The dilemma : coal’s env. costs

(1)

Centre for Science and Environment

Green Rating

Coal-based Power Sector of

Priyavrat Bhati

(2)

CSE’s Green Rating Project - what and why?

 Started in 1997; Rated 6 sectors:

1. Pulp and Paper 1999, revisited 2004, 2013 2. Automobile, 2001

3. Chlor-alkali, 2002 4. Cement, 2005

5. Iron and steel, 2012 6. Thermal power, 2014

(3)

Coal : central to energy mix

3

(4)

Water: 70 per cent of the total freshwater withdrawal by industrial sector

Coal: Over 70 per cent of the total coal consumed in India GHG Emission: over 50 per cent of India’s total CO₂ from fuel combustion is by coal-based power plants

Pollution: Of the total industrial sector

• 60 per cent of PM emissions (includes mining)

• 45-50 per cent of SO₂ emissions

• 30 per cent of NOx emissions

• More than 80 per cent of mercury emissions

The dilemma : coal’s env. costs

4

(5)

 Coal needs to more than double in 10 years (from ~600 mt in 2012)

 Increase in evacuation infrastructure

 2-3 times increase in coal beneficiation capacity to use very poor quality coal

 Ash generation around 160mt; will increase to ~300mt by 2022

 Water – withdrawal from 22 BCM to 24 BCM; consumption from 2.9 BCM to 5.3 BCM over 10 years

 Land requirement (based on EC granted till Feb, 2015): 2.85 lakh ha (0.75 lakh ha for plants + 2.1 lakh ha for coal mines, including 46,719 ha forest land)

Resource needs – coal, water & land

5

(6)

Massive increase in clusters

ALL THESE FACTORS DROVE DECISION TO RATE

Pollution load, if unchecked

5.5

3.3

0.7 13.1

7.8

1.5 0.0

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Sox Nox PM

Pollution Load (in million tonnes)

2011-12 2021-22

6

(7)

Sample selection

7

 Sample size: 47 plants, 54 GW; Over half of the capacity when study began in 2012

 wide range representing sector profile

• Geographically diversified

• Varying unit sizes – 30% were 210 MW units; 25% were 500 MW units

• Varying age – quarter each exceeded mid-life and full- life

(8)

Sample selection

8

 Diversified by ownership (state, centre and private)

 Good participation by state-owned; Only 2 of 10 central ones

 non-participating also rated based on survey of plant location and stakeholders, secondary information

(9)

Parameters studied and weights

9

 Over 60 parameters analysed

 Weights: pollution – 42%; energy – 29%; water/ land use – 19%; others – 10%

(10)

Poor energy efficiency

32.8 33.3

35.7 35.8

30 32 34 36 38

India (study average)

Australia China United States

Efficiency (%)

 Indian fleet one of the most inefficient – 3 percentage points below China’s

 Indian plants emit 15% more CO₂ than Chinese plants

 14 plants < 32% EE, almost all state-owned; JSEB-Patratu 21%

 Only 12 plants’ efficiency in excess of 36%, around Chinese avg.

10

(11)

Reasons for poor efficiency

11

 Supercritical capacity

• India 15% currently; China was around 30%; US was 27%

 Capacity over 300MW and under 10 years old:

• India 18%; China 58%.

 Efficiency 10% lower than design considered poor O&M

• more than half the plants in the study

• 6 plants were 15% lower than design

• Age is a factor, but huge variations in study; Newer plants such MPPGCL Birsinghpur – 20%+

• State-owned old plants were the worst performers

• Efficiency and deviation from design vs. PLF (Adani Mundra)

(12)

Air Pollution : stack emissions

 Over half of the plants were clearly violating PM norms, of which 85 per cent were state plants; another 10% were likely non-compliant

 Data reported to regulators was frequently unreliable

 Ambient Air Quality – only 7 monitor continuously

12

(13)

Water Guzzlers

 Inefficient water users (both in cooling and ash handling);

 Annual water draw (22 BCM) is over half of India’s domestic water needs; significant OTC capacity

 Two thirds of the plants located in water stress areas

 Low tariff: as low as 20 paisa/m3; Rajasthan 70 paisa/m3

2 2.5

4

2

9.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

USA China Indian Average Study best

(JSWEL, GIPCL)

Study worst (JSEB Patratu)

m3 / MWh

13

(14)

Solid waste - Ash

Second largest solid waste stream of the country.

Average utilisation during 2010-13 was only 53 per cent for plants in study.

Three-fourths not meeting 2013 ash-use target

Unused ash dumped in poorly maintained ponds (around 80%

non compliance – lining, leakage, piezometers)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

50 53 57

Ash Generation in mt Ash Utilization in mt Percentage Utilisation

Ash Generation in mt Percentage Utilisation

14

(15)

 Old inefficient , polluting plants should be retired or modernized at an accelerated pace; Environmental clearance process should incentivize this

• Estimated12,000 MW capacity below 30% efficiency

• Around 20,000 MW is older than 30 years

 New capacities should be only SC/USC

 Efficient stock should be optimally utilised;

• Inclusion of environmental costs/ compliance in Merit Order Dispatch – cheaper but polluting plants shouldn’t be called first.

CSE Recommendations : Technology

15

(16)

 Set strict standards for PM, SOx, NOx and Hg

 Water use to be cut; incorporate norms for water use in clearances.

 Increase water tariff to promote recycling and reuse

 Promotion, standards for utilisation of policies on ash use in infrastructure, bricks, cement industry etc.

 Loopholes that allow ash dumping, yet consider it utilization (for eg. in low lying areas) need to be closed;

CSE Recommendations : pollution &

resource efficiency

16

(17)

 Capacity concentration in few areas

• Regional carrying capacity assessment and tighter norms for critically polluted areas

 55 GW of coastal capacity expected to come up

• Potential impacts on marine biodiversity need to be investigated

 Pollution monitoring and control by regulators are weak;

need capacity and tools

• Protocol and infrastructure for CEMS

• Economic tools (incentives)

CSE Recommendations : Improved assessment and regulatory tool

17

(18)

JSW Energy

^Vs

Top Performers

Topper- No comparison with average performers Topper- Higher benchmarks, higher expectations Proven ability- Move to GLOBAL BEST

Sanjeev K Kanchan

(19)

Score Comparisons Energy

19

^Total_Weight ^Torangallu^JSW

(% score)

JSW Ratnagiri (% score)

Best in Category JPL

Raigarh Best in parameter

Plant Gross Heat Rate

and Trends 7.0 36.8 26.2 34.0 37.6 Tata, Mundra

Design Gross Heat Rate,

and Tech 5.0 47.8 49.9 43.8 64.0 Tata, Mundra

Avg. Auxiliary 2.0 45.1 21.0 33.5 80.0 Tata, Trombay

Deviation from Design

Heat rate 3.0 57.1 0.0 80.0 80.0 JPL, Raigarh

Availability 3.0 0.0 0.0 56.56 75.00 Dahanu

Total Weight 24.0 9.6 6.2 11.7

Note- Other parameters: Sec. fuel, avg size, GHG

• Among top performers: < 92% PAF

• Ratnagiri- Deviation in GHR >12% , Aux ~9%

(20)

Score Comparisons Water

20 Total

Weight Torangallu

(% score) Ratnagiri

(% score) Best in Category

Ratnagiri Best in parameter

Water Sources 4 50 75 75 75.0

Sp. Water consumption 5 62 50 50 64.0 GIPCL

Water Stress 3 10 100 100 100

Total Weight 16 or 12 8.39 / 16 8.5 / 12 8.5

Note- Other parameters: water use in ash handling, COC

• Toranagallu- uses 13% COREX (Bellary –

water stressed)

Can consumption be further reduced?

• Ratnagiri- Sea water based

(21)

Score Comparisons Air Pollution

21

Total

Weight Torangallu

Ratnagiri Best in parameter (% score)

PM 4 53 56 56 69 Budge Budge

SO₂ 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 61 Trombay

Pollution Control Tech 2 41 50 50 100 NTPC Singrauli

Coal Storage &

Handling 6 25 88 88 88 JSW Ratnagiri

Total Weight 19 5.3 8.5 8.5

Note- Other parameters: AAQ index

• Estimated SO2 (FGD plant- given value); compared against Chinese norm.

(22)

Score Comparisons Water Pollution

22

Total Weight Torangallu

NLC Barsingsar Best in parameter (% score)

Score for ETP, STP 1 50 100 100 100

Water Pollution Index 4 100 20 100 100

Total Weight 7 5/7 3/7 6/7

Note- Other parameters: coal run-off treatment, CSE lab test

• Ratnagiri- Water pollution related complaints

(23)

Score Comparisons Solid Waste

23

Total Weight Toranagallu

GIPCL Surat Best in parameter (% score)

Type of Ash handling 2 100 100 100 100 Many

Ash Utilization 1 0 0 100 >100 Mettur, Torrent

Gainful Ash Utilization 5 8 69 89 >100 Mettur / RRVUNL Kota

Ash Pond Maint. 4 80 40 60 80 Torangullu / NLC - Barsingsar

Total Weight 15 7.59 8.27 11.03

Note- Other parameters: stakeholders observation ash pollution

• Imported coal – at-least 80% ash use criteria (domestic coal at-least- >58%)

• Gainful- Imported at-least- 33% (Domestic at-least- 48%)

• Ash pond maintenance- Ratnagiri- bund, pipeline

(24)

JSW- Toranagallu

Energy

• SBU-I (2x130 MW)- in 2000, SBU-II (2x300 MW)- 2009

• Avg. GHR - 2,261kCal/kWh (38 %), design GHR 2,162 kCal/kWh, (BAT- <1,800kCal/kWh, Nordjylland-Denmark)

• Deviation - 4.6% (Hissar, Mundra etc.- <1%)

• Auxiliary -7.6 % (Maithon/Hissar etc.- ~6%)

• PAF- 90.9%; PLF- 94% (PAF- 99%, PLF- >100%)

• Sp. Coal consumption at 0.46 kg/KWh (13% energy from COREX)

Water

• Water stress area

• ZLD, Sp. Water- ~2m³/MWh {Best- 1.6 ; Dry- 0.11(m³/MWh)}

• COC of 5-7 (Jojobera- 8, achievable 10)

24

(25)

Centre for Science and Environment 25

Coal handling needs improvement

• Community complaints- Red dust emission (steel), vehicular movement through village (steel, power, mines)

• CSR (< 2% of profit)- demand for more access to heath facility

•Study of impact (of complex) on Daroji bear sanctuary

Coal handling needs improvement

Issues to Deal

(26)

JSW- Toranagallu

Solid Waste

• Dry ash handling; Bottom as- Dry/Semi-wet

• Ash use-79%; (Budge Budge, Torrent, Mettur, Kota etc.- >100%)

• Gainful use- 51 % (Mettur, Kota- >100%) Air Pollution

• No visible emission

• PM- 60-62 mg/Nm³(norm 100 mg/Nm³)

• SO₂- 665-934 mg/Nm³

• NOx- 366-429 mg/Nm³

• No mercury emission monitoring

(Implication of new pollution norms) ? CEMS ?

26

(27)

JSW- Ratnagiri

Energy

• 300 MW x 4 - in 2010/11

• Avg. GHR - 2,418kCal/kWh (35.5 %), design GHR- 2,151 kCal/kWh (39.9%), (BAT- <1,800kCal/kWh, Nordjylland- Denmark)

• Deviation - 12% (Hissar, Mundra etc.- <1%)

• Auxiliary ~9 % (Maithon/Hissar etc.- ~6%)

• PAF- 89%; PLF- 81% (PAF- 99%, PLF- >100%)

• Sp. Coal consumption at 0.49 kg/KWh (Imported)

• Covered coal storage- only one in India

Water

• Sea water with CT- Sea water requirement- 9.7m³/MWh

• Issues to deal- Ground water contamination, CT saline mist

27

(28)

Centre for Science and Environment 28

Coal dust emission GW contamination

• Community complaints- Saline mist & leakage from CT, coal dust emission, hot CW discharge - Impact on orchards, fishes

• How to convey your work/improvement?

Issues to Deal

(29)

JSW- Ratnagiri

Solid Waste

• Dry ash handling

• Ash use-77.6%; (Budge Budge, Torrent, Mettur, Kota etc.- >100%)

• Gainful use- 83.8 % (Mettur, Kota- >100%)

• Issues to deal- ash pond maintenance, ash transport pipeline, complaints on ash emissions

Air Pollution

• No visible emission

• PM- 9-24 mg/Nm³(norm 50 mg/Nm³)

• SO2- 373-405 mg/Nm³

• NOx- not monitored

• No mercury emission monitoring

(Implication of new pollution norms) ? CEMS ?

29

(30)

Implication of new pollution norms

30

Pollutan

ts Unit size

Installed before Dec 31st, 2003 (shall meet within 2 yrs)

Installed after Dec 31^st, 2006

(shall meet within 2 yrs)

Installed Jan 1, 2017 onwards

(Includes accorded EC, under construction)

PM All 100mg/Nm³ 50 mg/Nm³ 30 mg/Nm³

SO2 <500MW 600 mg/Nm³ -- --

>=500MW 200 mg/Nm³ 200 mg/Nm³ 100 mg/Nm³ NOx All 600 mg/Nm³ 300 mg/Nm³ 100 mg/Nm³ Hg >=500MW 0.03 mg/Nm³ 0.03 mg/Nm³ 0.03 mg/Nm³

(31)

Implication of CEMS ?

31

CEMS- Selection, installation, certification, calibration/re-calibration, daily check, data recording, record keeping, compliance check, publish

• Device health check- daily 10.00 a.m.; zero drift

• calibration verification- 3 months

• Zero and span drift – every week

• >85% data capture

• Data verification/ calibration- 6 monthly by empanelled Lab

• Compliance

 Any exceedance- violation

 Data spikes (< 1 min)- not for avg

 Continuous exceedance upto 10% of norms, o >30 mins- preventive action by industry

o >60 mins- to inform SPCB/PCCs about preventive action o Second time- closure

 Frequent exceedance- > 5% of data/day- action by SPCBs/PCCs

 Industry fails to control emissions- closure as per SOP

 Start-up/shut down ( batch process for 30 mins)- not for avg