)
200 260
300 200 Low-NOx combustion retrofit+ SCR (2+ 1)a
≥600 200
Wall-burning Lean coal All 650 No advanced technology
Bituminous coal 20%≤Vdaf≤28% All 450 Low NOx combustion retrofit+ SCR (3+ 1)a
28%≤Vdaf≤37% 380
37%<Vdaf 260
Lignite All 260
Lean coal All 800
CFB Bituminous coal, lignite All 150 Low nitrogen combustion retrofit+ SNCR
Anthracite, lean coal All 200 Low-NOx combustion retrofit+ SNCR/SCR combined denitrification
Tab.3  Best available control technology combination for emission concentration≤50 mg/m3
Region Controlled outlet concentration (mg/m3) Emission performance (g/kWh) Applicable technology Applicable conditions
Active units in general areas 96 0.34 Limestone-gypsum method All
Circulating fluidized bed method
Seawater desulfurization
Active units in high-sulfur coal areas 230 0.8 Limestone-gypsum method All
Circulating fluidized bed method
Seawater desulfurization
All new units and active units in key areas 35 0.12 Traditional empty tower spray limestone gypsum method Low-sulfur coal of inlet concentration of less than 1000
Dual-cycle desulfurization technology Low-sulfur coal of inlet concentration of 1000–2000, medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6000, high-sulfur coal of 6000 or more
Complex tower desulfurization technology Low-sulfur coal of inlet concentration of 1000–2000, medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6000
Single-tower dual-zone technology Low-sulfur coal of inlet concentration of 1000–2000, medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6000, high-sulfur coal of 6000 or more
Rotary coupling wet desulfurization technology Low-sulfur coal of inlet concentration of 1000–2000, medium-sulfur coal of 2000–6000, high-sulfur coal of 6000 or more
Seawater desulfurization Coastal power plants with better sea-area diffusion conditions below inlet concentration of 2000 can be used as ultra-low-tech
Tab.4  Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission performance based on optimal control level
Region Controlled concentration (mg/m3) Emission performance (g/kWh) Feasible technology Notes
Active units in general areas 100 0.35 Low nitrogen retrofit+ SCR
SNCR For circulating fluidized bed
SNCR/SCR combined flue gas denitrification
All new units and active units in key areas 50 0.175 Low-nitrogen retrofit+ SCR (3+ 1)
SNCR+ catalytic oxidation absorption For circulating fluidized beds
SNCR/SCR combined flue gas denitrification For circulating fluidized beds
Tab.5  Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission performance based on optimal control level.
1 Burtraw D, Szambelan S J F (2009). U.S. Emissions Trading Markets for SO2 and NOx. Washington: Social Science Electronic Publishing
2 Chan G, Stavins R, Stowe R, Sweeney R. The SO2 allowance trading system and the clean air act amendments of 1990: Reflections on twenty years of policy innovation. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2012, 65(2): 419–452
3 Crossland J, Li B, Roca E (2013). Is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) informationally efficient? Evidence from momentum-based trading strategies. Applied Energy, 109(2): 10–23
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.079
4 Department of Science, Technology and Standards (2017). Guidelines on Available Technologies of Pollution Prevention and Control for Thermal Power Plant (HJ 2301–2017). Beijing: China Environmental Science Press
5 EPA (2006). NOx Budget Trading Program: 2005 Program Compliance and Environmental Results. Washington, D C: EPA
6 EPA (2017). Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID2014). Washington, D C: EPA
7 Han W. A case study of determining target value of total amount of air pollutants control (2007). Dissertation for the Master Degree. Changchun: Northeast Normal University
8 Jin L(2013). Study on allocation mechanism of total air pollutants in China. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Beijing: Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
9 Liang R (2010). Study on American clean air law. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Qingdao: Ocean University of China
10 Liu F, Zhang Q, Tong D, Zheng B, Li M, Huo H, He K B (2015). High-resolution inventory of technologies, activities, and emissions of coal-fired power plants in China from 1990 to 2010. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15(13): 18787–18837
11 Liu P G, Jiang N, Yu Y, Chen W L (2007). Genetic algorithm based method of atmospheric pollutant total emission control. Environmental Pollution and Control, 29(3): 266–237
12 Ministry of Environmental Protection (2011). Accounting rules for major pollutants emission reduction in the 12th Five-Year Plan. Beijing: Ministry of Environmental Protection
13 Office of Air and Radiation (2006). Contributions of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR to NAAQS Attainment: Focus on Control Technologies and Emission Reductions in the Electric Power Sector. Washington, D C: EPA
14 Qiu H(2016). Research on calculation of atmospheric capacity and control of total air pollutant emission: A case study of Hechuan, Chongqing. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Chongqing: Chongqing University
15 Shi X F, Lu L. Matlab language. Study of method of distribution of air capacity and total amount control of pollutants emission. Environmental Engineering, 2008, 18(1): 50–53
16 Wang J N, Pan X Z ( 2005). Application of linear programming in the allocation of environmental capacity resources. Environmental Sciences, 26(6): 195–198
17 Wang Q J (2011). On the initial allocation of emission rights. Dissertation for the Doctor Degree. Wuhan: Wuhan University
18 Wu Z F(2011). Research about initial allocation of emission rights. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Wuhan: Wuhan University of Science and Technology
19 Xu T L(2005). Study on pollution load allocation of total air pollutant control. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Changchun: Northeast Normal University
20 Xu Y L, Yang J T, Jiang C L, Chen X J, Lei Y, Zhong Y Z ( 2013). Application of generation performance standard in total emissions allocation of air pollutants in thermal power industry. Journal of Safety and Environment, 13(6): 108–111
21 Zhang W, Bai J (2015). The application and discussion of performance method of coal fired power generation industry in pollutant emission calculating. Environmental Development, 27(2): 11–14
22 Zhang Y, Chen G C ( 2014). Distribution and assessment of initial waste discharge rights. Environmental Science and Management, 39(5): 167–169
23 Zhang Y L, Zhang B, Bi J, He P (2013). Modeling the impact of uncertainty in emissions trading markets with bankable permits. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 7(2): 231–241
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0431-x
24 Zhong Y Z, Jiang C L, Song X H, Lv H D (2016). Scenario analysis of main air pollutant reduction potentials in thermal power industry during “The 13th Five-year Plan”. Environmental Science and Management, (12): 58–62
25 Zhou W(2010). Study on GPS-based nitrogen oxides control mechanism in thermal power sector. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Beijing: Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
26 Zhu F H, Wang S (2014). Technology integration and recommendations on ultra-low emission of coal-fired air pollutants. Environment and Ecology in the Three Gorges, (5): 25–29
27 Zhu F H, Xu Y Y, Wang S (2016). Reviewing the ultra-low emissions technology major progress of coal-fired power plants and analyzing its application effect. Environment and Progress, 44(6): 59–63
28 Zhu F H, Xue R J, Zhu G F, Cheng J (2003). To use GPS to distribute SO2 emission allowance in power industry. Electric Power, 36(12): 76–79
29 Zhu Y(2006). Application of gray theory in total emission control programming of atmospheric pollutant. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Dalian: Dalian University of Technolog
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed